...
首页> 外文期刊>Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine >Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Analysis of Rearfoot and Forefoot Running
【24h】

Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Analysis of Rearfoot and Forefoot Running

机译:后足和前足奔跑的三维生物力学分析

获取原文

摘要

Background: In the running community, a forefoot strike (FFS) pattern is increasingly preferred compared with a rearfoot strike (RFS) pattern. However, it has not been fully understood which strike pattern may better reduce adverse joint forces within the different joints of the lower extremity. Purpose: To analyze the 3-dimensional (3D) stress pattern in the ankle, knee, and hip joint in runners with either a FFS or RFS pattern. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: In 22 runners (11 habitual rearfoot strikers, 11 habitual forefoot strikers), RFS and FFS patterns were compared at 3.0 m/s (6.7 mph) on a treadmill with integrated force plates and a 3D motion capture analysis system. This combined analysis allowed characterization of the 3D biomechanical forces differentiated for the ankle, knee, and hip joint. The maximum peak force (MPF) and maximum loading rate (LR) were determined in their 3 ordinal components: vertical, anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML). Results: For both strike patterns, the vertical components of the MPF and LR were significantly greater than their AP or ML components. In the vertical axis, FFS was generally associated with a greater MPF but significantly lower LR in all 3 joints. The AP components of MPF and LR were significantly lower for FFS in the knee joint but significantly greater in the ankle and hip joints. The ML components of MPF and LR tended to be greater for FFS but mostly did not reach a level of significance. Conclusion: FFS and RFS were associated with different 3D stress patterns in the ankle, knee, and hip joint, although there was no global advantage of one strike pattern over the other. The multimodal individual assessment for the different anatomic regions demonstrated that FFS seems favorable for patients with unstable knee joints in the AP axis and RFS may be recommended for runners with unstable ankle joints. Clinical Relevance: Different strike patterns show different 3D stress in joints of the lower extremity. Due to either rehabilitation after injuries or training in running sports, rearfoot or forefoot running should be preferred to prevent further damage or injuries caused by inadequate biomechanical load. Runners with a history of knee joint injuries may benefit from FFS whereas RFS may be favorable for runners with a history of ankle joint injuries.
机译:背景:在奔跑的社区中,与后足打击(RFS)模式相比,前足打击(FFS)模式越来越受欢迎。但是,尚未完全了解哪种打击方式可以更好地减少下肢不同关节内的不利关节力。目的:分析具有FFS或RFS模式的跑步者的踝,膝和髋关节的3维(3D)应力模式。研究设计:描述性实验室研究。方法:在22名跑步者(11名习惯性的后脚罢工者,11名习惯性的前脚罢工者)中,在集成了测力板和3D运动捕捉分析系统的跑步机上以3.0 m / s(6.7 mph)的速度比较了RFS和FFS模式。这种综合分析可以表征踝关节,膝盖和髋关节的3D生物力学力。确定最大峰值力(MPF)和最大加载速率(LR)的三个顺序顺序:垂直,前后(AP)和内侧-外侧(ML)。结果:对于这两种打击方式,MPF和LR的垂直分量明显大于其AP或ML分量。在垂直轴上,FFS通常与所有3个关节的MPF较高但LR明显较低有关。对于FFS,在膝关节中MPF和LR的AP成分显着降低,而在踝关节和髋关节中的AP成分显着升高。对于FFS,MPF和LR的ML成分趋向于较大,但大部分并未达到显着水平。结论:FFS和RFS与踝,膝和髋关节的3D应力模式不同相关,尽管一种打击方式没有另一种的全局优势。对不同解剖区域的多模式个体评估表明,FFS似乎对AP轴膝关节不稳定的患者有利,而RFS可能建议用于踝关节不稳定的跑步者。临床意义:不同的打击方式显示下肢关节的3D应力不同。由于受伤后的康复或进行跑步运动训练,应优先选择后脚或前脚跑步,以防止由于生物力学负荷不足而造成的进一步伤害或伤害。有膝关节损伤史的跑步者可从FFS中受益,而RFS可能对具有踝关节损伤史的跑步者有利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号