Refine
Document Type
Conference Type
- Konferenz-Abstract (4)
- Konferenzartikel (3)
- Konferenz-Poster (1)
Language
- English (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (15)
Keywords
- biomechanics (6)
- running (6)
- injury (4)
- footwear (2)
- overuse injuries (2)
- Achilles tendonitis (1)
- Additive manufacturing (1)
- Bending moments (1)
- Biomechanik (1)
- Biomedical engineering (1)
Institute
Open Access
- Open Access (13)
- Bronze (7)
- Diamond (2)
- Closed (1)
- Closed Access (1)
- Gold (1)
- Hybrid (1)
Treadmills are essential to the study of human and animal locomotion as well as for applied diagnostics in both sports and medicine. The quantification of relevant biomechanical and physiological variables requires a precise regulation of treadmill belt velocity (TBV). Here, we present a novel method for time-efficient tracking of TBV using standard 3D motion capture technology. Further, we analyzed TBV fluctuations of four different treadmills as seven participants walked and ran at target speeds ranging from 1.0 to 4.5 m/s. Using the novel method, we show that TBV regulation differs between treadmill types, and that certain features of TBV regulation are affected by the subjects’ body mass and their locomotion speed. With higher body mass, the TBV reductions in the braking phase of stance became higher, even though this relationship differed between locomotion speeds and treadmill type (significant body mass × speed × treadmill type interaction). Average belt speeds varied between about 98 and 103% of the target speed. For three of the four treadmills, TBV reduction during the stance phase of running was more intense (> 5% target speed) and occurred earlier (before 50% of stance phase) unlike the typical overground center of mass velocity patterns reported in the literature. Overall, the results of this study emphasize the importance of monitoring TBV during locomotor research and applied diagnostics. We provide a novel method that is freely accessible on Matlab’s file exchange server (“getBeltVelocity.m”) allowing TBV tracking to become standard practice in locomotion research.
Running footwear is continuously being modified and improved; however, running-related overuse injury rates remain high. Nevertheless, novel manufacturing processes enable the production of individualized running shoes that can fit the individual needs of runners, with the potential to reduce injury risk. For this reason, it is essential to investigate functional groups of runners, a collective of runners who respond similarly to a footwear intervention. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a framework to identify functional groups based on their individual footwear response regarding injury-specific running-related risk factors for Achilles tendinopathy, Tibial stress fractures, Medial tibial stress syndrome, and Patellofemoral pain syndrome. In this work, we quantified the footwear response patterns of 73 female and male participants when running in three different footwear conditions using unsupervised learning (k-means clustering). For each functional group, we identified the footwear conditions minimizing the injury-specific risk factors. We described differences in the functional groups regarding their running style, anthropometric, footwear perception, and demographics. The results implied that most functional groups showed a tendency for a single footwear condition to reduce most biomechanical risk factors for a specific overuse injury. Functional groups often differed in their hip and pelvis kinematics as well as their subjective rating of the footwear conditions. The footwear intervention only partially affected biomechanical risk factors attributed to more proximal joints. Due to its adaptive nature, the framework could be applied to other footwear interventions or performance-related biomechanical variables.
Effect of downhill running on biomechanical risk factors associated with iliotibial band syndrome
(2022)
The purpose of this study was to identify the influence of downhill running on biomechanical risk factors for iliotibial band syndrome. We conducted a 3D motion analysis of 22 females and males running on an instrumented treadmill at four different inclinations (0%, -5%, -10%, -15%) at a speed of 3.5 m/s. We found significant differences for biomechanical risk factors associated with iliotibial band syndrome. Peak knee flexion angle at initial ground contact (p < .001), peak knee adduction angle (p = .005), and iliotibial band strain (p < .001) systematically increased with increasing slope. Downhill running increases biomechanical risk factors for iliotibial band syndrome. Our results highlight the need to consider the individual running environment in assessing overuse injury risk in runners.
This study aims to investigate the individual response concerning BRFs for AT when the mid-sole hardness underneath the rearfoot was systematically altered. We first identified FGs based on the footwear condition that minimised the risk for AT across BRFs. We then tested the FGs for differences in anthropometrics, footwear comfort, and running characteristics.
Objective: To identify and evaluate the evidence of the most relevant running-related risk factors (RRRFs) for running-related overuse injuries (ROIs) and to suggest future research directions.
Design: Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236832)
Data sources: Pubmed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021.
Eligibility criteria: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic RRRF. An RRRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two retrospective studies.
Results: Sixty-two articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some RRRFs appeared for several ROIs, most RRRFs were specific for a particular ROI. The biomechanical measurements performed in many studies would have allowed for consideration of many more RRRFs than have been reported, highlighting a potential for more effective data usage in the future.
Conclusion: This study offers a comprehensive overview of RRRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. Future work should use macroscopic (big data) approaches involving long-term data collections in the real world and microscopic approaches involving precise stress calculations using recent developments in biomechanical modelling. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.
Background: Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology.
Objective: To identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to
suggest future research directions.
Design: Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832).
Data Sources: PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021.
Eligibility Criteria: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running.
Results: Sixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs.
Conclusion: This study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.