Dataset Information

Effects of Foot Strike Techniques on Running Biomechanics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Content

Distance running is one of the most popular physical activities, and running-related injuries (RRIs) are also common. Foot strike patterns have been suggested to affect biomechanical variables related to RRI risks.

Objective

To determine the effects of foot strike techniques on running biomechanics.

Data sources

The databases of Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and EBSCO were searched from database inception through November 2018.

Study selection

The initial electronic search found 723 studies. Of these, 26 studies with a total of 472 participants were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Level of evidence

Level 4.

Data extraction

Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted from the eligible studies, and the standard mean differences (SMDs) were obtained for biomechanical variables between forefoot strike (FFS) and rearfoot strike (RFS) groups using a random-effects model.

Results

FFS showed significantly smaller magnitude (SMD, -1.84; 95% CI, -2.29 to -1.38; P < 0.001) and loading rate (mean: SMD, -2.1; 95% CI, -3.18 to -1.01; P < 0.001; peak: SMD, -1.77; 95% CI, -2.21 to -1.33; P < 0.001) of impact force, ankle stiffness (SMD, -1.69; 95% CI, -2.46 to -0.92; P < 0.001), knee extension moment (SMD, -0.64; 95% CI, -0.98 to -0.3; P < 0.001), knee eccentric power (SMD, -2.03; 95% CI, -2.51 to -1.54; P < 0.001), knee negative work (SMD, -1.56; 95% CI, -2.11 to -1.00; P < 0.001), and patellofemoral joint stress (peak: SMD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.14; P = 0.01; integral: SMD, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.11 to -0.15; P = 0.01) compared with RFS. However, FFS significantly increased ankle plantarflexion moment (SMD, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.96; P < 0.001), eccentric power (SMD, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.08;P < 0.001), negative work (SMD, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.18; P = 0.001), and axial contact force (SMD, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.6; P < 0.001) compared with RFS.

Conclusion

Running with RFS imposed higher biomechanical loads on overall ground impact and knee and patellofemoral joints, whereas FFS imposed higher biomechanical loads on the ankle joint and Achilles tendon. The modification of strike techniques may affect the specific biomechanical loads experienced on relevant structures or tissues during running.

SUBMITTER: Xu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7734358 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInvestigations of foot strike patterns during overground distance running have foci on prevalence, performance and change in foot strike pattern with increased distance. To date, synthesised analyses of these findings are scarce.ObjectiveThe key objectives of this review were to quantify the prevalence of foot strike patterns, assess the impact of increased running distance on foot strike pattern change and investigate the potential impact of foot strike pattern on performance.MethodsRelevant peer-reviewed literature was obtained by searching EBSCOhost CINAHL, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus (inception-2021) for studies investigating foot strike patterns in overground distance running settings (> 10 km). Random effects meta-analyses of prevalence data were performed where possible.ResultsThe initial search identified 2210 unique articles. After removal of duplicates and excluded articles, 12 articles were included in the review. Meta-analysis of prevalence data revealed that 79% of long-distance overground runners rearfoot strike early, with prevalence rising to 86% with increased distance. In total, 11% of runners changed foot strike pattern with increased distance and of those, the vast majority (84%) do so in one direction, being non-rearfoot strike to rearfoot strike. Analysis of the relationship between foot strike pattern and performance revealed that 5 studies reported a performance benefit to non-rearfoot strike, 1 study reported a performance benefit to non-rearfoot strike in women but not men, 4 studies reported no benefit to non-rearfoot strike or rearfoot strike, and no studies reported a performance benefit of rearfoot strike over non-rearfoot strike.ConclusionMost overground distance runners rearfoot strike early, and the prevalence of this pattern increases with distance. Of those that do change foot strike pattern, the majority transition from non-rearfoot to rearfoot. The current literature provides inconclusive evidence of a competitive advantage being associated with long-distance runners who use a non-rearfoot strike pattern in favour of a rearfoot strike pattern.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding the effects of gait speed on biomechanical variables is fundamental for a proper evaluation of alterations in gait, since pathological individuals tend to walk slower than healthy controls. Therefore, the aim of the study was to perform a systematic review of the effects of gait speed on spatiotemporal parameters, joint kinematics, joint kinetics, and ground reaction forces in healthy children, young adults, and older adults. METHODS:A systematic electronic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify studies published between 1980 and 2019. A modified Quality Index was applied to assess methodological quality, and effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were calculated as the standardized mean differences. For the meta-analyses, a fixed or random effect model and the statistical heterogeneity were calculated using the I2 index. RESULTS:Twenty original full-length studies were included in the final analyses with a total of 587 healthy individuals evaluated, of which four studies analyzed the gait pattern of 227 children, 16 studies of 310 young adults, and three studies of 59 older adults. In general, gait speed affected the amplitude of spatiotemporal gait parameters, joint kinematics, joint kinetics, and ground reaction forces with a decrease at slow speeds and increase at fast speeds in relation to the comfortable speed. Specifically, moderate-to-large effect sizes were found for each age group and speed: children (slow, - 3.61 to 0.59; fast, - 1.05 to 2.97), young adults (slow, - 3.56 to 4.06; fast, - 4.28 to 4.38), and older adults (slow, - 1.76 to 0.52; fast, - 0.29 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS:This review identified that speed affected the gait patterns of different populations with respect to the amplitude of spatiotemporal parameters, joint kinematics, joint kinetics, and ground reaction forces. Specifically, most of the values analyzed decreased at slower speeds and increased at faster speeds. Therefore, the effects of speed on gait patterns should also be considered when comparing the gait analysis of pathological individuals with normal or control ones.

Project description:Abnormal lower limb biomechanics is speculated to be a risk factor for Achilles tendinopathy. This study systematically reviewed the existing literature to identify, critique and summarise lower limb biomechanical factors associated with Achilles tendinopathy.We searched electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Current contents, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus) in November 2010. All prospective cohort and case-control studies that evaluated biomechanical factors (temporospatial parameters, lower limb kinematics, dynamic plantar pressures, kinetics [ground reaction forces and joint moments] and muscle activity) associated with mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy were included. Quality of included studies was evaluated using the Quality Index. The magnitude of differences (effect sizes) between cases and controls was calculated using Cohen's d (with 95% CIs).Nine studies were identified; two were prospective and the remaining seven case-control study designs. The quality of 9 identified studies was varied, with Quality Index scores ranging from 4 to 15 out of 17. All studies analysed running biomechanics. Cases displayed increased eversion range of motion of the rearfoot (d = 0.92 and 0.67 in two studies), reduced maximum lower leg abduction (d = -1.16), reduced ankle joint dorsiflexion velocity (d = -0.62) and reduced knee flexion during gait (d = -0.90). Cases also demonstrated a number of differences in dynamic plantar pressures (primarily the distribution of the centre of force), ground reaction forces (large effects for timing variables) and also showed reduced peak tibial external rotation moment (d = -1.29). Cases also displayed differences in the timing and amplitude of a number of lower limb muscles but many differences were equivocal.There are differences in lower limb biomechanics between those with and without Achilles tendinopathy that may have implications for the prevention and management of the condition. However, the findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the limited quality of a number of the included studies. Future well-designed prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is a common injury in sports and often occurs during landing from a jump.PurposeTo synthesize the evidence on the effects of injury prevention programs (IPPs) on landing biomechanics as they relate to the ligament, quadriceps, trunk, and leg dominance theories associated with ACL injury risk.Study designMeta-analysis.MethodsSix electronic databases were searched for studies that investigated the effect of IPPs on landing task biomechanics. Prospective studies that reported landing biomechanics at baseline and post-IPP were included. Results from trunk, hip, and knee kinematics and kinetics related to the ACL injury theories were extracted, and meta-analyses were performed when possible.ResultsThe criteria were met by 28 studies with a total of 466 participants. Most studies evaluated young females, bilateral landing tasks, and recreational athletes, while most variables were related to the ligament and quadriceps dominance theories. An important predictor of ACL injury, peak knee abduction moment, decreased ( P = .01) after the IPPs while other variables related to the ligament dominance theory did not change. Regarding the quadriceps dominance theory, after the IPPs, angles of hip flexion at initial contact ( P = .009), peak hip flexion ( P = .002), and peak knee flexion ( P = .007) increased, while knee flexion at initial contact did not change ( P = .18). Moreover, peak knee flexion moment decreased ( P = .005) and peak vertical ground-reaction force did not change ( P = .10).ConclusionThe exercises used in IPPs might have the potential to improve landing task biomechanics related to the quadriceps dominance theory, especially increasing peak knee and hip flexion angles. Importantly, peak knee abduction moment decreased, which indicates that IPPs influence a desired movement strategy to help athletes overcome dangerous ligament dominance loads arising from lack of frontal plane control during dynamic tasks. The lack of findings for some biomechanical variables suggests that future IPPs may be enhanced by targeting participants' baseline profile deficits, highlighting the need to deliver an individualized and task-specific IPP.

Project description:BackgroundTreadmills are often used in research, clinical practice, and training. Biomechanical investigations comparing treadmill and overground running report inconsistent findings.ObjectiveThis study aimed at comparing biomechanical outcomes between motorized treadmill and overground running.MethodsFour databases were searched until June 2019. Crossover design studies comparing lower limb biomechanics during non-inclined, non-cushioned, quasi-constant-velocity motorized treadmill running with overground running in healthy humans (18-65 years) and written in English were included. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed where possible.Results33 studies (n = 494 participants) were included. Most outcomes did not differ between running conditions. However, during treadmill running, sagittal foot-ground angle at footstrike (mean difference (MD) - 9.8° [95% confidence interval: - 13.1 to - 6.6]; low GRADE evidence), knee flexion range of motion from footstrike to peak during stance (MD 6.3° [4.5 to 8.2]; low), vertical displacement center of mass/pelvis (MD - 1.5 cm [- 2.7 to - 0.8]; low), and peak propulsive force (MD - 0.04 body weights [- 0.06 to - 0.02]; very low) were lower, while contact time (MD 5.0 ms [0.5 to 9.5]; low), knee flexion at footstrike (MD - 2.3° [- 3.6 to - 1.1]; low), and ankle sagittal plane internal joint moment (MD - 0.4 Nm/kg [- 0.7 to - 0.2]; low) were longer/higher, when pooled across overground surfaces. Conflicting findings were reported for amplitude of muscle activity.ConclusionsSpatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, muscle activity, and muscle-tendon outcome measures are largely comparable between motorized treadmill and overground running. Considerations should, however, particularly be given to sagittal plane kinematic differences at footstrike when extrapolating treadmill running biomechanics to overground running. Protocol registration CRD42018083906 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).