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

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

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.

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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
13. Shimokochi Y, Shultz SJ. Mechanisms of noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Athl Train. 2008; 43:396–408.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
crossref
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.
kjsm-36-107f1.tif
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 30o (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 >30o (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 <30o (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: >30o (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