Individuals with varus thrust do not increase knee adduction when running with body borne load |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Dept. of Kinesiology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA;2. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), Belcamp, MD, USA;3. Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center (NSRDEC), Natick, MA, USA;1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany;2. Department Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, DIAKO, Bremen, Germany;3. International Center of Hip-, Knee- and Foot Surgery, ATOS Clinic, Heidelberg, Germany;1. Ferguson Laboratory for Spine Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;2. Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, Hengyang, People’s Republic of China;1. Rheumatology Department, Charles Nicolle Hospital, El Manar Tunis University, Tunisia;2. Radiology Department, La Marsa Hospital, El Manar Tunis University, Tunisia;1. Department of Bioengineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;2. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;3. Department of Orthopedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;4. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;5. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common occupational hazard for service members. This study quantified how body borne load impacts knee biomechanics for participants who do and do not present varus thrust (range of knee adduction motion exhibited from heel strike to mid-stance (0–51%)) during over-ground running. Eighteen (9 varus thrust and 9 control) military personnel had knee biomechanics recorded when running with three load conditions (light, ～6 kg, medium, 15% BW, and heavy, 30% BW). Subject-based means for knee biomechanics were calculated and submitted to a RM ANOVA to test the main effects and possible interactions between load and varus thrust group. The varus thrust group exhibited greater varus thrust (p = .001) and peak stance (PS, 0–100%) knee adduction (p = .009) posture compared to the control group with the light load, but not for the medium (p = .741 and p = .825) or heavy loads (p = .142 and p = .429). With the heavy load, varus thrust group reduced varus thrust (p = .023), whereas, the control group increased varus thrust (p = .037) compared to the light load, and increased PS knee adduction moment compared to light (p = .006) and medium loads (p = .031). The varus thrust group, however, exhibited no significant difference in knee adduction moment between any load (p = .174). With the addition of body borne load, varus thrust participants exhibited a significant reduction in knee biomechanics related to OA; whereas, control participants adopted knee biomechanics, including greater varus thrust and knee adduction moment, related to the development of OA. |
| |
| Keywords: | Biomechanics Kinematics Kinetics Load carriage Osteoarthritis |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
