We have located links that may give you full text access.
Peak Lower Extremity Landing Kinematics in Dancers and Nondancers.
Journal of Athletic Training 2018 April
CONTEXT: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries often occur during jump landings and can have detrimental short-term and long-term functional effects on quality of life. Despite frequently performing jump landings, dancers have lower incidence rates of ACL injury than other jump-landing athletes. Planned versus unplanned activities and footwear may explain differing ACL-injury rates among dancers and nondancers. Still, few researchers have compared landing biomechanics between dancers and nondancers.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the landing biomechanics of dancers and nondancers during single-legged (SL) drop-vertical jumps.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Laboratory.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 39 healthy participants, 12 female dancers (age = 20.9 ± 1.8 years, height = 166.4 ± 6.7 cm, mass = 63.2 ± 16.4 kg), 14 female nondancers (age = 20.2 ± 0.9 years, height = 168.9 ± 5.0 cm, mass = 61.6 ± 7.7 kg), and 13 male nondancers (age = 22.2 ± 2.7 years, height = 180.6 ± 9.7 cm, mass = 80.8 ± 13.2 kg).
INTERVENTION(S): Participants performed SL-drop-vertical jumps from a 30-cm-high box in a randomized order in 2 activity (planned, unplanned) and 2 footwear (shod, barefoot) conditions while a 3-dimensional system recorded landing biomechanics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Overall peak sagittal-plane and frontal-plane ankle-, knee-, and hip-joint kinematics (joint angles) were compared across groups using separate multivariate analyses of variance followed by main-effects testing and pairwise-adjusted Bonferroni comparisons as appropriate ( P < .05).
RESULTS: No 3-way interactions existed for sagittal-plane or frontal-plane ankle (Wilks λ = 0.85, P = .11 and Wilks λ = 0.96, P = .55, respectively), knee (Wilks λ = 1.00, P = .93 and Wilks λ = 0.94, P = .36, respectively), or hip (Wilks λ = 0.99, P = .88 and Wilks λ = 0.97, P = .62, respectively) kinematics. We observed no group × footwear interactions for sagittal-plane or frontal-plane ankle (Wilks λ = 0.94, P = .43 and Wilks λ = 0.96, P = .55, respectively), knee (Wilks λ = 0.97, P = .60 and Wilks λ = 0.97, P = .66, respectively), or hip (Wilks λ = 0.99, P = .91 and Wilks λ = 1.00, P = .93, respectively) kinematics, and no group × activity interactions were noted for ankle frontal-plane (Wilks λ = 0.92, P = .29) and sagittal- and frontal-plane knee (Wilks λ = 0.99, P = .81 and Wilks λ = 0.98, P = .77, respectively) and hip (Wilks λ = 0.88, P = .13 and Wilks λ = 0.85, P = .08, respectively) kinematics. A group × activity interaction (Wilks λ = 0.76, P = .02) was present for ankle sagittal-plane kinematics. Main-effects testing revealed different ankle frontal-plane angles across groups ( F2,28 = 3.78, P = .04), with male nondancers having greater ankle inversion than female nondancers ( P = .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of activity type or footwear, female nondancers landed with similar hip and knee kinematics but greater peak ankle eversion and less peak ankle dorsiflexion (ie, positions associated with greater ACL injury risk). Ankle kinematics may differ between groups due to different landing strategies and training used by dancers. Dancers' training should be examined to determine if it results in a reduced occurrence of biomechanics related to ACL injury during SL landing.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the landing biomechanics of dancers and nondancers during single-legged (SL) drop-vertical jumps.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Laboratory.
PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 39 healthy participants, 12 female dancers (age = 20.9 ± 1.8 years, height = 166.4 ± 6.7 cm, mass = 63.2 ± 16.4 kg), 14 female nondancers (age = 20.2 ± 0.9 years, height = 168.9 ± 5.0 cm, mass = 61.6 ± 7.7 kg), and 13 male nondancers (age = 22.2 ± 2.7 years, height = 180.6 ± 9.7 cm, mass = 80.8 ± 13.2 kg).
INTERVENTION(S): Participants performed SL-drop-vertical jumps from a 30-cm-high box in a randomized order in 2 activity (planned, unplanned) and 2 footwear (shod, barefoot) conditions while a 3-dimensional system recorded landing biomechanics.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Overall peak sagittal-plane and frontal-plane ankle-, knee-, and hip-joint kinematics (joint angles) were compared across groups using separate multivariate analyses of variance followed by main-effects testing and pairwise-adjusted Bonferroni comparisons as appropriate ( P < .05).
RESULTS: No 3-way interactions existed for sagittal-plane or frontal-plane ankle (Wilks λ = 0.85, P = .11 and Wilks λ = 0.96, P = .55, respectively), knee (Wilks λ = 1.00, P = .93 and Wilks λ = 0.94, P = .36, respectively), or hip (Wilks λ = 0.99, P = .88 and Wilks λ = 0.97, P = .62, respectively) kinematics. We observed no group × footwear interactions for sagittal-plane or frontal-plane ankle (Wilks λ = 0.94, P = .43 and Wilks λ = 0.96, P = .55, respectively), knee (Wilks λ = 0.97, P = .60 and Wilks λ = 0.97, P = .66, respectively), or hip (Wilks λ = 0.99, P = .91 and Wilks λ = 1.00, P = .93, respectively) kinematics, and no group × activity interactions were noted for ankle frontal-plane (Wilks λ = 0.92, P = .29) and sagittal- and frontal-plane knee (Wilks λ = 0.99, P = .81 and Wilks λ = 0.98, P = .77, respectively) and hip (Wilks λ = 0.88, P = .13 and Wilks λ = 0.85, P = .08, respectively) kinematics. A group × activity interaction (Wilks λ = 0.76, P = .02) was present for ankle sagittal-plane kinematics. Main-effects testing revealed different ankle frontal-plane angles across groups ( F2,28 = 3.78, P = .04), with male nondancers having greater ankle inversion than female nondancers ( P = .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of activity type or footwear, female nondancers landed with similar hip and knee kinematics but greater peak ankle eversion and less peak ankle dorsiflexion (ie, positions associated with greater ACL injury risk). Ankle kinematics may differ between groups due to different landing strategies and training used by dancers. Dancers' training should be examined to determine if it results in a reduced occurrence of biomechanics related to ACL injury during SL landing.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app