Patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon loads during Treadmill - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Nov 13, 2022 42 likes •257 views

Patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon loads during Treadmill and Overground Running Willy et al., JOSPT , 2016 Richard Willy, PhD, PT Assistant Professor Motion Analysis Laboratory Physical Therapy University of Montana The presenter

SLIDE 1

Movement Science Laboratory

Patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon loads during Treadmill and Overground Running

Willy et al., JOSPT, 2016

Assistant Professor Motion Analysis Laboratory Physical Therapy University of Montana

Richard Willy, PhD, PT

The presenter has no financial relationships or product endorsements to disclose

SLIDE 2

Movement Science Laboratory

The presenter has no financial relationships

r product endorsements to disclose

SLIDE 3

Movement Science Laboratory

Patellofemoral pain 48.8% of knee injuries

Female: 62% Male: 38%

Up to 58%: recurring symptoms

Lankhorst 2016

Where do runners get injured?

Taunton 2002, Callahan 2000, Matheson 1987, Lopes 2012

Tibial stress injuries

Bennell and Brukner, 2005

Iliotibial band syndrome 1.9-10%

Taunton 2002

Achilles tendinopathy 9.1-10.9%

Female: 42% Male: 58%

Up to 45% fail treatment

Sayana 2007

SLIDE 4

Movement Science Laboratory

Cumulative loads Peak loads Rate of loading

Willy and Meira, IJSPT, 2016

SLIDE 5

Movement Science Laboratory

Background Overground vs. treadmill running

Reported differences with overground running: Temporospatial metrics 1-5% Shorter step length Elliott and Blanksby 1976, Riley 2007 Slightly flatter footstrike Nigg 1997 Knee flexion also less Riley 2007

SLIDE 6

Movement Science Laboratory

Purpose

Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Peak & loading rate of Patellofemoral joint loading would be less during treadmill running Hypothesis 2: Peak & loading rate of Achilles tendon loading would be greater during treadmill running Hypothesis 3: Cumulative loads (Load per km) greater during treadmill running Assess Patellofemoral & Achilles tendon loading patterns during overground vs. treadmill running:

SLIDE 7

Movement Science Laboratory

Participants

Demographics for Participants n=18 Characteristics Value

Age (yrs)

23.6 ±3.5

BMI (kg/m²)

22.2 ±2.6

Self-paced running velocity (m/s)

2.9 ±0.3

Running volume (km/wk)

36.7 ±26.5

Tegner Score (0-10)

6.9 ±0.6

Treadmill comfort (0-10)

9.6 ±0.5

SLIDE 8

Movement Science Laboratory

Methods

55 retroreflective markers Self-paced-3D-running mechanics were sampled during TM and OG running (Qualisys, Gothenburg, SWE):

Treadmill (Bertec, Worthington, OH)
Overground speed monitored

via velocity of sacral marker Processed via MotionMonitor software (Innovative Sports, Chicago, Ill.)

SLIDE 9

Movement Science Laboratory

Estimation of PFJ & Achilles tendon loads

DeVita & Hortobagyi 2001, Willson 2015, Willy 2017 Kinematics and kinetics Muscle forces: Quadriceps, hamstring and gastrocnemius

DeVita & Hortobagyi 2001 Ward 2009 Nemeth & Ohlsen 1985, Klein 1996, Herzog & Read 1993 Van Eijden 1987, Spoor & van Leeuwen 1992, Van Eijden 1987

Peak & impulse knee contact forces within 3%, 7% of in vivo forces

Fregly 2012 PFJ and Achilles tendon loads

Devita & Hortobagyi 2001

Werkhoven and Piazza 2017 Willson et al., 2015 Besier et al., 2005

SLIDE 10

Movement Science Laboratory

Data Reduction and Analysis

PFJ and Achilles tendon Variables of interest: Peak force Loading rate Loads per km

Impulse x steps per km

Paired t-test α = 0.05, Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) Pearson’s r

Peak

Impulse

Temporospatial data Distribution of total support moment: hip, knee, ankle

SLIDE 11

Movement Science Laboratory

Results: Temporospatial data

TM OG T-test Effect Size Correlation

Gait Speed (m/sec)

2.88 (0.26) 2.89 (0.27) p= 0.50 d= -0.04 r=0.97

Stance Length (msec)

273.1 (30.6) 277.3 (26.1) P= 0.23 d= -0.15 r=0.88

Step Length (m)

1.04 (0.10) 1.10 (0.12) p<0.001 d= -0.62 r=0.86

23 additional loading cycles per 1 km of TM running

SLIDE 12

Movement Science Laboratory

Results: Ground reaction forces

(-) braking (+) propulsive

SLIDE 13

Movement Science Laboratory

Results: Support moment

Distribution of the respective proportions of the total support moment (x/100). Mean (sd).

Treadmill vs. Overground running

SLIDE 14

Movement Science Laboratory

Patellofemoral joint stress

Variable P-value Effect size Pearson’s r Peak PFJ loads 0.73 0.04 0.86 Loading rate of PFJ 0.11

0.55

0.39 Cumulative PFJ loads per 1-km 0.21 0.21 0.88

Peak PFJ stress

SLIDE 15

Movement Science Laboratory

Achilles tendon loads

Variable P-value Effect size Pearson’s r Peak Achilles tendon load <0.001 1.01 0.52 Loading rate of Achilles tendon <0.001 0.61 0.62 Cumulative Achilles loads per 1-km <0.001 1.04 0.39

Loading rate ** Peak Achilles load **

SLIDE 16

Movement Science Laboratory

Discussion: Summary of Findings

Peak loads vs. loading rate vs. cumulative loads: unknown which is most important in injury process Chen 1999 Patellofemoral joint stress Uninjured runners Return to running: Use preference and safety as guide Strong relationships (r>0.80): support treadmill investigations

Peak Loads Loading Rate Cumulative Load PFJ No difference No difference No difference Achilles 12% greater 15.8% greater 14.2% greater

SLIDE 17

Movement Science Laboratory

Discussion: Achilles tendon loads

Return to sport programs include running Silbernagel and Crossley 2015 Overground running may be desirable due to lower Achilles tendon loads Masters runners: most at-risk for Achilles tendinopathy McKean et al. 2007 Some caution applying AT data from instrumented treadmills to overground running

www.simplepayday.co.uk

SLIDE 18

Movement Science Laboratory

In-field gait assessment: wearables

Willy, IJSPT 2018

Enables testing of training pace, training habits, running surfaces

SLIDE 19

Movement Science Laboratory

Limitations and future directions

Only examined healthy, young population Used research grade treadmill Overground runway distance short (25m) Future study: does treadmill running increase injury risk in masters athletes? Compare hip contact forces between running modes

Conclusion

Slightly lower hip extensor support moment: Treadmill Slightly higher Achilles tendon loads: Treadmill No differences found at patellofemoral joint

SLIDE 20

Movement Science Laboratory

References

1. Besier TF, Draper CE, Gold GE, Beaupre GS, Delp SL. Patellofemoral joint contact area increases with knee flexion and weight-bearing. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 2005;23:345-350. 2. Chen CT, Burton-Wurster N, Lust G, Bank RA, Tekoppele JM. Compositional and metabolic changes in damaged cartilage are peak-stress, stress-rate, and loading-duration dependent. J Orthop Res. 1999;17:870-879. 3. DeVita P, Hortobagyi T. Functional knee brace alters predicted knee muscle and joint forces in people with ACL reconstruction during walking. Journal of applied biomechanics. 2001;17:297-311. 4. Elliott BC, Blanksby BA. A cinematographic analysis of overground and treadmill running by males and females. Med Sci

Sports. 1976;8:84-87.

5. Fregly BJ, Besier TF, Lloyd DG, et al. Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads. J Orthop Res. 2012;30:503- 513. 6. Herzog W, Read LJ. Lines of action and moment arms of the major force-carrying structures crossing the human knee joint. J

Anat. 1993;182 ( Pt 2):213-230.

7. Klein P, Mattys S, Rooze M. Moment arm length variations of selected muscles acting on talocrural and subtalar joints during movement: an in vitro study. J Biomech. 1996;29:21-30. 8. Nemeth G, Ohlsen H. In vivo moment arm lengths for hip extensor muscles at different angles of hip flexion. J Biomech. 1985;18:129-140. 9. Nigg BM, De Boer RW, Fisher V. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27:98-105. 10. Riley PO, Dicharry J, Franz J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP, Kerrigan DC. A kinematics and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:1093-1100. 11. Spoor CW, van Leeuwen JL. Knee muscle moment arms from MRI and from tendon travel. J Biomech. 1992;25:201-206. 12. Spoor CW, van Leeuwen JL, Meskers CG, Titulaer AF, Huson A. Estimation of instantaneous moment arms of lower-leg

muscles. J Biomech. 1990;23:1247-1259.

13. Ward SR, Eng CM, Smallwood LH, Lieber RL. Are current measurements of lower extremity muscle architecture accurate? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1074-1082. 14. Willson JD, Loss JR, Willy RW, Meardon SA. Sex differences in running mechanics and patellofemoral joint kinetics following an exhaustive run. J Biomech. 2015;48:4155-4159. 15. Willy RW, Meira EP. Current Concepts in Biomechanical Interventions for Patellofemoral Pain. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016;11:877-890.

SLIDE 21

Movement Science Laboratory

Acknowledgements

OSET Organizing Committee Collaborators: John Willson, PT, PHD; Stacey Meardon, PT, PhD; Paul DeVita, PhD, Ryan Mizner, PT, PhD, Christian Barton, PT, PhD Rich.willy@umontana.edu @rwilly2003