Bilateral differences in knee and ankle loading of the support limb during maximal instep soccer kicking

A Narrative Review of Limb Dominance: Task Specificity and the Importance of Fitness Testing

ABSTRACT

Virgile, A and Bishop, C. A narrative review of limb dominance: Task specificity and the importance of fitness testing. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 846-858, 2021-Preferential limb function must be sustained through repetitious asymmetrical activities for continuous athletic development and, ultimately, optimal athletic performance. As such, the prevalence of limb dominance and between-limb differences is common in athletes. Severe between-limb differences have been associated with reductions in athletic performance and increased injury risk in athletes. However, in the current literature, the terms limb preference and limb dominance have been used interchangeably. Together, these terms include a limb that is subjectively preferred and one that is objectively dominant in 1 or more performance measures from a variety of athletic tasks. In this review, we (a) discuss reported correspondence between task-specific limb preference and limb dominance outcomes in athletes, (b) provide greater context and distinction between the terms limb preference and limb dominance, and (c) offer pragmatic strategies for practitioners to assess context-specific limb dominance. A limb that is subjectively preferred is not necessarily objectively dominant in 1 or more athletic qualities or sport-specific tasks. Further to this, a limb that is objectively superior in 1 task may not exhibit such superiority in a separate task. Thus, limb preference and limb dominance are both task-specific. As such, we propose that practitioners intentionally select tasks for limb dominance assessment which resemble the most relevant demands of sport. Because limb dominance profiles are inconsistent, we suggest that practitioners increase assessment frequency by integrating limb dominance testing into standard training activities. This will allow practitioners to better understand when changes reflect sport-specific adaptation vs. potential performance or injury ramifications.

Concurrent validation of an inertial measurement system to quantify kicking biomechanics in four football codes

Wearable inertial measurement systems (IMS) allow for three-dimensional analysis of human movements in a sport-specific setting. This study examined the concurrent validity of a IMS (Xsens MVN system) for measuring lower extremity and pelvis kinematics in comparison to a Vicon motion analysis system (MAS) during kicking. Thirty footballers from Australian football (n = 10), soccer (n = 10), rugby league and rugby union (n = 10) clubs completed 20 kicks across four conditions. Concurrent validity was assessed using a linear mixed-modelling approach, which allowed the partition of between and within-subject variance from the device measurement error. Results were expressed in raw and standardised units for assessments of differences in means and measurement error, and interpreted via non-clinical magnitude-based inferences. Trivial to small differences were found in linear velocities (foot and pelvis), angular velocities (knee, shank and thigh), sagittal joint (knee and hip) and segment angle (shank and pelvis) means (mean difference: 0.2-5.8%) between the IMS and MAS in Australian football, soccer and the rugby codes. Trivial to small measurement errors (from 0.1 to 5.8%) were found between the IMS and MAS in all kinematic parameters. The IMS demonstrated acceptable levels of concurrent validity compared to a MAS when measuring kicking biomechanics across the four football codes. Wearable IMS offers various benefits over MAS, such as, out-of-laboratory testing, larger measurement range and quick data output, to help improve the ecological validity of biomechanical testing and the timing of feedback. The results advocate the use of IMS to quantify biomechanics of high-velocity movements in sport-specific settings.

Methods to assess patellofemoral joint stress: A systematic review

Changes in patellofemoral joint (PFJ) stress are related to the development and course of PFJ dysfunctions. Different methods for PFJ stress calculation have been used, making the comparison of PFJ stress values across different studies difficult. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the methods for PFJ stress calculation and highlight the differences among the methods. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science databases. Included studies examined PFJ stress in subjects with or without musculoskeletal conditions. Of 12,670 identified studies, 53 were included, with a total of 1134 subjects evaluated. The main differences among the methods to calculate PFJ stress were: i) method to calculate PFJ contact area; ii) method to calculate a constant (coefficient k) that defines the relation between quadriceps force and PFJ reaction force; iii) the inclusion of adjustments for sagittal plane forces. Considerable variability in PFJ stress results was observed. The greatest PFJ stress value was 55.03 MPa during a dance jump and the lowest value was 1.9 MPa during walking at the speed of 1.4 m/s. Most studies applied methods which use data from previous studies. However, methods which use data from their own participants for most parts of the calculation might be preferred to minimize potential errors. When direct measures are not possible, a standard method could be applied to facilitate comparisons among studies.