Landing Technique Improvements After an Aquatic-Based Neuromuscular Training Program in Physically Active Women

Effect of Footwear Versus Barefoot on Double-Leg Jump-Landing and Jump Height Measures: A Randomized Cross-Over Study

Background

Assessing individuals in their own athletic footwear in clinics is common, but can affect movement, performance, and clinical measures.

Purpose

The aim was to compare overall Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores, injury risk categorization, specific LESS errors, and jump heights between habitual athletic footwear and barefoot conditions.

Study design

Randomized cross-over laboratory study.

Methods

Eighty healthy individuals (55% male) completed the LESS following standard procedures (i.e., land from a 30-cm box to a distance of 50% of body height and then jump upwards maximally). Participants performed the LESS three times in two randomized conditions: footwear and barefoot. LESS data were extracted from 2D videos to compare group-level mean LESS scores, group-level and individual-level injury risk categorization (5-error threshold), specific landing errors, and jump heights between conditions.

Results

LESS scores were significantly greater (0.3 errors, p=0.022) and jump heights were significantly lower (0.6 cm, p=0.029) in footwear than barefoot, but differences were trivial (d = 0.18 and -0.07, respectively) and not clinically meaningful. Although the number of high injury-risk participants was not statistically different at a group level (p=1.000); 27 individuals (33.8%) exhibited a clinically meaningful difference between conditions of one error or more in LESS score, categorization was inconsistent for 16.3% of individuals, and four of the 17 landing errors significantly differed between conditions.

Conclusion

At a group level, habitual athletic footwear does not meaningfully influence LESS scores, risk categorization, or jump height. At an individual level, footwear can meaningfully affect LESS scores, risk categorization, and alter landing strategies. Use of consistent protocol and footwear is advised for assessing movement patterns and injury risk from the LESS given the unknown predictive value of this test barefoot.

Level of Evidence

Level 3.©The Author(s).

The Effectiveness of Aquatic Plyometric Training in Improving Strength, Jumping, and Sprinting: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Aquatic plyometric training may provide benefits due to reduced joint loading compared with land plyometric training; however, the reduced loading may also limit performance gains.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effect of aquatic plyometric training on strength, performance outcomes, soreness, and adverse events in healthy individuals.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Five databases were searched from inception to June 2020. Quality assessment and data extraction were independently completed by 2 investigators. When similar outcome measures were used, standardized mean differences were calculated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 19 randomized controlled trials with 633 participants (mean age, range 14-30 y) were included. Aquatic plyometric training was most commonly performed in waist to chest deep water (12/19 studies), 2 to 3 times per week for 6 to 12 weeks (18/19 studies), with final program foot contacts ranging from 120 to 550. Meta-analyses were not completed due to the clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies. Compared with land plyometric training, aquatic plyometric training exercises and dosage were replicated (15/16 studies) and showed typically similar performance gains (3/4 knee extensor strength measures, 2/4 leg extensor strength measures, 3/4 knee flexor strength measures, 7/10 vertical jump measures, 3/3 sprint measures). In total, 2 of 3 studies monitoring muscle soreness reported significantly less soreness following training in water compared with on land. Compared with no active training (no exercise control group or passive stretching), most effect sizes demonstrated a mean improvement favoring aquatic plyometric training (23/32 measures). However, these were not significant for the majority of studies measuring isokinetic knee strength, vertical jump, and sprinting. The effect sizes for both studies assessing leg press strength indicated that aquatic plyometric training is significantly more effective than no training.

CONCLUSION

Aquatic plyometric training appears similarly effective to land plyometric exercise for improving strength, jumping, and sprinting and may be indicated when joint impact loading needs to be minimized. However, the low quality of studies limits the strength of the conclusions.

Factors influencing the Landing Error Scoring System: Systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Systematically review the literature addressing age, sex, previous injury, and intervention program as influencing factors of the Landing Error Scoring System.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Three databases (PubMed, Web of Science®, and Scopus®) were searched on 1 April 2020. Original studies using the Landing Error Scoring System as primary outcome and exploring age, sex, previous injury, and intervention program were included, assessed for risk of bias, and critically appraised. Three meta-analyses were performed using one random and two mixed effect models with dependent variables: sex, previous injury and intervention program, respectively. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the strength of the evidence. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018107210.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included. Pooled data indicated that females have higher Landing Error Scoring System scores than males (p<0.001, mean difference=0.6 error). Participants with previous anterior cruciate ligament injury have higher LESS scores than healthy controls (p=0.004, mean difference 1.2 error). Neuromuscular training programs lasting a minimum of six weeks and other intervention programs decrease Landing Error Scoring System scores (p<0.001, mean difference 1.2 error and p=0.042, mean difference 0.5 error, respectively). There is limited evidence suggesting that age may influence Landing Error Scoring System scores in clinically meaningful manner. Overall, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation ratings suggest very low strength of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

History of anterior cruciate ligament injury and undertaking neuromuscular training for a minimum of six weeks meaningfully altered Landing Error Scoring System scores. These findings, however, should be interpreted cautiously considering the very low Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation rating of the evidence.

Clinical implications of Landing Error Scoring System calculation methods

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether final Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) scores differ between calculation methods used in literature.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

328 individuals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

LESS scores from 984 drop-jumps were extracted. Final LESS scores were calculated for every participant according to five methods: mean of 3 jumps, 1st jump score, 3rd jump score, best jump score, and sum of errors present in at least 2 jumps. The influence of the calculation method on group mean LESS score and group-level risk categorization using threshold of 5 errors was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equations, with the mean of 3 jumps score set as the reference method. The agreement in individual-level risk categorization was assessed using odds ratios and McNemar's tests.

RESULTS

Compared to the reference, estimated group mean LESS score was 0.92 errors lower (p < 0.001) using the best jump method, as was group-level risk categorization (odds ratio: 0.50, p < 0.001). Individual-level risk categorization between calculation methods was inconsistent for 8-15% of participants compared to the reference method, significantly different from reference for the best jump score method (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Calculation method meaningfully influences final LESS scores and risk categorization.

Is the Landing Error Scoring System Reliable and Valid? A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a clinical tool often used in research and practice to identify athletes presenting high injury-risk biomechanical patterns during a jump-landing task.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature addressing the psychometric properties of the LESS.

DATA SOURCES

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched on March 28, 2018, using the term "Landing Error Scoring System."

STUDY SELECTION

All studies using the LESS as main outcome measure and addressing its reliability, validity against motion capture system, and predictive validity were included. Original English-language studies published in peer-reviewed journals were reviewed. Studies using modified versions of the LESS were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study design, population, LESS testing procedures, LESS scores, statistical analysis, and main results were extracted from studies using a standardized template.

RESULTS

Ten studies met inclusion criteria and were appraised using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. The overall LESS score demonstrated good-to-excellent intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.82-0.99), interrater (ICC, 0.83-0.92), and intersession reliability (ICC, 0.81). The validity of the overall LESS score against 3-dimensional jump-landing biomechanics was good when individuals were divided into 4 quartiles based on LESS scores. The validity of individual LESS items versus 3-dimensional motion capture data was moderate-to-excellent for most of the items addressing key risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. The predictive value of the LESS for ACL and other noncontact lower-extremity injuries remains uncertain based on the current scientific evidence.

CONCLUSION

The LESS is a reliable screening tool. However, further work is needed to improve the LESS validity against motion capture system and confirm its predictive validity for ACL and other noncontact lower-extremity injuries.

Force during functional exercises on land and in water in older adults with and without knee osteoarthritis: Implications for rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Closed kinetic chain and plyometric exercises are commonly used in aquatic rehabilitation because they are believed to reduce joint loading whilst replicating functional tasks. However, the forces and relationship to land-based functional movement is unknown. This study aims to compare vertical ground reaction force during squats, calf raises and jumping in older adults with and without knee osteoarthritis on land and in water.

METHODS

Forty one participants (Healthy n = 21; Knee osteoarthritis n = 20; Age 68.5 (4.4) years) completed squats and calf raises at slow, medium and maximal speeds and jumping at maximal speed on land and in waist and chest depth water. Vertical ground reaction force and pain rating was measured in each environment.

RESULTS

Force in all exercises was significantly greater on land than in chest depth water (p < 0.005). Peak force was significantly greater at maximal speed compared to slow speed (p < 0.001). The pattern of force in squats at slow speed in water was different to on land, with force highest at the start and end of the exercise and decreasing in the central phase. Pain ratings were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in water compared to on land in squats.

CONCLUSIONS

Closed kinetic chain exercises offer inherently different loading in an aquatic environment. Body weight squats and calf raises in water could be defined as either neuromotor or low load, high velocity training. Maximal speed exercise in water produces higher relative load compared to slow speed and minimal pain providing an opportunity for clinicians to use greater speed to address power deficits.