7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      In-field gait retraining and mobile monitoring to address running biomechanics associated with tibial stress fracture : In-field gait retraining and monitoring

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We sought to determine if an in-field gait retraining program can reduce excessive impact forces and peak hip adduction without adverse changes in knee joint work during running. Thirty healthy at-risk runners who exhibited high-impact forces were randomized to retraining [21.1 (± 1.9) years, 22.1 (± 10.8) km/week] or control groups [21.0 (± 1.3) years, 23.2 (± 8.7) km/week]. Retrainers were cued, via a wireless accelerometer, to increase preferred step rate by 7.5% during eight training sessions performed in-field. Adherence with the prescribed step rate was assessed via mobile monitoring. Three-dimensional gait analysis was performed at baseline, after retraining, and at 1-month post-retraining. Retrainers increased step rate by 8.6% (P < 0.0001), reducing instantaneous vertical load rate (-17.9%, P = 0.003), average vertical load rate (-18.9%, P < 0.0001), peak hip adduction (2.9° ± 4.2 reduction, P = 0.005), eccentric knee joint work per stance phase (-26.9%, P < 0.0001), and per kilometer of running (-21.1%, P < 0.0001). Alterations in gait were maintained at 30 days. In the absence of any feedback, controls maintained their baseline gait parameters. The majority of retrainers were adherent with the prescribed step rate during in-field runs. Thus, in-field gait retraining, cueing a modest increase in step rate, was effective at reducing impact forces, peak hip adduction and eccentric knee joint work.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A power primer.

          One possible reason for the continued neglect of statistical power analysis in research in the behavioral sciences is the inaccessibility of or difficulty with the standard material. A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is provided here. Effect-size indexes and conventional values for these are given for operationally defined small, medium, and large effects. The sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests: (a) the difference between independent means, (b) the significance of a product-moment correlation, (c) the difference between independent rs, (d) the sign test, (e) the difference between independent proportions, (f) chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables, (g) one-way analysis of variance, and (h) the significance of a multiple or multiple partial correlation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries.

              To provide an extensive and up to date database for specific running related injuries, across the sexes, as seen at a primary care sports medicine facility, and to assess the relative risk for individual injuries based on investigation of selected risk factors. Patient data were recorded by doctors at the Allan McGavin Sports Medicine Centre over a two year period. They included assessment of anthropometric, training, and biomechanical information. A model was constructed (with odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals) of possible contributing factors using a dependent variable of runners with a specific injury and comparing them with a control group of runners who experienced a different injury. Variables included in the model were: height, weight, body mass index, age, activity history, weekly activity, history of injury, and calibre of runner. Most of the study group were women (54%). Some injuries occurred with a significantly higher frequency in one sex. Being less than 34 years old was reported as a risk factor across the sexes for patellofemoral pain syndrome, and in men for iliotibial band friction syndrome, patellar tendinopathy, and tibial stress syndrome. Being active for less than 8.5 years was positively associated with injury in both sexes for tibial stress syndrome; and women with a body mass index less than 21 kg/m(2) were at a significantly higher risk for tibial stress fractures and spinal injuries. Patellofemoral pain syndrome was the most common injury, followed by iliotibial band friction syndrome, plantar fasciitis, meniscal injuries of the knee, and tibial stress syndrome. Although various risk factors were shown to be positively associated with a risk for, or protection from, specific injuries, future research should include a non-injured control group and a more precise measure of weekly running distance and running experience to validate these results.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
                Scand J Med Sci Sports
                Wiley
                09057188
                February 2016
                February 2016
                February 04 2015
                : 26
                : 2
                : 197-205
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Therapy; East Carolina University; Greenville North Carolina USA
                [2 ]Division of Physical Therapy; Ohio University; Athens Ohio USA
                [3 ]Friedrichsheim gGmbH; Orthopädisches Universitätsklinikum; Frankfurt Germany
                Article
                10.1111/sms.12413
                25652871
                a82270cd-f9d8-4b71-9ccb-0dd260156b63
                © 2015

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article