Dataset Information

Using stiffness to assess injury risk: comparison of methods for quantifying stiffness and their reliability in triathletes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A review of the literature has indicated that lower body stiffness, defined as the extent to which the lower extremity joints resists deformation upon contact with the ground, may be a useful measure for assessing Achilles injury risk in triathletes. The nature of overuse injuries suggests that a variety of different movement patterns could conceivably contribute to the final injury outcome, any number and combination of which might be observed in a single individual. Measurements which incorporate both kinetics and kinematics (such as stiffness) of a movement may be better able to shed light on individuals at risk of injury, with further analysis then providing the exact mechanism of injury for the individual. Stiffness can be measured as vertical, leg or joint stiffness to model how the individual interacts with the environment upon landing. However, several issues with stiffness assessments limit the effectiveness of these measures to monitor athletes' performance and/or injury risk. This may reflect the variety of common biomechanical stiffness calculations (dynamic, time, true leg and joint) that have been used to examine these three stiffness levels (vertical, leg and joint) across a variety of human movements (i.e. running or hopping) as well as potential issues with the reliability of these measures, especially joint stiffness. Therefore, the aims of this study were to provide a comparison of the various methods for measuring stiffness during two forms of human bouncing locomotion (running and hopping) along with the measurement reliability to determine the best methods to assess links with injury risk in triathletes.

Methods

Vertical, leg and joint stiffness were estimated in 12 healthy male competitive triathletes on two occasions, 7 days apart, using both running at 5.0 ms^-1 and hopping (2.2 Hz) tasks.

Results

Inter-day reliability was good for vertical (ICC = 0.85) and leg (ICC = 0.98) stiffness using the time method. Joint stiffness reliability was poor when assessed individually. Reliability was improved when taken as the sum of the hip, knee and ankle (ICC = 0.86). The knee and ankle combination provided the best correlation with leg stiffness during running (Pearson's Correlation = 0.82).

Discussion

The dynamic and time methods of calculating leg stiffness had better reliability than the "true" method. The time and dynamic methods had the best correlation with the different combinations of joint stiffness, which suggests that they should be considered for biomechanical screening of triathletes. The knee and ankle combination had the best correlation with leg stiffness and is therefore proposed to provide the most information regarding lower limb mechanics during gait in triathletes.

SUBMITTER: Lorimer AV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6214235 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using stiffness to assess injury risk: comparison of methods for quantifying stiffness and their reliability in triathletes.

Lorimer Anna V AV Keogh Justin W L JWL Hume Patria A PA

PeerJ 20181030

<h4>Background</h4>A review of the literature has indicated that lower body stiffness, defined as the extent to which the lower extremity joints resists deformation upon contact with the ground, may be a useful measure for assessing Achilles injury risk in triathletes. The nature of overuse injuries suggests that a variety of different movement patterns could conceivably contribute to the final injury outcome, any number and combination of which might be observed in a single individual. Measurem ...[more]

PMID: 30397548

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increased risk of subsequent concussion and musculoskeletal injury upon return to play following a sports-related concussion. Whilst there are numerous assessments available for clinicians for diagnosis and during return to play following concussion, many may lack the ability to detect these subclinical changes in function. Currently, there is no consensus or collated sources on the reliability, validity and feasibility of these assessments, which makes it difficult for clinicians and practitioners to select the most appropriate assessment for their needs.ObjectivesThis systematic review aims to (1) consolidate the reliability and validity of motor function assessments across the time course of concussion management and (2) summarise their feasibility for clinicians and other end-users.MethodsA systematic search of five databases was conducted. Eligible studies were: (1) original research; (2) full-text English language; (3) peer-reviewed with level III evidence or higher; (4) assessed the validity of lower-limb motor assessments used to diagnose or determine readiness for athletes or military personnel who had sustained a concussion or; (5) assessed the test-retest reliability of lower-limb motor assessments used for concussion management amongst healthy athletes. Acceptable lower-limb motor assessments were dichotomised into instrumented and non-instrumented and then classified into static (stable around a fixed point), dynamic (movement around a fixed point), gait, and other categories. Each study was assessed using the COSMIN checklist to establish methodological and measurement quality.ResultsA total of 1270 records were identified, with 637 duplicates removed. Titles and abstracts of 633 records were analysed, with 158 being retained for full-text review. A total of 67 records were included in this review; 37 records assessed reliability, and 35 records assessed the validity of lower-limb motor assessments. There were 42 different assessments included in the review, with 43% being non-instrumented, subjective assessments. Consistent evidence supported the use of instrumented assessments over non-instrumented, with gait-based assessments demonstrating sufficient reliability and validity compared to static or dynamic assessments.ConclusionThese findings suggest that instrumented, gait-based assessments should be prioritised over static or dynamic balance assessments. The use of laboratory equipment (i.e. 3D motion capture, pressure sensitive walkways) on average exhibited sufficient reliability and validity, yet demonstrate poor feasibility. Further high-quality studies evaluating the reliability and validity of more readily available devices (i.e. inertial measurement units) are needed to fill the gap in current concussion management protocols. Practitioners can use this resource to understand the accuracy and precision of the assessments they have at their disposal to make informed decisions regarding the management of concussion.Trail registrationThis systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (reg no. CRD42021256298).

Dataset Information

Using stiffness to assess injury risk: comparison of methods for quantifying stiffness and their reliability in triathletes.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Using stiffness to assess injury risk: comparison of methods for quantifying stiffness and their reliability in triathletes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets