Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (4) (remove)
Document Type
Conference Type
- Konferenz-Abstract (1)
- Konferenzartikel (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- no (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Achilles tendonitis (1)
- Footwear (1)
- Orthopedics (1)
- cushioning (property) (1)
- customization (1)
- footwear (1)
- hardness (1)
- modeling (1)
- overuse injury (1)
- prevention (1)
Institute
Open Access
- Closed Access (3)
- Open Access (1)
Quantifying the midsole material characteristics of athletic footwear is a standard task in footwear research and development. Current material testing protocols primarily focus on the determination of cushioning properties of the heel region or the quantification of the midsole properties as one assembly. However, midsoles possess different spatial material properties that have not been quantified from previous methodologies. Therefore, new material testing methods are required to quantify the local material response of athletic footwear. We developed a cyclical force-controlled material testing protocol for the determination of non-homogeneously distributed material stiffness with a high spatial resolution. In five prototype shoes varying in their stiffness distribution, we found that the material properties can be reliably measured across the midsole. Furthermore, we observed a characteristic non-linear material response regardless of the midsole location. We found that the material stiffness increased with an increase of the applied force and that this effect is further intensified by higher testing cycles. Additionally, the obtained midsole stiffness depends on the geometry of the midsole. We explored different approaches to reduce the measurement time of the testing protocol and found that the number of measurements can be reduced by 70% using 2 D-interpolation procedures. Determining the spatial material properties of midsoles needs to be considered to understand foot-shoe interactions. Furthermore, this measurement protocol can be used for quality control within the footwear and can be adapted for considering the effects of different running styles or speeds on ground force application 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.
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.