Effect of Grade and Surface Type on Peak Tibial Acceleration in Trained Distance Runners

Criteria and Guidelines for Returning to Running Following a Tibial Bone Stress Injury: A Scoping Review

Tibial bone stress injuries (BSIs) are common among long-distance runners. They have a high recurrence rate, and complexity emerges in the wider management and successful return to running. Following a tibial BSI, a critical component of complete rehabilitation is the successful return to running, and there is a lack of consistency or strong evidence to guide this process. The objectives of this review were to outline the criteria used in clinical decision-making prior to resuming running, and to establish evidence-based guidelines for the return to running process following a tibial BSI. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and AMED were searched for studies that stated criteria or provided guidelines on the objectives above. Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Thirty-nine were reviews or clinical commentaries, three were retrospective cohort studies, two were randomised controlled trials, two were pilot studies, one was a prospective observational study, and three were case studies. Therefore, the recommendations that have been surmised are based on level IV evidence. Decisions on when an athlete should return to running should be shared between clinicians, coaches and the athlete. There are five important components to address prior to introducing running, which are: the resolution of bony tenderness, pain-free walking, evidence of radiological healing in high-risk BSIs, strength, functional and loading tests, and the identification of contributing factors. Effective return to running planning should address the athlete's risk profile and manage the risk by balancing the athlete's interests and reinjury prevention. An individualised graduated return to running programme should be initiated, often starting with walk-run intervals, progressing running distance ahead of speed and intensity, with symptom provocation a key consideration. Contributing factors to the initial injury should be addressed throughout the return to run process.

3D Tibial Acceleration and Consideration of 3D Angular Motion Using IMUs on Peak Tibial Acceleration and Impulse in Running

PURPOSE

Peak tibial acceleration (PTA) is defined as the peak acceleration occurring shortly after initial contact, often used as an indirect measure of tibial load. As the tibia is a rotating segment around the ankle, angular velocity and angular acceleration should be included in PTA. This study aimed to quantify three-dimensional tibial acceleration components over two different sensor locations and three running speeds, to get a better understanding of the influence of centripetal and tangential accelerations on PTA typically measured in running. Furthermore, it explores tibial impulse as an alternative surrogate measure for tibial load.

METHODS

Fifteen participants ran 90 s on a treadmill at 2.8, 3.3, and 3.9 m·s -1 , with inertial measurement units (IMUs) located distally and proximally on the tibia.

RESULTS

Without the inclusion of rotational accelerations and gravity, no significant difference was found between axial PTA between both IMU locations, whereas in the tangential sagittal plane axis, there was a significant difference. Inclusion of rotational accelerations and gravity resulted in similar PTA estimates at the ankle for both IMU locations and caused a significant difference between PTA based on the distal IMU and PTA at the ankle. The impulse showed more consistent results between the proximal and distal IMU locations compared with axial PTA.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotational acceleration of the tibia during stance differently impacted PTA measured proximally and distally at the tibia, indicating that rotational acceleration and gravity should be included in PTA estimates. Furthermore, peak acceleration values (such as PTA) are not always reliable when using IMUs because of inconsistent PTA proximally compared with distally on an individual level. Instead, impulse seems to be a more consistent surrogate measure for the tibial load.

Evaluation of a Restoration Algorithm Applied to Clipped Tibial Acceleration Signals

Wireless accelerometers with various operating ranges have been used to measure tibial acceleration. Accelerometers with a low operating range output distorted signals and have been found to result in inaccurate measurements of peaks. A restoration algorithm using spline interpolation has been proposed to restore the distorted signal. This algorithm has been validated for axial peaks within the range of 15.0-15.9 g. However, the accuracy of peaks of higher magnitude and the resultant peaks have not been reported. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the measurement agreement of the restored peaks using a low-range accelerometer (±16 g) against peaks sampled using a high-range accelerometer (±200 g). The measurement agreement of both the axial and resultant peaks were examined. In total, 24 runners were equipped with 2 tri-axial accelerometers at their tibia and completed an outdoor running assessment. The accelerometer with an operating range of ±200 g was used as reference. The results of this study showed an average difference of -1.40 ± 4.52 g and -1.23 ± 5.48 g for axial and resultant peaks. Based on our findings, the restoration algorithm could skew data and potentially lead to incorrect conclusions if used without caution.

Surface effects on kinematics, kinetics and stiffness of habitual rearfoot strikers during running

The surface effects on running biomechanics have been greatly investigated. However, the effects on rearfoot strike runners remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of surfaces on the running kinematics, kinetics, and lower-limb stiffness of habitual rearfoot strikers. Thirty healthy male runners were recruited to run at 3.3 ± 0.2 m/s on a customized runway covered with three different surfaces (artificial grass, synthetic rubber, or concrete), and their running kinematics, kinetics, and lower-limb stiffness were compared. Differences among the three surfaces were examined using statistical parametric mapping and one-way repeated-measure analysis of variance. There were no statistical differences in the lower-limb joint motion, vertical ground reaction force (GRF), loading rates, and lower-limb stiffness when running on the three surfaces. The braking force (17%-36% of the stance phase) and mediolateral GRF were decreased when running on concrete surface compared with running on the other two surfaces. The moments of ankle joint in all three plane movement and frontal plane hip and knee joints were increased when running on concrete surface. Therefore, habitual rearfoot strikers may expose to a higher risk of running-related overuse injuries when running on a harder surface.

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings.

RESULTS

A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42021235527.

Is This the Real Life, or Is This Just Laboratory? A Scoping Review of IMU-Based Running Gait Analysis

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) can be used to monitor running biomechanics in real-world settings, but IMUs are often used within a laboratory. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe how IMUs are used to record running biomechanics in both laboratory and real-world conditions. We included peer-reviewed journal articles that used IMUs to assess gait quality during running. We extracted data on running conditions (indoor/outdoor, surface, speed, and distance), device type and location, metrics, participants, and purpose and study design. A total of 231 studies were included. Most (72%) studies were conducted indoors; and in 67% of all studies, the analyzed distance was only one step or stride or <200 m. The most common device type and location combination was a triaxial accelerometer on the shank (18% of device and location combinations). The most common analyzed metric was vertical/axial magnitude, which was reported in 64% of all studies. Most studies (56%) included recreational runners. For the past 20 years, studies using IMUs to record running biomechanics have mainly been conducted indoors, on a treadmill, at prescribed speeds, and over small distances. We suggest that future studies should move out of the lab to less controlled and more real-world environments.

Treadmill and Running Speed Effects on Acceleration Impacts: Curved Non-Motorized Treadmill vs. Conventional Motorized Treadmill

An increase in the popularity of running can be seen over the last decades, with a large number of injuries on it. Most of the running injuries are related to impact accelerations and are due to overuse. In order to reduce the risk of injury or to improve performance and health new treadmill designs have been created, as it can be the curved non-motorized treadmill. The aim of this study was to analyse impact accelerations, spatio-temporal parameters and perceptual differences while running on curved non-motorized treadmill (cNMT) compared to motorized treadmill (MT) at different speeds. Therefore, 27 recreational runners completed two tests consisting of 10 min warm-up and three bouts of 8 min running at 2.77 m/s, 3.33 m/s and self-selected speed on cNMT and MT, previously randomised. Although the surface did not influence spatio-temporal parameters, a reduction in impact accelerations, head acceleration rate (mean effect size [ES] = 0.86), tibia peak (mean ES = 0.45) and tibia magnitude (mean ES = 0.55), was observed while running on cNMT in comparison with running on MT. Moreover, higher heart rate (HR) (mean ES = 0.51) and rating of perceived effort (RPE) (mean ES = 0.34) were found while running on cNMT. These findings demonstrated that higher intensity training and lower impact accelerations are experimented on cNMT, what can be used by trainers and athletes while planning training sessions.