Kinematic Analysis of Lower Extremity Joint Movements during Sidestep at Different Sidestep Speeds

Young In Choi; Jung Suk Roh

doi:10.5763/kjsm.2016.34.1.57

Journal List > Korean J Sports Med > v.34(1) > 1054578

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi and Roh: Kinematic Analysis of Lower Extremity Joint Movements during Sidestep at Different Sidestep Speeds

Clinical Article

Korean J Sports Med 2016;34(1):57-64.

Published online: 19 January 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5763/kjsm.2016.34.1.57

Kinematic Analysis of Lower Extremity Joint Movements during Sidestep at Different Sidestep Speeds

Young In Choi, Jung Suk Roh

Department of Physical Therapy, The Graduate School, Hanseo University, Seosan, Korea

Correspondence: Jung Suk Roh Department of Physical Therapy, The Graduate School, Hanseo University, 46 Hanseo 1-ro, Haemi-myeon, Seosan 31962, Korea Tel: +82-41-660-1385, Fax: +82-41-660-1149 E-mail: rrohjs@hanseo.ac.kr

Received 15 October 2015 Revised 14 November 2015 Accepted 15 November 2015

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

The purpose of this study were to examine the effects of the speed of sidestep in a specific direction on the kinematic variables of the lower extremities and to provide basic information on sidestep. The subjects of this study were eight students at Hanseo University who did not have a problem in lower extremity alignment. Biomechanical data were collected using a motion analysis system and force plate and Kruskal-Wallis test was performed in order to test differences according to speed. The results of this study were as follow. First, as to hip joint angle according to speed, when the speed increased, in the sagittal view, the maximum flexion angle decreased, the range of motion (ROM) decreased, and the flexion angle at the highest ground reaction force decreased, and in the transverse view, the internal rotation angle at the highest ground reaction force increased. Second, as to knee joint angle according to speed, when the speed increased, in the sagittal view, the maximum flexion angle decreased, the ROM decreased, and the flexion angle at the highest ground reaction force decreased, and in the coronal view, the maximum varus angle decreased, and the ROM decreased. Third, as to ankle joint angle according to speed, when the speed increased, in the sagittal view, the ROM decreased, and the dorsiflexion angle at the highest ground reaction force decreased, and in the coronal view, the minimum inversion angle increased. This suggests that high-speed sidestep during a game increases the risk of injury and degenerative arthritis among athletes.

Keywords: Lower extremity, Genu varum, Kinematics

REFERENCES

1.Sigward S., Powers CM. The influence of experience on knee mechanics during side-step cutting in females. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006. 21:740–7.

2.Levangie PK., Norkin CC. Joint structure and function: a comprehensive analysis. 5th ed.Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company;2011.

3.Myers CA., Hawkins D. Alterations to movement mechanics can greatly reduce anterior cruciate ligament loading without reducing performance. J Biomech. 2010. 43:2657–64.

4.Boden BP., Dean GS., Feagin JA Jr., Garrett WE Jr. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Orthopedics. 2000. 23:573–8.

5.Krosshaug T., Nakamae A., Boden BP, et al. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury in basketball: video analysis of 39 cases. Am J Sports Med. 2007. 35:359–67.

6.Agel J., Arendt EA., Bershadsky B. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in national collegiate athletic association basketball and soccer: a 13-year review. Am J Sports Med. 2005. 33:524–30.

7.McNair PJ., Marshall RN., Matheson JA. Important features associated with acute anterior cruciate ligament injury. N Z Med J. 1990. 103:537–9.

8.Conn JM., Annest JL., Gilchrist J. Sports and recreation related injury episodes in the US population, 1997-99. Inj Prev. 2003. 9:117–23.

9.Sahrmann S. Diagnosis and treatment of movement impairment syndromes. St. Louis: Mosby;2002.

10.Suda EY., Sacco IC. Altered leg muscle activity in volleyball players with functional ankle instability during a sideward lateral cutting movement. Phys Ther Sport. 2011. 12:164–70.

11.Cortes N., Onate J., Van Lunen B. Pivot task increases knee frontal plane loading compared with sidestep and drop-jump. J Sports Sci. 2011. 29:83–92.

12.Stearns KM., Pollard CD. Abnormal frontal plane knee mechanics during sidestep cutting in female soccer athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport. Am J Sports Med. 2013. 41:918–23.

13.McLean SG., Huang X., van den Bogert AJ. Association between lower extremity posture at contact and peak knee valgus moment during sidestepping: implications for ACL injury. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005. 20:863–70.

14.Kim MY. Effects of puberty on and post of female on the lower extremity kinematic and kinetic variables during the side-step maneuver. J Sport Leisure Stud. 2010. 42:965–73.

15.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.

16.Weinhandl JT., Earl-Boehm JE., Ebersole KT., Huddleston WE., Armstrong BS., O'Connor KM. Reduced hamstring strength increases anterior cruciate ligament loading during anticipated sidestep cutting. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014. 29:752–9.

17.Sigward SM., Powers CM. The influence of gender on knee kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation patterns during side-step cutting. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006. 21:41–8.

18.Sanna G., O'Connor KM. Fatigue-related changes in stance leg mechanics during sidestep cutting maneuvers. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2008. 23:946–54.

19.Weinhandl JT., Earl-Boehm JE., Ebersole KT., Huddleston WE., Armstrong BS., O'Connor KM. Anticipatory effects on anterior cruciate ligament loading during sidestep cutting. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2013. 28:655–63.

20.Dempsey AR., Lloyd DG., Elliott BC., Steele JR., Munro BJ. Changing sidestep cutting technique reduces knee valgus loading. Am J Sports Med. 2009. 37:2194–200.

21.Houck JR., Duncan A., De Haven KE. Comparison of frontal plane trunk kinematics and hip and knee moments during anticipated and unanticipated walking and side step cutting tasks. Gait Posture. 2006. 24:314–22.

22.Lee SY., Lee SM., Choi JY. The influence of landing style on the shock-absorbing mechanism of the lower extremity. Korean J Sport Biomech. 2001. 10:77–97.

23.Chung MJ., Wang MJ. The change of gait parameters during walking at different percentage of preferred walking speed for healthy adults aged 20-60 years. Gait Posture. 2010. 31:131–5.

24.Atnip BL., McCrory JL. The effect of cryotherapy on three dimensional ankle kinematics during a sidestep cutting maneuver. J Sports Sci Med. 2004. 3:83–90.

25.Kwon MS., Kim SK. Effect of flexion-extension of hip joint difference in lower extremity angular motion and joint moment during landing. Korean J Phys Educ. 2011. 50:225–34.

26.Markolf KL., Burchfield DM., Shapiro MM., Shepard MF., Finerman GA., Slauterbeck JL. Combined knee loading states that generate high anterior cruciate ligament forces. J Orthop Res. 1995. 13:930–5.

27.Shepherd RB. Exercise and training to optimize functional motor performance in stroke: driving neural reorganization? Neural Plast. 2001. 8:121–9.

28.Self BP., Paine D. Ankle biomechanics during four landing techniques. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001. 33:1338–44.

29.Kuroyanagi Y., Nagura T., Kiriyama Y, et al. A quantitative assessment of varus thrust in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. Knee. 2012. 19:130–4.

Fig. 1.

Anatomical Landmark (plug-in gait marker set). RASI: right anterior superior iliac spine, LASI: left anterior superior iliac spine, RTHI: right thigh, LTHI: left thigh, RKNE: right knee, LKNE: left knee, RTIB: right tibia, LTIB: left tibia, RANK: right ankle, LANK: left ankle, RTOE: right toe, LTOE: left toe, RHEE: right heel, LHEE: left heel.

Table 1.

Comparison of angle of hip joint during different speed sidestep

Speed	Number	Maximum (^o)	Minimum (^o)	Range (^o)	GRF_max (^o)
Sagittal
1	8	36.96±3.48	15.19±4.47	21.77±3.31	33.13±6.88
2	8	34.32±7.32	13.80±3.99	20.52±4.25	30.28±8.27
3	8	28.17±7.52	13.26±5.33	14.91±5.56	24.94±5.32
p-value		0.004	0.528	0.006	0.004
Frontal
1	8	−32.83±2.21	−1.88±1.31	30.95±2.71	−21.83±4.91
2	8	−32.52±2.66	−1.31±1.31	31.21±2.92	−20.49±5.18
3	8	−31.79±2.87	−1.08±1.99	30.78±2.37	−19.60±4.26
p-value		0.515	0.579	0.816	0.601
Transverse
1	8	37.22±17.22	23.63±13.95	13.59±4.87	16.18±3.06
2	8	40.74±15.05	25.88±15.14	14.85±4.01	25.21±7.76
3	8	41.22±16.35	26.92±14.53	14.30±3.87	27.21±10.99
p-value		0.876	0.825	0.711	0.004

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. p＜0.05. GRF_max: maximum ground reaction force, 1: slow speed, 2: moderate speed, 3: fast speed.

Table 2.

Comparison of angle of knee joint during different speed sidestep

Speed	Number	Maximum (^o)	Minimum (^o)	Range (^o)	GRF_max (^o)
Sagittal
1	8	44.35±12.04	6.05±5.30	38.30±8.00	42.38±11.68
2	8	37.09±14.90	6.23±5.44	30.86±10.80	36.02±14.39
3	8	34.52±14.50	5.70±6.52	28.83±9.39	28.77±10.40
p-value		0.008	0.926	0.013	0.005
Frontal
1	8	36.54±3.19	21.49±2.53	15.05±5.09	36.38±2.75
2	8	33.12±2.29	21.73±2.94	11.38±3.92	34.41±3.68
3	8	31.98±4.98	24.10±4.04	8.65±2.07	33.29±2.60
p-value		0.014	0.184	0.002	0.050
Transverse
1	8	−23.92±2.01	3.79±4.56	27.71±5.80	4.80±5.33
2	8	−23.60±3.24	4.19±6.33	27.79±7.66	3.40±5.91
3	8	−22.43±4.27	5.87±6.18	28.30±9.17	3.80±5.42
p-value		0.141	0.087	0.970	0.556

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. p＜0.05. GRF_max: maximum ground reaction force, 1: slow speed, 2: moderate speed, 3: fast speed.

Table 3.

Comparison of angle of ankle joint during different speed sidestep

Speed	Number	Maximum (^o)	Minimum (^o)	Range (^o)	GRF_max (^o)
Sagittal
1	8	34.76±6.97	−13.65±9.06	48.41±3.09	34.52±7.61
2	8	30.43±6.24	−13.00±7.81	43.44±3.83	30.83±6.46
3	8	31.46±8.82	−11.54±7.67	43.01±3.66	28.06±4.50
p-value		0.131	0.540	0.001	0.038
Frontal
1	8	−9.43±3.59	−3.44±1.90	5.99±3.40	−8.78±2.52
2	8	−9.77±3.13	−3.75±2.23	6.02±3.47	−9.45±2.72
3	8	−10.26±3.30	−4.74±1.45	5.51±3.30	−9.48±3.06
p-value		0.593	0.049	0.752	0.878
Transverse
1	8	−36.32±7.16	−15.29±7.59	21.03±6.72	−34.72±5.16
2	8	−37.00±7.13	−16.79±8.94	20.21±8.31	−35.90±6.22
3	8	−38.36±5.96	−20.74±5.80	17.62±6.72	−36.19±5.73
p-value		0.593	0.063	0.201	0.702

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. p＜0.05. GRF_max: maximum ground reaction force, 1: slow speed, 2: moderate speed, 3: fast speed.

TOOLS

Similar articles