Brittany A Fiorese1, Emma M Beckman2, Mark J Connick2, Adam B Hunter3, Sean M Tweedy4. 1. University of Queensland, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, Australia; Australian Institute of Sport, Australia. Electronic address: brittany.fiorese@gmail.com. 2. University of Queensland, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, Australia. 3. Australian Institute of Sport, Australia. 4. University of Queensland, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, Australia; Department of Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Russia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Para athletes with brain impairment are affected by hypertonia, ataxia and athetosis, which adversely affect starting, sprinting and submaximal running. The aim was to identify and synthesise evidence from studies that have compared the biomechanics of runners with brain impairments (RBI) and non-disabled runners (NDR). DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Five journal databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2020. Included studies compared the biomechanics of RBI (aged>14 years) and NDR performing either block-starts, sprinting, or submaximal running. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, analysing a total of 100 RBI (78M:22F; 18-38 years) diagnosed with either cerebral palsy (n=44) or traumatic brain injury (n=56). Studies analysed block-starts (n=3), overground sprinting (n=3) and submaximal running (n=2), and submaximal treadmill running (n=1). Horizontal velocity during starts, sprinting and self-selected submaximal speeds were lower in RBI. During sprinting and submaximal running, compared with NDR, RBI had shorter stride length, step length, and flight time, increased ground-contact time, increased cadence, and reduced ankle and hip range of motion. In submaximal running, RBI had decreased ankle-power generation at toe-off. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited research and small sample sizes in this area. However, preliminary evidence suggests that RBI had lower sprint speeds and biomechanical characteristics typical of submaximal running speeds in NDR, including increased ground-contact times and reduced stride length, step length, and flight times. Meaningful interpretation of biomechanical findings in RBI is impeded by impairment variability (type, severity and distribution), and methods which permit valid, reliable impairment stratification in larger samples are required.
OBJECTIVES:Para athletes with brain impairment are affected by hypertonia, ataxia and athetosis, which adversely affect starting, sprinting and submaximal running. The aim was to identify and synthesise evidence from studies that have compared the biomechanics of runners with brain impairments (RBI) and non-disabled runners (NDR). DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Five journal databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2020. Included studies compared the biomechanics of RBI (aged>14 years) and NDR performing either block-starts, sprinting, or submaximal running. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, analysing a total of 100 RBI (78M:22F; 18-38 years) diagnosed with either cerebral palsy (n=44) or traumatic brain injury (n=56). Studies analysed block-starts (n=3), overground sprinting (n=3) and submaximal running (n=2), and submaximal treadmill running (n=1). Horizontal velocity during starts, sprinting and self-selected submaximal speeds were lower in RBI. During sprinting and submaximal running, compared with NDR, RBI had shorter stride length, step length, and flight time, increased ground-contact time, increased cadence, and reduced ankle and hip range of motion. In submaximal running, RBI had decreased ankle-power generation at toe-off. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited research and small sample sizes in this area. However, preliminary evidence suggests that RBI had lower sprint speeds and biomechanical characteristics typical of submaximal running speeds in NDR, including increased ground-contact times and reduced stride length, step length, and flight times. Meaningful interpretation of biomechanical findings in RBI is impeded by impairment variability (type, severity and distribution), and methods which permit valid, reliable impairment stratification in larger samples are required.