| Literature DB >> 28356640 |
Akihiro Tamura1, Kiyokazu Akasaka2, Takahiro Otsudo2, Junya Shiozawa3, Yuka Toda4, Kaori Yamada5.
Abstract
[Purpose] Fatigue alters lower extremity landing strategies and decreases the ability to attenuate impact during landing. The purpose of this study was to reveal the influence of fatigue on dynamic alignment and joint angular velocities in the lower extremities during a single leg landing.Entities:
Keywords: Injury prevention; Landings during fatigue condition; Lower extremity kinematics
Year: 2017 PMID: 28356640 PMCID: PMC5361019 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.29.498
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
Peak angles and angular velocities of lower extremity, and ratios of each variable in the post-trials to those in the pre-trials
| Fatigue group (N=17) | Control group (N=17) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-trialb | The ratio (%) a | Pre-trialb | The ratio (%) a | |
| Hip flexion | ||||
| Peak angle | 41.1 ± 12.6 | 41.8 ± 9.3 | ||
| 41.2 ± 13.3 | 100.1 ± 6.7 | 40.6 ± 10.3 | 96.6 ± 8.6 | |
| Peak angular velocity | 216.7 ± 44.6 | 238.9 ± 51.8 | ||
| 231.6 ± 42.5 | 107.8 ± 9.7 * | 238.4 ± 56.1 | 99.6 ± 9.2 | |
| Knee flexion | ||||
| Peak angle | 60.8 ± 8.2 | 60.0 ± 9.9 | ||
| 60.6 ± 8.1 | 99.8 ± 4.9 | 60.1 ± 8.7 | 100.7 ± 6.2 | |
| Peak angular velocity | 419.2 ± 53.4 | 450.6 ± 57.6 | ||
| 443.5 ± 52.4 | 106.2 ± 7.3 * | 452.2 ± 49.9 | 100.8 ± 6.6 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion | ||||
| Peak angle | 30.1 ± 6.9 | 29.2 ± 4.9 | ||
| 30.5 ± 7.2 | 101.2 ± 5.9 | 31.0 ± 4.7 | 107.0 ± 13.5 | |
| Peak angular velocity | 674.6 ± 22.3 | 715.3 ± 42.0 | ||
| 655.8 ± 88.8 | 98.0 ± 7.6 | 692.0 ± 142.2 | 97.2 ± 9.8 | |
aThe ratios (%) of each kinematic variable in the post-trials to those in the pre-trials were presented alongside. bAngles and angular velocities of hip, knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion are shown in each (deg) and (deg/s). *Significant difference between the ratios of fatigue and control groups (p<0.05).
Angles of lower extremity and ratios of each variable in the post-trials to those in the pre-trials at specific times
| Fatigue group (N=17) | Control group (N=17) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-trial (deg) | The ratio (%) a | Pre-trial (deg) | The ratio (%) a | |
| Initial ground contact | ||||
| Hip flexion angle | 21.7 ± 8.4 | 21.4 ± 6.4 | ||
| 21.0 ± 8.2 | 97.8 ± 16.1 | 21.0 ± 6.7 | 99.2 ± 12.2 | |
| Knee flexion angle | 18.2 ± 6.3 | 18.5 ± 7.1 | ||
| 17.1 ± 6.0 | 94.5 ± 11.8 | 18.4 ± 7.4 | 101.0 ± 16.2 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion angle | −16.3 ± 6.1 | −15.1 ± 4.9 | ||
| −15.1 ± 5.8 | 93.5 ± 15.2 | −13.3 ± 4.3 | 90.9 ± 20.1 | |
| 40 ms after initial ground contact | ||||
| Hip flexion angle | 25.8 ± 9.0 | 25.8 ± 7.0 | ||
| 25.3 ± 8.8 | 99.2 ± 13.1 | 25.3 ± 7.4 | 109.1 ± 13.4 | |
| Knee flexion angle | 29.0 ± 6.7 | 30.1 ± 7.1 | ||
| 28.1 ± 6.6 | 96.9 ± 5.6 | 29.6 ± 7.4 | 98.6 ± 7.4 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion angle | 2.7 ± 5.4 | 5.4 ± 3.1 | ||
| 3.5 ± 5.3 | 36.1 ± 409.6 | 6.3 ± 4.1 | 130.9 ± 75.9 | |
| The moment of peak ground reaction force | ||||
| Hip flexion angle | 30.5 ± 8.9 | 30.6 ± 7.5 | ||
| 29.5 ± 9.4 | 96.1 ± 7.2 | 29.1 ± 7.7 | 95.3 ± 12.0 | |
| Knee flexion angle | 38.8 ± 8.2 | 39.3 ± 7.7 | ||
| 36.5 ± 8.6 | 94.3 ± 10.2 | 37.0 ± 7.7 | 94.7 ± 14.1 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion angle | 15.6 ± 4.4 | 16.4 ± 5.0 | ||
| 14.1 ± 6.6 | 89.1 ± 29.1 | 15.1 ± 5.1 | 94.0 ± 23.7 | |
aThe ratios (%) of each kinematic variable in the post-trials to those in the pre-trials were presented alongside
Angular velocities of lower extremity and ratios of each variable in the post-trials to those in the pre-trials at specific times
| Fatigue group (N=17) | Control group (N=17) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-trial (deg/s) | The ratio (%) a | Pre-trial (deg/s) | The ratio (%) a | |
| Initial ground contact | ||||
| Hip flexion angular velocity | 95.8 ± 55.9 | 104.6 ± 67.3 | ||
| 98.0 ± 54.2 | 99.7 ± 37.0 | 99.8 ± 56.4 | 118.4 ± 75.5 | |
| Knee flexion angular velocity | 318.1 ± 67.6 | 340.6 ± 89.7 | ||
| 311.7 ± 69.4 | 97.9 ± 7.0 | 321.7 ± 81.9 | 95.9 ± 13.4 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion angular velocity | 600.4 ± 136.1 | 672.5 ± 139.2 | ||
| 589.8 ± 106.4 | 99.2 ± 6.6 | 642.4 ± 162.1 | 95.7 ± 13.1 | |
| 40 ms after initial ground contact | ||||
| Hip flexion angular velocity | 186.7 ± 47.8 | 205.0 ± 62.6 | ||
| 201.0 ± 48.0 | 109.1 ± 37.0 * | 205.9 ± 61.8 | 100.8 ± 8.2 | |
| Knee flexion angular velocity | 408.3 ± 56.3 | 429.0 ± 65.3 | ||
| 425.9 ± 62.1 | 104.4 ± 7.0 | 434.1 ± 57.6 | 101.7 ± 6.3 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion angular velocity | 601.9 ± 102.2 | 600.6 ± 99.5 | ||
| 583.9 ± 75.1 | 97.7 ± 7.5 | 579.3 ± 65.0 | 97.5 ± 9.3 | |
| The moment of peak ground reaction force | ||||
| Hip flexion angular velocity | 207.9 ± 47.2 | 216.9 ± 63.9 | ||
| 228.1 ± 41.8 | 111.4 ± 12.7 | 233.6 ± 53.6 | 114.0 ± 39.6 | |
| Knee flexion angular velocity | 389.8 ± 59.4 | 387.8 ± 77.6 | ||
| 427.7 ± 55.5 | 110.6 ± 10.7 | 432.0 ± 47.9 | 115.5 ± 27.2 | |
| Ankle dorsiflexion angular velocity | 405.1 ± 103.0 | 368.2 ± 96.5 | ||
| 428.2 ± 78.2 | 108.7 ± 17.2 | 411.6 ± 59.4 | 121.7 ± 50.5 | |
aThe ratios (%) of each kinematic variable in the post-trials to those in the pre-trials were presented alongside. *Significant difference between the ratios of fatigue and control groups (p<0.05)