Journal List > Korean J Sports Med > v.29(1) > 1054464

TOOLS
Park, Lee, Lim, Kim, and Lee: Effect of Anticipation and Fatigue on Lower Extremity Joint Loads during Side-cutting in Female Soccer Player
Clinical Article

Korean J Sports Med 2011;29(1):26-36.

Published online: 20 January 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5763/kjsm.2011.29.1.26

Effect of Anticipation and Fatigue on Lower Extremity Joint Loads during Side-cutting in Female Soccer Player

Eun-Jung Park, MS1, Yong-Seuk Lee, MD, PhD2, Bi-O Lim, PhD3, Yong-Woon Kim, PhD4, Ki-Kwang Lee, PhD1

1Department of Sport Science, Kookmin University, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ajou University Hospital, Suwon, Korea

3Department of Physical Education, Chungang University, Seoul, Korea

4Department of Physical Education, Kyungnam University, Changwon, Korea

Received 25 February 2011       Revised 28 March 2011       Accepted 20 May 2011

Copyright © 2011 The Korean Society of Sports Medicine

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

To investigate effect of fatigue and anticipation on lower extremity joint load during a side-cutting maneuver in female collegiate soccer players, thirteen female collegiate soccer players whose right leg dominant participated in this study. Three dimensional motion analysis system and a force plate were used to record the 45o side cutting maneuver. In the first, anticipated and unanticipated cutting were measured in the pre-fatigue condition. Second, participations performed the fatigue protocol by the squat exercise with weight lifting. And then, two different type of cutting task were measured again after fatigue condition. The cutting direction let known before start their running in case of the anticipated cutting, the random signal of cutting direction were presented in the unanticipated condition. In the results, the most influential variable was anticipation factor. Lower limb angles represented significantly flexed posture during unanticipated cutting than anticipated condition. Maximum knee flexion moment represented significantly higher in unanticipated cutting than anticipated cutting. Adduction and internal rotation moment of lower limb joint decreased in unanticipated cutting. Fatigue factor was influenced by the initial contact angles of the ankle joint. Lower limb angles at the initial ground contact indicated more erect posture in post-fatigue condition. The unanticipation factor had more effect on locomotors ability of lower limb in this study. Therefore, the sensory-motor training to adapt to unanticipated situation should be considered for the injury prevention training program.

Keywords: Soccer, Cutting maneuver, Anticipation, Anterior Cruciate Ligament, Joint load

References

1. Agel J, Palmieri-Smith RM, Dick R, Wojtys EM, Marshall SW. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's volleyball injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988–1989 through 2003–2004. J Athl Train. 2007; 42:295–302.
2. Han KH, Lim BO. Mechanism and risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes. Kinesiology. 2009; 11:61–83.
3. Gehring D, Melnyk M, Gollhofer A. Gender and fatigue have influence on knee joint control strategies during landing. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009; 24:82–7.
crossref
4. Beaulieu ML, Lamontagne M, Xu L. Lower limb muscle activity and kinematics of an unanticipated cutting manoeuvre: a gender comparison. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009; 17:968–76.
crossref
5. Borotikar BS, Newcomer R, Koppes R, McLean SG. Combined effects of fatigue and decision making on female lower limb landing postures: central and peripheral contributions to ACL injury risk. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008; 23:81–92.
crossref
6. Ford KR, Myer GD, Toms HE, Hewett TE. Gender differences in the kinematics of unanticipated cutting in young athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005; 37:124–9.
crossref
7. Landry SC, McKean KA, Hubley-Kozey CL, Stanish WD, Deluzio KJ. Gender differences exist in neuromuscular control patterns during the pre-contact and early stance phase of an unanticipated side-cut and cross-cut maneuver in 15–18 years old adolescent soccer players. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2009; 19:e370–9.
crossref
8. Lohmander LS, Ostenberg A, Englund M, Roos H. High prevalence of knee osteoarthritis, pain, and functional limitations in female soccer players twelve years after anterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthritis Rheum. 2004; 50:3145–52.
crossref
9. Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Ackland TR, Cochrane JL. Anticipatory effects on knee joint loading during running and cutting maneuvers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001; 33:1176–81.
crossref
10. James CR, Scheuermann BW, Smith MP. Effects of two neuromuscular fatigue protocols on landing performance. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010; 20:667–75.
crossref
11. Kernozek TW, Torry MR, Iwasaki M. Gender differences in lower extremity landing mechanics caused by neuromuscular fatigue. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36:554–65.
crossref
12. Benjaminse A, Gokeler A, Fleisig GS, Sell TC, Otten B. What is the true evidence for gender-related differences during plant and cut maneuvers? A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19:42–54.
crossref
13. Gerbino PG, Griffin ED, Zurakowski D. Comparison of standing balance between female collegiate dancers and soccer players. Gait Posture. 2007; 26:501–7.
crossref
14. Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Ackland TR. Muscle activation strategies at the knee during running and cutting maneuvers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35:119–27.
crossref
15. Nigg BM, Liu W. The effect of muscle stiffness and damping on simulated impact force peaks during running. J Biomech. 1999; 32:849–56.
crossref
16. Houck J. Muscle activation patterns of selected lower extremity muscles during stepping and cutting tasks. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003; 13:545–54.
crossref
17. Bahr R, Krosshaug T. Understanding injury mechanisms: a key component of preventing injuries in sport. Br J Sports Med. 2005; 39:324–9.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Experimental equipments.
kjsm-29-26f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Fz First and Second Peak and Ground contact time comparison between anticipated cutting (AC) and un-anticipated cutting (UC) in one subject. BW: body weight.
kjsm-29-26f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Fx Peak value and Ground contact time compar-ison between anticipated cutting (AC) and unanticipated cutting (UC) in one subject. BW: body weight.
kjsm-29-26f3.tif
Table 1.
Hip joint angles at each of the event
    Mean (SD) angles of hip joint (o) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
Flx (+)/Ext (−) IC 48.36 50.42 46.68 46.76 ∗0.030 0.201 0.273
    (7.80) (7.81) (8.37) (6.92)      
  Max 54.76 58.39 54.55 56.37 0.205 ∗0.007 0.382
    (8.63) (9.92) (11.69) (8.27)      
  TO –6.30 –7.19 –6.35 –7.18 0.561 0.989 0.966
    (7.81) (8.09) (7.78) (6.88)      
Add (+)/Abd (−) IC –16.57 –18.03 –16.05 –17.35 0.588 0.117 0.917
    (4.74) (4.97) (8.09) (5.72)      
  Max –6.36 –7.09 –5.64 –6.79 0.625 0.342 0.733
    (4.27) (6.21) (5.96) (6.75)      
  TO –22.34 –22.03 –22.36 –21.89 0.941 0.484 0.934
    (3.51) (3.59) (4.71) (4.26)      
Int-Rot (+)/ IC –1.53 2.26 –4.05 –1.59 ∗0.028 †0.006 0.513
Ext-Rot (−)   (9.72) (9.43) (10.02) (10.64)      
  Max 6.38 9.04 7.61 8.32 0.734 0.134 0.231
    (9.12) (8.85) (9.76) (9.88)      
  TO –14.96 –15.63 –14.59 –14.46 0.381 0.740 0.729
    (9.57) (8.06) (8.08) (9.04)      

SD: standard deviation, AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, IC: initial contact, Max: maximum, TO: toe off.∗p＜0.05,

† p＜0.01.

Table 2.
Knee joint angles at each of the event
    Mean (SD) angles of hip joint (o) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
Flx (+)/Ext (−) IC 19.80 21.22 19.36 19.57 0.173 0.155 0.367
    (5.41) (4.74) (4.54) (4.58)      
  Max 56.91 62.91 58.59 62.17 0.690 †0.000 0.337
    (7.68) (6.19) (4.30) (6.76)      
  TO 5.04 5.01 6.91 5.40 0.440 0.444 0.386
    (7.04) (6.39) (4.92) (5.32)      
Add (+)/Abd (−) IC 4.67 3.93 3.47 2.34 †0.008 0.142 0.677
    (4.74) (4.94) (4.18) (4.16)      
  Max –7.33 –9.31 –7.29 –9.29 0.956 †0.004 0.986
    (6.84) (7.69) (7.76) (8.75)      
  TO –0.00 –0.29 –0.52 –0.22 0.507 0.994 0.249
    (3.02) (3.24) (3.06) (3.58)      
Int-Rot (+)/ IC –9.09 –10.05 –9.77 –10.01 0.689 0.381 0.582
Ext-Rot (−)   (6.76) (4.74) (6.60) (6.28)      
  Max 16.13 17.77 17.51 18.02 ∗0.026 ∗0.025 0.267
    (5.10) (5.78) (5.58) (5.09)      
  TO –7.77 –6.46 –6.57 –7.70 0.381 0.740 0.729
    (4.61) (4.41) (3.47) (3.29)      

SD: standard deviation, AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, IC: initial contact, Max: maximum, TO: toe off.∗p＜0.05,

† p＜0.01.

Table 3.
Ankle joint angles at each of the event
    Mean (SD) angles of hip joint (o) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
DF (+)/PF (−) IC –5.14 –0.62 –2.14 –0.78 0.382 0.256 0.195
    (13.92) (17.90) (16.39) (18.20)      
  Max 26.70 29.68 28.58 29.10 0.247 ∗0.010 0.144
    (4.08) (5.17) (4.74) (4.71)      
  TO –28.89 –29.75 –29.69 –30.04 0.565 0.440 0.728
    (5.83) (5.88) (7.47) (5.57)      
Sup (+)/Pro (−) IC 0.49 0.31 –0.21 –0.16 †0.003 0.661 0.400
    (1.47) (1.49) (1.37) (1.57)      
  Max 4.37 3.11 3.18 2.96 0.242 0.187 0.387
    (3.96) (1.85) (2.18) (1.64)      
  TO –1.86 –2.27 –1.84 –2.38 0.754 ∗0.025 0.591
    (1.48) (1.88) (1.35) (1.66)      
Int-Rot (+)/ IC –6.85 –5.85 –2.81 –3.18 ∗0.028 †0.006 0.513
Ext-Rot (−)   (9.15) (9.58) (9.25) (9.61)      
  Max 11.10 13.06 9.84 14.47 0.952 ∗0.046 0.183
    (8.00) (11.42) (7.80) (10.49)      
  TO 7.96 10.48 8.10 11.78 0.516 ∗0.015 0.433
    (6.19) (8.72) (6.39) (7.93)      

SD: standard deviation, AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, IC: initial contact, max: maximum, TO: toe off, DF: dorsi flexion, PF: plantar flexion, Sup: supination, Pro: pronation.∗p＜0.05

† p＜0.01.

Table 4.
Hip joint moments at each of the event
    Mean (SD) moments of hip joint (Nm/kg) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
Flx (+)/Ext (−) IC –0.71 –1.05 –0.59 –0.75 0.240 0.311 0.532
    (0.74) (0.82) (0.72) (0.79)      
  Max 6.26 5.91 5.72 5.71 0.063 0.512 0.186
    (0.99) (1.59) (0.98) (1.27)      
  TO –0.86 –0.78 –0.70 –0.70 0.306 0.628 0.567
    (0.62) (0.35) (0.37) (0.33)      
Add (+)/Abd (−) IC 0.47 0.33 0.39 0.12 0.098 0.095 0.505
    (0.37) (0.45) (0.51) (0.62)      
  Max 1.52 1.31 1.70 1.25 0.440 †0.001 ∗0.015
    (0.38) (0.46) (0.61) (0.53)      
  TO –0.22 –0.28 –0.27 –0.27 0.690 0.566 0.662
    (0.36) (0.34) (0.27) (0.33)      
Int-Rot (+)/ IC 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.365 0.484 0.887
Ext-Rot (−)   (0.03) (0.04) (0.05) (0.07)      
  Max 0.41 0.48 0.38 0.43 0.442 0.229 0.769
    (0.25) (0.30) (0.21) (0.24)      
  TO 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.805 0.882 0.920
    (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.05)      

SD: standard deviation, AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, IC: initial contact, Max: maximum, TO: toe off.∗p＜0.05,

† p＜0.01.

Table 5.
Knee joint moments at each of the event
    Mean (SD) moments of knee joint (Nm/kg) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
Flx (+)/Ext (−) IC –0.13 –0.07 –0.18 –0.23 0.075 0.880 0.423
    (0.21) (0.21) (0.21) (0.30)      
  Max 2.59 2.82 2.72 2.82 0.228 ∗0.032 0.228
    (0.58) (0.57) (0.61) (0.56)      
  TO –0.23 –0.23 –0.18 –0.24 0.689 0.193 0.610
    (0.16) (0.16) (0.20) (0.14)      
Add (+)/Abd (−) IC 0.10 0.01 0.05 –0.05 0.122 ∗0.033 0.771
    (0.08) (0.11) (0.16) (0.20)      
  Max 1.74 1.31 1.73 1.38 0.698 †0.000 0.624
    (0.33) (0.69) (0.46) (0.41)      
  TO –0.10 –0.10 –0.14 –0.11 0.478 0.538 0.567
    (0.19) (0.18) (0.16) (0.16)      
Int-Rot (+)/ IC 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.163 †0.005 0.876
Ext-Rot (−)   (0.04) (0.05) (0.03) (0.04)      
  Max 0.44 0.33 0.39 0.32 0.235 ∗0.010 0.475
    (0.15) (0.15) (0.20) (0.13)      
  TO –0.00 –0.00 –0.01 –0.01 0.460 0.959 0.878
    (0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.05)      

SD: standard deviation, AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, IC: initial contact, Max: maximum, TO: toe off.∗p＜0.05,

† p＜0.01.

Table 6.
Ankle joint moments at each of the event
    Mean (SD) moments of ankle joint (Nm/kg) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
DF (+)/PF (−) IC –0.03 –0.06 –0.01 –0.02 0.311 0.538 0.771
    (0.10) (0.06) (0.12) (0.11)      
  Max 3.08 2.77 3.15 2.85 0.096 †0.001 0.948
    (0.44) (0.34) (0.54) (0.35)      
  TO 0.01 –0.04 –0.05 –0.05 ∗0.028 0.072 0.139
    (0.08) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04)      
Sup (+)/Pro (−) IC 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.231 0.585 0.415
    (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03)   †  
  Max 0.45 0.35 0.47 0.34 0.786 †0.000 0.377
    (0.15) (0.15) (0.18) (0.16)      
  TO 0.00 0.00 –0.00 0.01 0.837 0.573 0.268
    (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01)      
Int-Rot (+)/ IC 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.077 †0.005 0.871
Ext-Rot (−)   (0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04)      
  Max 0.62 0.57 0.63 0.54 0.684 ∗0.014 0.362
    (0.17) (0.16) (0.26) (0.18)      
  TO –0.00 –0.01 –0.02 –0.02 0.373 0.745 0.646
    (0.07) (0.06) (0.07) (0.06)      

SD: standard deviation, AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, IC: initial contact, max: maximum, TO: toe off, DF: dorsi flexion, PF: plantar flexion, Sup: supination, Pro: pronation.∗p＜0.05

† p＜0.01

Table 7.
GRF mean (SD) and significant level
  GRF (%body weight) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
Fx 0.73 (0.14) 0.65 (0.16) 0.76 (0.15) 0.65 (0.16) 0.628 ∗0.011 0.124
Fy 0.92 (0.21) 1.08 (0.39) 1.06 (0.46) 1.10 (0.33) 0.248 0.106 0.370
Fz1 4.28 (0.64) 4.27 (0.92) 4.39 (0.72) 4.30 (0.85) 0.572 0.683 0.584
Fz2 2.73 (0.22) 2.57 (0.29) 2.72 (0.33) 2.55 (0.21) 0.748 †0.008 0.900

GRF: ground reaction force, SD: standard deviation, AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, Fx: mediolateral ground reaction force, Fy: anterioposterior ground reaction force, Fz1: first peak of vertical ground reaction force, Fz2: second peak of vertical ground reaction force.∗p＜0.05,

† p＜0.01.

Table 8.
Ground contact time at each phase
  Ground contact time (s) p-value
Pre-fatigue Post-fatigue F A F∗A
AC UC AC UC
Flx 0.12 (0.02) 0.15 (0.04) 0.13 (0.03) 0.14 (0.02) 0.304 ∗0.012 0.118
Ext 0.15 (0.02) 0.17 (0.03) 0.15 (0.02) 0.17 (0.03) 0.458 †0.002 0.618

AC: anticipated cutting, UC: un-anticipated cutting, F: significant difference within fatigue, A: significant difference within anticipate, F∗A: significant difference within fatigue∗anticipate, Flx: flexion, Ext: extension.∗p＜0.05

† p＜0.01.

TOOLS
Similar articles