Gait asymmetry in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables does not increase running-related injury risk in lower limbs: a secondary analysis of a randomised trial including 800+ recreational runners

Objective

To investigate asymmetry in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in 800+ recreational runners, identify determinants of asymmetry, investigate if asymmetry is related to greater running injury risk and compare spatiotemporal and kinetic variables between the involved and uninvolved limb at baseline in runners having sustained an injury during follow-up.

Methods

836 healthy recreational runners (38.6% women) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed at baseline and followed up for 6 months. From ground reaction force recordings, spatiotemporal and kinetic variables were derived for each lower limb. The Symmetry Index was computed for each variable. Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify potential determinants of asymmetry. Cox regression analyses investigated the association between asymmetry and injury risk. Analysis of variance for repeated measures was used to compare the involved and uninvolved limbs in runners who had sustained injuries during follow-up.

Results

107 participants reported at least one running-related injury. Leg length discrepancy and fat mass were the most common determinants of asymmetry, but all correlation coefficients were negligible (0.01-0.13) and explained variance was very low (multivariable-adjusted R2<0.01-0.03). Greater asymmetry for flight time and peak breaking force was associated with lower injury risk (HR (95% CI): 0.80 (0.64 to 0.99) and 0.96 (0.93 to 0.98), respectively). No between-limb differences were observed in runners having sustained an injury.

Conclusion

Gait asymmetry was not associated with higher injury risk for investigated spatiotemporal and kinetic variables.

Trial registration number

NCT03115437.

Reference Values and Determinants of Spatiotemporal and Kinetic Variables in Recreational Runners

Background

Identifying atypical lower limb biomechanics may help prevent the occurrence or recurrence of running-related injuries. No reference values for spatiotemporal or kinetic variables in healthy recreational runners are available in the scientific literature to support clinical management.

Purpose

To (1) present speed- and sex-stratified reference values for spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in healthy adult recreational runners; (2) identify the determinants of these biomechanical variables; and (3) develop reference regression equations that can be used as a guide in a clinical context.

Study Design

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods

This study involved 860 healthy recreational runners (age, 19-65 years [38.5% women]) tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes with either hard or soft cushioning. Twelve common spatiotemporal and kinetic variables-including contact time, flight time, duty factor, vertical oscillation, step cadence, step length, vertical impact peak (VIP), time to VIP, vertical average loading rate, vertical stiffness, peak vertical ground-reaction force (GRF), and peak braking force-were derived from GRF recordings. Reference values for each biomechanical variable were calculated using descriptive statistics and stratified by sex and running speed category (≤7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and ≥15 km/h). Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify potential determinants independently associated with each biomechanical variable and generate reference equations.

Results

The mean running speed was 10.5 ± 1.3 km/h and 9 ± 1.1 km/h in men and women, respectively. While all potential predictors were significantly correlated with many of the 12 biomechanical variables, only running speed showed high correlations (r > 0.7). The adjusted R2 of the multiple regression equations ranged from 0.19 to 0.88.

Conclusion

This study provides reference values and equations that may guide clinicians and researchers in interpreting spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in recreational runners.

Clinical Relevance

The reference values can be used as targets for clinicians working with recreational runners in cases where there is a clinical suspicion of a causal relationship between atypical biomechanics and running-related injury.

Lower impact forces but greater burden for the musculoskeletal system in running shoes with greater cushioning stiffness

In a recent randomised trial investigating running shoe cushioning, injury risk was greater in recreational runners who trained in the shoe version with greater cushioning stiffness (Stiff) compared to those using the Soft version. However, vertical impact peak force (VIPF) was lower in the Stiff version. To investigate further the mechanisms involved in the protective effect of greater cushioning, the present study used an intra-subject design and analysed the differences in running kinematics and kinetics between the Stiff and Soft shoe versions on a subsample of 41 runners from the previous trial. Data were recorded in the two shoe conditions using an instrumented treadmill at 10 km.h^-1. VIPF was confirmed to be lower in the Stiff version compared to the Soft version (1.39 ± 0.25 vs. 1.50 ± 0.25 BW, respectively; p = 0.009, d = 0.42), but not difference was observed in vertical loading rate (p = 0.255 and 0.897 for vertical average and instantaneous loading rate, respectively). Ankle eversion maximal velocity was not different (p = 0.099), but the Stiff version induced greater ankle negative work (-0.55 ± 0.09 vs. -0.52 ± 0.10 J.kg^-1; p = 0.009, d = 0.32), maximal ankle negative power (-7.21 ± 1.90 vs. -6.96 ± 1.92 W.kg^-1; p = 0.037, d = 0.13) and maximal hip extension moment (1.25 ± 0.32 vs.1.18 ± 0.30 N.m.kg^-1; p = 0.009, d = 0.22). Our results suggest that the Stiff shoe version is related to increased mechanical burden for the musculoskeletal system, especially around the ankle joint.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437.

Comparison of landing kinematics and kinetics between experienced and novice volleyball players during block and spike jumps

BACKGROUND

The practice of volleyball requires many jumps. During landing, anterior cruciate ligament injuries may occur with high-risk lower limb kinematics and kinetics. Differences in landing strategies between experienced and novice volleyball players have not been fully explored. The purpose of the study was to compare lower limb kinematics and kinetics in experienced and novice volleyball players when performing volleyball specific jumps.

METHODS

A total of 30 healthy males, 15 experienced and 15 novice volleyball players, participated in the study. Participants performed block and spike jumps at a controlled jump height. Hip, knee and ankle joints angles at initial ground contact and ranges of motion in the sagittal plane, knee joint angles and moments in the frontal plane, vertical ground reaction force peak and loading rate were analyzed to investigate the expertise effect.

RESULTS

Experienced volleyball players landed with larger ankle dorsiflexion range of motion compared to novices. For the spike jump, experienced players landed with larger ankle plantarflexion angles at initial contact and larger ankle dorsiflexion ranges of motion, and for the block jump, they landed with larger knee flexion ranges of motion. Experienced players jumped significantly higher than novices. No difference was found in vertical ground reaction force peaks and loading rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the experienced group jumped higher than the novice group, no difference was found in ground reaction force parameters. These findings highlight that the experience of volleyball players acquired during regular trainings and competitions may play an important role in landing kinematics and kinetics to reduce the injury risk.

Spatiotemporal and Ground-Reaction Force Characteristics as Risk Factors for Running-Related Injury: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial Including 800+ Recreational Runners

BACKGROUND

Running biomechanics may play a role in running-related injury development, but to date, only a few modifiable factors have been prospectively associated with injury risk.

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors among spatiotemporal and ground-reaction force characteristics in recreational runners and to investigate whether shoe cushioning modifies the association between running biomechanics and injury risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Recreational runners (N = 848) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes (with either hard or soft cushioning). Typical kinetic and spatiotemporal metrics were derived from ground-reaction force recordings. Participants were subsequently followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Cox regression models for competing risk were used to investigate the association between biomechanical risk factors and injury risk, including stratified analyses by shoe version.

RESULTS

In the crude analysis, greater injury risk was found for greater step length (subhazard rate ratio [SHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; P = .038), longer flight time (SHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .028), shorter contact time (SHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .030), and lower duty factor (defined as the ratio between contact time and stride time; SHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; P = .005). In the stratified analyses by shoe version, adjusted for previous injury and running speed, lower duty factor was associated with greater injury risk in those using the soft shoes (SHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P = .042) but not in those using the hard shoes (SHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .348).

CONCLUSION

Lower duty factor is an injury risk factor, especially for softer shoe use. Contrary to widespread beliefs, vertical impact peak, loading rate, and step rate were not injury risk factors in recreational runners.

REGISTRATION

NCT03115437 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Relevance of Frequency-Domain Analyses to Relate Shoe Cushioning, Ground Impact Forces and Running Injury Risk: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial With 800+ Recreational Runners

Cushioning systems in running shoes are used assuming that ground impact forces relate to injury risk and that cushioning materials reduce these impact forces. In our recent trial, the more cushioned shoe version was associated with lower injury risk. However, vertical impact peak force was higher in participants with the Soft shoe version. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effect of shoe cushioning on the time, magnitude and frequency characteristics of peak forces using frequency-domain analysis by comparing the two study groups from our recent trial (Hard and Soft shoe group, respectively). The secondary objective was to investigate if force characteristics are prospectively associated with the risk of running-related injury. This is a secondary analysis of a double-blinded randomized trial on shoe cushioning with a biomechanical running analysis at baseline and a 6-month follow-up on running exposure and injury. Participants (n = 848) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in their randomly allocated shoe condition. The vertical ground reaction force signal for each stance phase was decomposed into the frequency domain using the discrete Fourier transform. Both components were recomposed into the time domain using the inverse Fourier transform. An analysis of variance was used to compare force characteristics between the two study groups. Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the association between force characteristics and injury risk. Participants using the Soft shoes displayed lower impact peak force (p < 0.001, d = 0.23), longer time to peak force (p < 0.001, d = 0.25), and lower average loading rate (p < 0.001, d = 0.18) of the high frequency signal compared to those using the Hard shoes. Participants with low average and instantaneous loading rate of the high frequency signal had lower injury risk [Sub hazard rate ratio (SHR) = 0.49 and 0.55; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.25–0.97 and 0.30–0.99, respectively], and those with early occurrence of impact peak force (high frequency signal) had greater injury risk (SHR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.05–2.53). Our findings may explain the protective effect of the Soft shoe version previously observed. The present study also demonstrates that frequency-domain analyses may provide clinically relevant impact force characteristics.

Clinical Trial Registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier: 9NCT03115437.

Effect of shoe cushioning on landing impact forces and spatiotemporal parameters during running: results from a randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners

AbstractIn a recent randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners, injury risk was lower in those who received the Soft shoe version compared to those using the Hard version (Hazard ratio = 1.52; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.07-2.16). Here, we investigated the effect of shoe cushioning on ground reaction forces (GRF) and spatiotemporal parameters in the same cohort, with a special focus on Vertical Impact Peak Force (VIPF) and Vertical Instantaneous Loading Rate (VILR). Healthy runners (n = 848) randomly received one of two shoe prototypes that differed only in their cushioning properties (Global stiffness: 61 ± 3 and 95 ± 6 N/mm in the Soft and Hard versions, respectively). Participants were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed. GRF data was recorded over 2 min. VIPF was higher in the Soft shoe group compared to the Hard shoe group (1.53 ± 0.21 vs. 1.44 ± 0.23 BW, respectively; p < 0.001). However, the proportion of steps with detectable VIPF was lower in the Soft shoe group (84 vs. 97%, respectively; p < 0.001) and Time to VIPF was longer (46.9 ± 8.5 vs. 43.4 ± 7.4 milliseconds, respectively; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed for VILR (60.1 ± 13.8 vs. 58.9 ± 15.6 BW/s for Soft and Hard shoe group, respectively; p = 0.070) or any other kinetic variable. These results show that the beneficial effect of greater shoe cushioning on injury risk in the present cohort is not associated with attenuated VIPF and VILR. These GRF metrics may be inappropriate markers of the shoe cushioning-injury risk relationship, while delayed VIPF and the proportion of steps displaying a VIPF could be more relevant.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437..

Shoe Cushioning Influences the Running Injury Risk According to Body Mass: A Randomized Controlled Trial Involving 848 Recreational Runners

BACKGROUND

Shoe cushioning is expected to protect runners against repetitive loading of the musculoskeletal system and therefore running-related injuries. Also, it is a common belief that heavier runners should use footwear with increased shock absorption properties to prevent injuries.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine if shoe cushioning influences the injury risk in recreational runners and whether the association depends on the runner's body mass.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Healthy runners (n = 848) randomly received 1 of 2 shoe prototypes that only differed in their cushioning properties. Global stiffness was 61.3 ± 2.7 and 94.9 ± 5.9 N/mm in the soft and hard versions, respectively. Participants were classified as light or heavy according to their body mass using the median as a cut-off (78.2 and 62.8 kg in male and female runners, respectively). They were followed over 6 months regarding running activity and injury (any physical complaint reducing/interrupting running activity for at least 7 days). Data were analyzed through time-to-event models with the subhazard rate ratio (SHR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) as measures of association. A stratified analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of shoe cushioning on the injury risk in lighter and heavier runners.

RESULTS

The runners who had received the hard shoes had a higher injury risk (SHR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.07-2.16]), while body mass was not associated with the injury risk (SHR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.99-1.01]). However, after stratification according to body mass, results showed that lighter runners had a higher injury risk in hard shoes (SHR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.09-2.98]) while heavier runners did not (SHR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.75-2.03]).

CONCLUSION

The injury risk was higher in participants running in the hard shoes compared with those using the soft shoes. However, the relative protective effect of greater shoe cushioning was found only in lighter runners.

REGISTRATION

NCT03115437 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

The stiff plate location into the shoe influences the running biomechanics

The changes in running biomechanics induced by an increased longitudinal bending stiffness (stiff plates added into the shoes) have been well investigated, but little is known concerning the effects of the stiff plate location into the shoe on running biomechanics. Fourteen male recreational runners ran at two participant-specific running speeds (3.28 ± 0.28 m/s and 4.01 ± 0.27 m/s) with two shoe conditions where a stiff plate was added either in high (under the insole) or low location (between the midsole and outsole). Ground reaction forces, lower limb joint angles, net joint torques and work, as well as alignment between the resultant ground reaction force and the leg were analysed. Among the running speeds performed by the runners, the high location significantly decreased propulsive ground reaction forces, increased metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion and ankle plantarflexion, induced an increased alignment between the resultant ground reaction force and the runner's leg, thus decreasing all the lower limb joint torques and the positive work at the knee joint compared to the low location. The results suggested that the high stiff plate location into the shoe should be considered for running performance perspectives, but care should be taken to not alter the perceived comfort and/or increase injury risks.

Shoe cushioning, body mass and running biomechanics as risk factors for running injury: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Repetitive loading of the musculoskeletal system is suggested to be involved in the underlying mechanism of the majority of running-related injuries (RRIs). Accordingly, heavier runners are assumed to be at a higher risk of RRI. The cushioning system of modern running shoes is expected to protect runners again high impact forces, and therefore, RRI. However, the role of shoe cushioning in injury prevention remains unclear. The main aim of this study is to investigate the influence of shoe cushioning and body mass on RRI risk, while exploring simultaneously the association between running technique and RRI risk.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This double-blinded randomised controlled trial will involve about 800 healthy leisure-time runners. They will randomly receive one of two running shoe models that will differ in their cushioning properties (ie, stiffness) by ~35%. The participants will perform a running test on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed at baseline. Then they will be followed up prospectively over a 6-month period, during which they will self-report all their sports activities as well as any injury in an internet-based database TIPPS (Training and Injury Prevention Platform for Sports). Cox regression analyses will be used to compare injury risk between the study groups and to investigate the association among training, biomechanical and anatomical risk factors, and injury risk.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the National Ethics Committee for Research (Ref: 201701/02 v1.1). Outcomes will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at international conferences, as well as articles in popular magazines and on specialised websites.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03115437, Pre-results.

Injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding

Background/aim

This randomised controlled trial investigated if the usage of running shoes with a motion control system modifies injury risk in regular leisure-time runners compared to standard shoes, and if this influence depends on foot morphology.

Methods

Recreational runners (n=372) were given either the motion control or the standard version of a regular running shoe model and were followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Foot morphology was analysed using the Foot Posture Index method. Cox regression analyses were used to compare injury risk between the two groups, based on HRs and their 95% CIs, controlling for potential confounders. Stratified analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of motion control system in runners with supinated, neutral and pronated feet.

Results

The overall injury risk was lower among the participants who had received motion control shoes (HR=0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85) compared to those receiving standard shoes. This positive effect was only observed in the stratum of runners with pronated feet (n=94; HR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84); there was no difference in runners with neutral (n=218; HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37) or supinated feet (n=60; HR=0.59; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.73). Runners with pronated feet using standard shoes had a higher injury risk compared to those with neutral feet (HR=1.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.22).

Conclusions

The overall injury risk was lower in participants who had received motion control shoes. Based on secondary analysis, those with pronated feet may benefit most from this shoe type.

Does wearing shoes affect your biomechanical efficiency?

Studies involving minimalist shoes have dramatically increased this past 10 years. While a deeper knowledge of the related modifications has ensued regarding the kinematics, electromyographic, and dynamic patterns, little is known regarding the modifications at the muscle forces and muscle fiber levels. The aim of the present study was to assess at a muscular level the modifications brought up when running barefoot, using 0mm midsole height running shoe, or using classical midsole height running shoes. An EMG-Driven model that combines the kinematics, dynamics, and electromyographic data was used to estimate the Triceps Surae (TS) muscle forces and fiber behavior during running using different footwear conditions. Despite differences at the joint level between barefoot and shod running when looking at ankle joint range of motion, or foot-ground angle at touchdown, the results showed no effect of footwear neither on the maximal muscle forces nor on the relative amount of force produced by each muscle within the TS muscle group when wearing different footwear. On the contrary, different behaviors of muscle fibers were shown with lower amplitudes of fiber lengths for the Gastrocnemii biarticular muscles when running barefoot. This particular results reveal that wearing a shoe, even with a very thin sole, could deeply modify the intricate muscle-tendon mechanics of running.

Is midsole thickness a key parameter for the running pattern?

Many studies have highlighted differences in foot strike pattern comparing habitually shod runners who ran barefoot and with running shoes. Barefoot running results in a flatter foot landing and in a decreased vertical ground reaction force compared to shod running. The aim of this study was to investigate one possible parameter influencing running pattern: the midsole thickness. Fifteen participants ran overground at 3.3 ms(-1) barefoot and with five shoes of different midsole thickness (0 mm, 2 mm, 4 mm, 8 mm, 16 mm) with no difference of height between rearfoot and forefoot. Impact magnitude was evaluated using transient peak of vertical ground reaction force, loading rate, tibial acceleration peak and rate. Hip, knee and ankle flexion angles were computed at touch-down and during stance phase (range of motion and maximum values). External net joint moments and stiffness for hip, knee and ankle joints were also observed as well as global leg stiffness. No significant effect of midsole thickness was observed on ground reaction force and tibial acceleration. However, the contact time increased with midsole thickness. Barefoot running compared to shod running induced ankle in plantar flexion at touch-down, higher ankle dorsiflexion and lower knee flexion during stance phase. These adjustments are suspected to explain the absence of difference on ground reaction force and tibial acceleration. This study showed that the presence of very thin footwear upper and sole was sufficient to significantly influence the running pattern.

Influence of midsole hardness of standard cushioned shoes on running-related injury risk

BACKGROUND

In this double-blind randomised controlled trial, we tested if leisure-time runners using shoes with less compliant midsoles have a higher running-related injury (RRI) risk.

METHOD

We provided 247 runners with standard running shoes having either a soft study shoes (soft-SS) or a hard study shoes (hard-SS) midsole and followed them prospectively for 5 months regarding RRI. All information about sports practice and injuries was uploaded on a dedicated internet platform and checked for consistency and completeness. RRI was defined as any first-time pain sustained during or as a result of running practice and impeding normal running activity for at least 1 day. Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to identify RRI risk factors.

RESULT

The type of study shoes used for running was not associated with RRIs (HR=0.92; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.48). The hard-SS had a 15% greater overall stiffness in the heel region. The two study groups were similar regarding personal and sports participation characteristics, except for years of running experience, which was higher (p<0.05) in the hard-SS group. Global RRI incidence was 12.1 RRI/1000 h of running. No between-group differences were found regarding injury location, type, severity or category. Nevertheless, the adjusted regression model revealed positive associations with RRI risk for body mass index (HR=1.126; 95% CI 1.033 to 1.227), previous injury (HR=1.735; 95% CI 1.037 to 2.902) and mean session intensity (HR=1.396; 95% CI 1.040 to 1.874). Protective factors were previous regular running activity (HR=0.422; 95% CI 0.228 to 0.779) and weekly volume of other sports activities (HR=0.702; 95% CI 0.561 to 0.879).

CONCLUSIONS

Midsole hardness of modern cushioned running shoes does not seem to influence RRI risk.