Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Summary of biomechanical studies of loading mechanisms in impact landings

From: Biomechanical approaches to understanding the potentially injurious demands of gymnastic-style impact landings

Mechanism Study Study type Load estimation approach Landing task protocol Landing height Key loading response finding(s)
Technique        
Knee joint flexion       
  [15] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Double-foot) 0.15-1.05 m Inverse relationship between initial knee flexion & peak GRFr
  [16] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Double-foot) 0.59 m Inverse relationship between maximum knee flexion & GRFv
  [23] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.80 m & 1.15 m Higher (32%) GRFv with stiff than soft knee (0.80 m, hard mat)
  [25] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Double-foot) 0.32 m, 0.62 m,1.03 m Direct relationship between knee stiffness & peak GRFv
  [26] Laboratory Spring-mass assumption Drop (Double-foot) 0.30 m (12 inch) Higher GRFv (55%) with stiff than soft (bent) knee
  [27] Laboratory Simulation modelling   0.10 m-0.40 m Non-linear, inverse relationship between knee flexion & peak GRFv
  [51] Theoretical   Drop (Double-foot) 0.46 m Change in peak GRFv (1.5 BW) with modified knee flexion timing
Foot placement        
  [17] Laboratory Inverse dynamics & electromyography Drop (Double-foot) 0.40 m Higher (3.4 times) GRFv impact peak in HTL than FFL
  [18] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.30 m Unreported kinetic measures
Gender-specific        
  [11] Laboratory Electromyography Drop (Double-foot) 0.52 m No gender difference in peak GRFv or IGRF at 50 & 100 ms
  [18] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.30 m Unreported kinetic measures
  [28] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Double-foot) 0.60 m No gender difference in magnitude, time and rate of peak GRFv
  [30] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Stop-jump Not reported Higher peak GRFv (24%) in females than males
  [31] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Single-foot) 0.30 m Higher peak GRFv (9%) in females than males
  [34] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Stop-jump Not reported Higher knee extension & valgus moments in females than males
  [35] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Double-foot) 0.60 m Higher peak GRFv (34%) in females than males
Landing height       
  [2] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.69 m, 1.25 m, 1.82 m Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv
  [14] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.32 m, 0.72 m, 1.28 m Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv
  [15] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Double-foot) 0.15-1.05 m Exponential relationship between landing height & peak GRFr
  [23] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.80 m & 1.15 m Unreported kinetic measures
  [24] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.30 m, 0.60 m, 0.90 m No reported statistical comparison between heights
  [25] Laboratory Inverse dynamics Drop (Double-foot) 0.32 m, 0.62 m,1.03 m Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv
  [27] Laboratory Spring-mass assumption Jump (Double-foot) 0.10 m-0.40 m Exponential relationship between landing height & peak GRFv
Impacting interface       
  [2] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.69 m, 1.25 m, 1.82 m No difference in peak GRFv between mat stiffness
  [23] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.80 m & 1.15 m No difference in peak GRFv between mat stiffness
  [46] Theoretical Simulation modelling Drop (Double-foot) 0.43 m Peak GRFv sensitivity to heel pad stiffness
Performer experience       
  [14] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.32 m, 0.72 m, 1.28 m  
  [24] Laboratory   Drop (Double-foot) 0.30 m, 0.60 m, 0.90 m Higher GRFv in gymnasts than recreational athletes (0.60 & 0.90 m)
Landing task        
  [32] Laboratory   Backward rotating tuck & pike (beam) 2.18 m & 2.22 m Unreported kinetic measures
   Laboratory Inverse dynamics & electromyography Drop, front & back tucked salto (beam) 0.72 m Between task differences in net joint moments after contact
  [48] Theoretical Simulation modelling Backward & forward rotating somersault (vault) Not reported Reduced peak GRFv & GRFh in tasks using optimised strategies
Mass composition       
  [19] Theoretical Simulation modelling Drop (Double-foot) 0.43 m Peak GRFv (24.3 bodyweights) attenuated by soft tissues
  [20] Theoretical Simulation modelling Drop (Double-foot) 0.46 m Peak GRFv sensitivity to soft & rigid mass composition
  [46] Theoretical Simulation modelling Drop (Double-foot) 0.43 m Higher peak GRFv (13%) with higher bone mass (20%)
  [49] Theoretical Simulation modelling Drop (Double-foot) 0.46 m Peak GRFv (8.6 bodyweights) attenuated by soft tissues
Mass coupling       
  [20] Theoretical Simulation modelling Drop (Double-foot) 0.46 m Subject-specific GRFv response to coupling parameter changes
  [47] Theoretical Simulation modelling Drop (Double-foot) 0.43 m Insensitivity in peak GRFv to coupling parameters
  1. GRFr: Peak resultant ground reaction force, GRFv: Peak vertical ground reaction force, GRFvh Peak horizontal ground reaction force IGRF: ground reaction force impulse, HTL: heel-toe landing, FFL: forefoot landing