Analysis of Landing Error Scoring System during Drop Vertical Jump on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk Factors in Elite Fencers

Ji Hoon Cho; Jinwook Chung; Ki Hyuk Lee; Bee-Oh Lim

doi:10.5763/kjsm.2018.36.3.107

Journal List > Korean J Sports Med > v.36(3) > 1100791

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Cho, Chung, Lee, and Lim: Analysis of Landing Error Scoring System during Drop Vertical Jump on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk Factors in Elite Fencers

Clinical Article

Korean J Sports Med 2018;36(3):107-117.

Published online: 17 January 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5763/kjsm.2018.36.3.107

Analysis of Landing Error Scoring System during Drop Vertical Jump on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Risk Factors in Elite Fencers

Ji Hoon Cho¹, Jinwook Chung², Ki Hyuk Lee³, Bee-Oh Lim⁴

¹Department of Sports and Leisure Studies, Shingyeong University, Hwaseong

²Department of Sports Culture, Dongguk University, Seoul

³Department of Sport Science, Korea Institute of Sports Science, Seoul

⁴Department of Physical Education, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Bee-Oh Lim Department of Physical Education, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06974, Korea Tel: +82-2-820-5121, Fax: +82-2-872-2867, E-mail: bolim@cau.ac.kr

Received 22 February 2018 Revised 20 July 2018 Accepted 3 August 2018

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

Purpose

The aim of this study was to identify the differences of gender and detail items by using landing error scores during drop vertical jumping that can be used in the field for elite fencers and to use them as basic data for prevention of injury.

Methods

The subjects were 42 elite fencers. Independent sample t-test was used to compare the landing error scoring system (LESS) score between the groups. In order to compensate for errors that may occur in multiple comparisons, they are corrected through the Bonferroni collection. The significant differences between the groups were evaluated using Cohen effect difference, and one-way analysis of variance was performed for differences in epee, fleuret, and sabre.

Results

The comparison of landing error scores between male and female fencer groups showed that the knee valgus angle at initial contact, lateral trunk flexion angle at initial contact, stance width-narrow, foot position-toe out, symmetric initial foot contact, in the total score of LESS items, female fencer group was higher and statistically significant difference was found.

Conclusion

In the case of fencing players, there is no significant difference in the LESS scores according to the items. However, when comparing gender, female fencers have higher LESS scores than male fencers; female fencers should be more careful in preventing injuries.

Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament, Fencer, Injury risk factors, Landing error scoring system

REFERENCES

1. Roi GS, Bianchedi D. The science of fencing: implications for performance and injury prevention. Sports Med. 2008; 38:465–81.

2. Chung JW, Kim TW, Woo SS, Lee O. Examination of physique and fitness in elite national fencing athletes. Kinesiology. 2016; 18:19–31.

3. Harmer PA. Incidence and characteristics of time-loss injuries in competitive fencing: a prospective, 5-year study of national competitions. Clin J Sport Med. 2008; 18:137–42.

4. Murgu AI, Buschbacher R. Fencing. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2006; 17:725–36.

5. Choi IA, Lim BO. Difference in lower extremity landing biomechanics between male and female ballet dancers during the box drop landing. Korean J Sport Biomech. 2009; 19:647–53.

6. Ford KR, Shapiro R, Myer GD, Van Den Bogert AJ, Hewett TE. Longitudinal sex differences during landing in knee abduction in young athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42:1923–31.

7. Chappell JD, Yu B, Kirkendall DT, Garrett WE. A comparison of knee kinetics between male and female recreational athletes in stop-jump tasks. Am J Sports Med. 2002; 30:261–7.

8. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes. Part 1: mechanisms and risk factors. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34:299–311.

9. Arendt YD, Kerschbaumer F. Injury and overuse pattern in professional ballet dancers. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2003; 141:349–56.

10. Griffin LY, Agel J, Albohm MJ, et al. Noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: risk factors and prevention strategies. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000; 8:141–50.

11. Padua DA, Marshall SW, Boling MC, et al. The landing error scoring system (LESS) is a valid and reliable clinical assessment tool of jump-landing biomechanics: The JUMP-ACL study. Am J ports Med. 2009; 37:1996–2002.

12. Smith HC, Johnson RJ, Shultz SJ, et al. A prospective evaluation of the landing error scoring system (LESS) as a screening tool for anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40:521–6.

13. Shimokochi Y, Shultz SJ. Mechanisms of noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Athl Train. 2008; 43:396–408.

14. Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD, Fleckenstein C, Walsh C, West J. The drop-jump screening test: difference in lower limb control by gender and effect of neuromuscular training in female athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33:197–207.

15. Lee GS, Lim BO. Effects of landing tasks on the anterior cruciate ligament injury risk factors in female basketball players. Korean J Sport Biomech. 2014; 24:385–90.

16. Cho JH, An KO, Cho EO, Lim BO. Analysis of landing error scoring system during drop vertical jump on anterior cruciate ligament injury risk factors in female ballet dancers and female soccer players. Korean J Sports Med. 2015; 33:88–95.

17. Hewett TE, Ford KR, Hoogenboom BJ, Myer GD. Understanding and preventing acl injuries: current biomechanical and epidemiologic considerations. Update 2010. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2010; 5:234–51.

Fig. 1.

Composition of landing error scoring system.

Table 1.

Physical characteristics of subjects

Group	Number	Age (yr)	Height (cm)	Weight (kg)	Body fat (%)
Male
Sabre	7	26.14±5.58	183.11±6.01	78.47±8.50	14.75±2.09
Fleuret	7	26.71±3.77	176.12±6.37	67.94±8.92	11.90±2.13
Epee	7	27.28±5.05	181.95±6.00	80.34±7.88	15.08±1.88
Total	21	26.71±4.63	180.40±6.60	75.58±9.77	13.91±2.42
Female
Sabre	7	25.57±2.14	166.50±2.49	57.54±3.47	20.92±1.79
Fleuret	7	28.28±4.34	160.48±3.34	52.44±4.76	19.02±2.04
Epee	7	27.14±3.57	169.14±5.84	63.57±3.63	21.61±2.54
Total	21	27.00±3.49	165.37±5.40	57.85±6.00	20.52±2.32

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 2.

Evaluation standard of landing error scoring system

Sagittal view	Frontal view
Hip-flexion angle at contact: hips are flexed (yes, 0; no, 1)	Lateral (side) trunk flexion at contact: trunk is flexed (yes, 1; no, 0)
Trunk-flexion angle at contact: trunk in front of hips (yes, 0; no, 1)	Knee-valgus angle at contact: knees over midfoot (yes, 1; no, 0)
Knee-flexion angle at contact: greater than 30^o (yes, 0; no, 1)	Knee-valgus displacement: knees inside of large toe (yes, 1; no, 0)
Ankle plantar-flexion angle at contact: toe to heel (yes, 0; no, 1)	Foot position at contact: toes pointing out ＞30^o (yes, 1; no, 0)
Hip flexion at maximum knee-flexion angle: greater than at contact (yes, 0; no, 1)	Foot position at contact: toes pointing out ＜30^o (yes, 1; no, 0)
Trunk flexion at maximum knee flexion: trunk in front of hips (yes, 0; no, 1)	Stance width at contact: ＜shoulder width (yes, 1; no, 0)
Knee-flexion displacement: ＞30^o (yes, 0; no, 1)	Stance width at contact: ＞shoulder width (yes, 1; no, 0)
Sagittal-plane joint displacement (large motion [soft], 0; average motion, 1; small motion [loud/stiff], 2)	Initial foot contact: symmetric (yes, 0; no, 1) Overall impression (Excellent, 0; average, 1; poor, 2)

Table 3.

Comparison between male and female groups

	Classification	Male (n=21)	Female (n=21)	t	p-value
LESS 1	Knee flexion angle at initial contact	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-	-
LESS 2	Hip flexion angle at initial contact	0.09±0.30	0.09±0.30	0.000	1.000
LESS 3	Trunk flexion angle at initial contact	0.00±0.00	0.09±0.30	−1.451	0.155
LESS 4	Toe to heel or heel to toe landing	0.09±0.30	0.09±0.30	0.000	1.000
LESS 5	Knee valgus angle at initial contact	0.04±0.21	0.38±0.49	−2.811	0.008^∗
LESS 6	Lateral trunk flexion angle at initial contact	0.61±0.49	0.95±0.21	−2.811	0.008^∗
LESS 7	Stance width: wide	0.19±0.40	0.47±0.51	−2.011	0.51
LESS 8	Stance width: narrow	0.33±0.48	0.85±0.35	−3.990	0.000^∗
LESS 9	Foot position: toe In	0.04±0.21	0.09±0.30	−0.587	0.560
LESS 10	Foot position: toe Out	0.19±0.40	0.80±0.40	−4.987	0.000^∗
LESS 11	Symmetric initial foot contact	0.47±0.51	0.95±0.30	2.941	0.005^∗
LESS 12	Knee flexion displacement	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-	-
LESS 13	Hip flexion at max knee flexion	0.00±0.00	0.14±0.35	−1.826	0.075
LESS 14	Trunk flexion at max knee flexion	0.04±0.21	0.09±0.30	−0.587	0.560
LESS 15	Knee valgus displacement	0.33±0.48	0.90±0.30	−4.602	0.000^∗
LESS 16	Joint displacement	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-	-
LESS 17	Overall impression	0.00±0.00	0.00±0.00	-	-

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. LESS: landing error scoring system.

^∗ p＜0.05.

Table 4.

Comparison between in sabre, fleuret, and epee by gender group

Classification	Group	Mean±SD	t	p-value
Total score of LESS	Male	2.47±1.40	−6.760	0.000^∗
	Female	5.09±1.09

SD: standard deviation, LESS: landing error scoring system.

^∗ p＜0.05.

Table 5.

Comparison between in sabre, fleuret, and epee by male group

Classification	Group	Mean±SD	F	Significance
LESS 1	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 2	Sabre	0.00±0.00	2.400	0.119
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.28±4.48
LESS 3	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 4	Sabre	0.00±0.00	2.400	0.119
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.28±0.48
LESS 5	Sabre	0.00±0.00	1.000	0.387
	Fleuret	0.14±0.37
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 6	Sabre	0.85±0.37	1.400	0.272
	Fleuret	0.42±0.53
	Epee	0.57±0.53
LESS 7	Sabre	0.28±0.48	0.273	0.764
	Fleuret	0.14±0.37
	Epee	0.14±0.37
LESS 8	Sabre	0.28±0.48	0.188	0.831
	Fleuret	0.42±0.53
	Epee	0.28±0.48
LESS 9	Sabre	0.00±0.00	1.000	0.387
	Fleuret	0.14±0.37
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 10	Sabre	0.28±0.48	0.231	0.796
	Fleuret	0.28±0.48
	Epee	0.14±0.37
LESS 11	Sabre	0.42±0.53	1.313	0.294
	Fleuret	0.28±0.48
	Epee	0.71±0.48
LESS 12	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 13	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 14	Sabre	0.00±0.00	1.000	0.387
	Fleuret	0.14±0.37
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 15	Sabre	0.42±0.53	0.800	0.465
	Fleuret	0.14±0.37
	Epee	0.42±0.53
LESS 16	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 17	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00

SD: standard deviation, LESS: landing error scoring system.

Table 6.

Comparison between in sabre, fleuret and epee by male group

Classification	Group	Mean±SD	F	Significance
Total score of LESS	Sabre	2.57±0.97	0.413	0.668
	Fleuret	2.14±1.77
	Epee	2.85±1.57

SD: standard deviation, LESS: landing error scoring system.

Table 7.

Comparison between in sabre, fleuret and epee by female group

Classification	Group	Mean±SD	F	Significance
LESS 1	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 2	Sabre	0.00±0.00	2.400	0.119
	Fleuret	0.48±0.18
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 3	Sabre	0.00±0.00	2.400	0.119
	Fleuret	0.48±0.18
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 4	Sabre	0.14±0.37	0.500	0.615
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.14±0.37
LESS 5	Sabre	0.48±0.18	0.750	0.487
	Fleuret	0.53±0.20
	Epee	0.49±0.10
LESS 6	Sabre	0.00±0.00	1.000	0.387
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.37±0.14
LESS 7	Sabre	0.48±0.18	1.313	0.294
	Fleuret	0.48±0.18
	Epee	0.53±0.20
LESS 8	Sabre	0.48±0.18	1.125	0.346
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.37±0.14
LESS 9	Sabre	0.53±0.20	2.571	0.104
	Fleuret	0.37±0.14
	Epee	0.48±0.18
LESS 10	Sabre	0.37±0.14	0.273	0.764
	Fleuret	0.48±0.18
	Epee	0.37±0.14
LESS 11	Sabre	0.00±0.00	0.500	0.615
	Fleuret	0.37±0.14
	Epee	0.37±0.14
LESS 12	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 13	Sabre	0.00±0.00	1.125	0.346
	Fleuret	0.37±0.14
	Epee	0.48±0.18
LESS 14	Sabre	0.00±0.00	0.500	0.615
	Fleuret	0.37±0.14
	Epee	0.37±0.14
LESS 15	Sabre	0.37±0.14	0.231	0.796
	Fleuret	0.48±0.18
	Epee	0.48±0.18
LESS 16	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00
LESS 17	Sabre	0.00±0.00	-	-
	Fleuret	0.00±0.00
	Epee	0.00±0.00

SD: standard deviation, LESS: landing error scoring system.

Table 8.

Comparison between in sabre, fleuret and epee by female group

Classification	Group	Mean±SD	F	Significance
Total score of LESS	Sabre	4.57±1.13	1.783	0.197
	Fleuret	5.42±1.81
	Epee	5.42±1.81

SD: standard deviation, LESS: landing error scoring system.

TOOLS

Similar articles