Foot posture and landing error scores in recreational basketball players: a novel approach to prevent lower-limb injuries (original) (raw)
Related papers
Landing Technique and Performance in Youth Athletes After a Single Injury-Prevention Program Session
Journal of athletic training, 2015
Injury-prevention programs (IPPs) performed as season-long warm-ups improve injury rates, performance outcomes, and jump-landing technique. However, concerns regarding program adoption exist. Identifying the acute benefits of using an IPP compared with other warm-ups may encourage IPP adoption. To examine the immediate effects of 3 warm-up protocols (IPP, dynamic warm-up [DWU], or static warm-up [SWU]) on jump-landing technique and performance measures in youth athletes. Randomized controlled clinical trial. Gymnasiums. Sixty male and 29 female athletes (age = 13 ± 2 years, height = 162.8 ± 12.6 cm, mass = 37.1 ± 13.5 kg) volunteered to participate in a single session. Participants were stratified by age, sex, and sport and then were randomized into 1 protocol: IPP, SWU, or DWU. The IPP consisted of dynamic flexibility, strengthening, plyometric, and balance exercises and emphasized proper technique. The SWU consisted of jogging and lower extremity static stretching. The...
Gait & Posture, 2020
Introduction: Injury prevention programs for athletes are still limited by a lack of understanding of specific risk factors that can influence injuries within different sports. The majority of studies on volleyball have not considered the movement patterns when moving in different directions or in planned and unplanned block jump-landings. Methods: This study investigated all planes mechanics between the lead and trail limb when moving in dominant and non-dominant directions, for both planned and unplanned jump-landings in thirteen semi-professional female volleyball players. Ankle, knee and hip joint kinematics, kinetics and joint stiffness were recorded. Results: Our results showed statistically significant differences between the lead limb and the trail limb in the hip flexion angles, moments and velocity; in the knee flexion angles, moments, stiffness, power and energy absorption and in the ankle dorsiflexion, power and energy absorption, showing a tendency where the lead limb has a higher injury risk than the trail limb. When considering planned versus unplanned situations, there were statistically significant differences in knee flexion angles, moments, power and energy absorption; and hip contact angle, flexion angular velocity and energy absorption, with musculoskeletal adaptations in the planned situations. Discussion: It appears that the role of the limb, either lead or trail, is more important than the limb dominance when performing directional jump-landings, with the lead limb having a higher implication on possible overuse injuries than the trail limb. Furthermore, planned movements showed a difference in strategy indicating greater implications to possible overuse injuries than in the unplanned situations which may be associated with more conscious thought about the movements. Conclusion: Coaches should consider unilateral coordination training in both landing directions for the lead and trail limb, and should adapt training to replicate the competition environment, using unplanned situations to minimize asymmetries to might reduce injury risks.
Asian Journal of Sports Medicine, 2020
Background: Student-athletes who are still experiencing physical and psychological growth and developmentally immature are prone to getting sports injuries. Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a screening tool to assess the risk of injury to determine the movement error of jumping and landing. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to find the scientific evidence regarding the role of LESS concerning lower extremity injuries. Methods: This cross-sectional study involving eighty-seven participants from six sports divisions at the Pusat Pelatihan Olahraga Pelajar (PPOP) DKI Jakarta. The participants performed history taking, physical examination, and jump-landing tasks using LESS analysis. Participants will be monitored for three months to determine the lower extremity injuries event. In addition to the results of LESS, gender, history of previous injuries in the last six months, and body posture alignment will also be analyzed in conjunction with lower extremity injuries using ...
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2010
Background: With the relatively high rate of injuries to the lower extremity due to jump-landing movement patterns and the accompanied high costs, there is need for determining potential preventive programs. A program on the intervention of jump-landing technique is possibly an important preventative measure since it appeared to reduce the incidence of lower extremity injuries. In real life situations, amateur sports lack the infrastructure and funds to have a sports physician or therapist permanently supervising such a program. Therefore the current prevention program is designed so that it could be implemented by coaches alone. Objective: The objective of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the effect of a coach supervised intervention program targeting jump-landing technique on the incidence of lower extremity injuries.
Landing Styles Influences Reactive Strength Index without Increasing Risk for Injury
Sports Medicine International Open, 2018
The aim was to determine which three landing styles – stiff (ST), self-selected (SS), or soft (SF) – exhibit safer landing mechanics and greater jumping performance. Thirty participants (age: 26.5±5.1 years; height: 171.0±8.8 cm; weight: 69.7±10.1 kg) performed five trials of three randomized drop jump (40 cm) landing styles including SF (~60° knee flexion), ST (knees as straight as possible), and SS. Knee flexion and valgus angles and kinetics were measured. An electromyography system measured muscle activity of the gluteus maximus, quadriceps, hamstrings, tibialis anterior, and gastrocnemius. Reactive strength index (RSI) was used to measure jumping performance. ANOVAs were used to compare the three landings. All landings differed in knee flexion (p<0.001; effect size (η2): 0.9) but not valgus (p=.13; η2:.15). RSI (mm·ms-1) showed differences for all jumps (p<0.001; η2: 0.7) with SS (0.96) showing the highest value, then ST (0.93), and SF (0.64). Ground reaction forces were ...
Sports Medicine, 2019
When assessing biomechanics in a laboratory setting, task selection is critical to the production of accurate and meaningful data. The injury biomechanics of landing is commonly investigated in a laboratory setting using a drop landing task. However, why this task is so frequently chosen is unclear. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to (1) identify the justification/s provided within the published literature as to why a drop landing task was selected to investigate the injury biomechanics of landing in sport and (2) use current research evidence, supplemented by a new set of biomechanical data, to evaluate whether the justifications are supported. To achieve this, a comprehensive literature search using Scopus, PubMed, and SPORTDiscus online databases was conducted for studies that had collected biomechanical data relating to sport injuries using a drop landing task. In addition, kinematic and kinetic data were collected from female netball players during drop landings and maximum-effort countermovement jumps from the ground to grab a suspended ball. The literature search returned a total of 149 articles that were reviewed to determine the justification for selecting a drop landing task. Of these, 54% provided no explicit justification to explain why a drop landing task was chosen, and 15% stated it was selected because it had been used in previous research. Other reasons included that the drop landing provides high experimental control (16%), is a functional sports task (11%), and is a dynamic task (6%). Evidence in the literature suggests that the biomechanical data produced with drop landings may not be as externally valid as more sport-specific tasks. Biomechanical data showed that the drop landing may not control center of mass fall height any better than maximum-effort countermovement jumps from the ground. Further, the frequently used step-off technique to initiate drop landings resulted in kinematic and kinetic asymmetries between lower limbs, which would otherwise be symmetrical when performing a countermovement jump from the ground. Researchers should consider the limitations of a drop landing task and endeavor to improve the laboratory tasks used to collect biomechanical data to examine the injury biomechanics of landing.
Journal of Science in Sport and Exercise, 2020
Purpose Jump-landing assessments provide a means to quantify an individual’s ability to attenuate ground reaction forces, generate lower limb explosive power and maintain joint alignment. In order to identify risk factors that can be targeted through appropriate training interventions, it is necessary to establish which (scalar) objective kinetic, kinematic, and performance measures are most associated with lower-extremity injury. Methods Online searches of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EBSCOHost, SPORTDiscus and PubMed databases were completed for all articles published before March 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results 40 articles investigating nine jump-landing assessments were included in this review. The 79% of studies using drop jump (n = 14) observed an association with future injury, while only 8% of countermovement jump studies (n = 13) observed an association with injury risk. The 57% of studies using unilateral assessments found associations with risk of injury (n = 14). ...
2014
Context: The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a two-dimensional landing technique assessment tool that is readily available to clinicians. However, the LESS merely assesses a contrived landing, rather than dynamic, complex movements that may occur during actual athletic performance. Objective: To compare the LESS scores and knee joint kinematics between the LESS vertical-drop jump (DVJ), and two simulated basketball landing performances, jump-stop jump shot (JS) and rebounding (RB).
2016
The purpose of this study was to compare jump-landing biomechanics across 1) landing surface condition; and 2) upper extremity constraint condition as graded by the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS). Recreational athletes (N=40; 21M, 19F) performed three jump-landings with three surface (Grass (GS), Court (CS), and Tile (TS)) and upper extremity constraint conditions (unconstrained (UN), football (AF), and lacrosse stick (LS)). The jump-landings were recorded via 2D videography and graded using the LESS. No differences were observed by surface (GS=5.01±1.40; CS=4.83±1.31; TS=5.09±1.86, p=0.52) or constraint condition (UN=5.09±1.86; FB=4.76±1.65; LS=4.86±1.76; p=0.21). The results indicate that the LESS is a robust instrument biomechanical screening in different landing environments and with sports with different upper extremity equipment.