Clinical Implications of Landing Distance on Landing Error Scoring System Scores

Landing error scoring system: A scoping review about variants, reference values and differences according to sex and sport

OBJECTIVE

The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a movement analysis tool proposed to identify the risk of anterior cruciate ligament injuries, very useful for injury prevention. The aim of this study is to review the variants of the LESS, their normative scores and the differences according to sex and sport practiced.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases were searched from inception to October 19, 2023. Studies were eligible if the objective was finding normative or reference scores for the LESS, analyze the differences between sexes or sports, or used some variant of the test. Results were limited to available full-text articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals.

RESULTS

Of the 360 articles identified, 20 were included for a full analysis (18,093 participants, age = 8-30 years, males = 70.6%). The military population was the most frequently analyzed (7 studies, n = 16,603). Results showed six variants of the LESS and average values ranged from 2.56 to 7.1. Males and females showed different pattern landing with errors in different planes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the need for more field studies on LESS reference scores, particularly for females and basketball or hockey players. Further research is required before conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Effect of Footwear Versus Barefoot on Double-Leg Jump-Landing and Jump Height Measures: A Randomized Cross-Over Study

Background

Assessing individuals in their own athletic footwear in clinics is common, but can affect movement, performance, and clinical measures.

Purpose

The aim was to compare overall Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores, injury risk categorization, specific LESS errors, and jump heights between habitual athletic footwear and barefoot conditions.

Study design

Randomized cross-over laboratory study.

Methods

Eighty healthy individuals (55% male) completed the LESS following standard procedures (i.e., land from a 30-cm box to a distance of 50% of body height and then jump upwards maximally). Participants performed the LESS three times in two randomized conditions: footwear and barefoot. LESS data were extracted from 2D videos to compare group-level mean LESS scores, group-level and individual-level injury risk categorization (5-error threshold), specific landing errors, and jump heights between conditions.

Results

LESS scores were significantly greater (0.3 errors, p=0.022) and jump heights were significantly lower (0.6 cm, p=0.029) in footwear than barefoot, but differences were trivial (d = 0.18 and -0.07, respectively) and not clinically meaningful. Although the number of high injury-risk participants was not statistically different at a group level (p=1.000); 27 individuals (33.8%) exhibited a clinically meaningful difference between conditions of one error or more in LESS score, categorization was inconsistent for 16.3% of individuals, and four of the 17 landing errors significantly differed between conditions.

Conclusion

At a group level, habitual athletic footwear does not meaningfully influence LESS scores, risk categorization, or jump height. At an individual level, footwear can meaningfully affect LESS scores, risk categorization, and alter landing strategies. Use of consistent protocol and footwear is advised for assessing movement patterns and injury risk from the LESS given the unknown predictive value of this test barefoot.

Level of Evidence

Level 3.©The Author(s).

Effect of an overhead goal on landing error scoring system and jump height measures

OBJECTIVES

Compare overall Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores, risk categorisation, specific LESS errors, and double-leg jump-landing jump heights between overhead goal and no goal conditions.

DESIGN

Randomised cross-over.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

76 (51% male).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants landed from a 30-cm box to 50% of their body height and immediately jumped vertically for maximum height. Participants completed three trials under two random-ordered conditions: with and without overhead goal. Group-level mean LESS scores, risk categorisation (5-error threshold), specific landing errors, and jump heights were compared between conditions.

RESULTS

Mean LESS scores were greater (0.3 errors, p < 0.001) with the overhead goal, but this small difference was not clinically meaningful. Similarly, although the number of high-risk participants was greater with the overhead goal (p = 0.039), the 9.2% difference was trivial. Participants jumped 2.7 cm higher with the overhead goal (p < 0.001) without affecting the occurrence of any specific LESS errors.

DISCUSSION

Performing the LESS with an overhead goal enhances sport specificity and elicits greater vertical jump performances with minimal change in landing errors and injury-risk categorisation. Adding an overhead goal to LESS might enhance its suitability for injury risk screening, although the predictive value of LESS with an overhead goal needs confirmation.

Acute Effects of Tissue Flossing Coupled with Functional Movements on Knee Range of Motion, Static Balance, in Single-Leg Hop Distance, and Landing Stabilization Performance in Female College Students

Flexibility, specifically that in the amplitude of sagittal-plane range of motion (ROM), can improve jump landing patterns and reduce the potential for sports injury. The use of floss bands (FLOSS) reportedly increases joint range of motion (ROM) in the shoulder, ankle, and elbow joints. However, little research on the effectiveness of FLOSS on the knee joint has been conducted. This study investigated the effects of FLOSS on knee ROM, static balance, single-leg-hop distance, and landing stabilization performance in women. This study had a crossover design. Twenty active female college students without musculoskeletal disorders were randomly assigned to receive a FLOSS intervention or elastic bandage (ELA) control on their dominant knees. The participants underwent FLOSS and ELA activities on two occasions with 48 h of rest between both sets of activities. The outcomes were flexibility of the quadriceps and hamstrings, how long one could maintain a single-leg stance (with and without eyes closed), distance on a single-leg triple hop, and score on the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS); these outcomes were evaluated at preintervention and postintervention (immediately following band removal and 20 min later). After the FLOSS intervention, the participants’ hamstring flexibility improved significantly (immediately after: p = 0.001; 20 min later: p = 0.002), but their quadricep flexibility did not. In addition, FLOSS use did not result in worse single-leg stance timing, single-leg triple-hop distance, or landing stabilization performance relative to ELA use. Compared with the ELA control, the FLOSS intervention yielded significantly better LESS at 20 min postintervention (p = 0.032), suggesting that tissue flossing can improve landing stability. In conclusion, the application of FLOSS to the knee improves hamstring flexibility without impeding static balance, and improves single-leg hop distance and landing stabilization performance in women for up to 20 min. Our findings elucidate the effects of tissue flossing on the knee joint and may serve as a reference for physiotherapists or athletic professionals in athletic practice settings.