Which jump-landing task best represents lower extremity and trunk kinematics of unanticipated cutting maneuver?

Ivana Hanzlíková; Jim Richards; Josie Athens; Kim Hébert-Losier

doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.02.003

Which jump-landing task best represents lower extremity and trunk kinematics of unanticipated cutting maneuver?

Gait Posture. 2021 Mar:85:171-177. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.02.003. Epub 2021 Feb 10.

Authors

Ivana Hanzlíková¹, Jim Richards², Josie Athens³, Kim Hébert-Losier⁴

Affiliations

¹ Division of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, Adams Centre for High Performance, University of Waikato, 52 Miro Street, Mount Maunganui 3116, New Zealand. Electronic address: ih27@students.waikato.ac.nz.
² Allied Health Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: jrichards@uclan.ac.uk.
³ Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand. Electronic address: josie.athens@otago.ac.nz.
⁴ Division of Health, Engineering, Computing and Science, Te Huataki Waiora School of Health, Adams Centre for High Performance, University of Waikato, 52 Miro Street, Mount Maunganui 3116, New Zealand. Electronic address: kim.hebert-losier@waikato.ac.nz.

PMID: 33592398
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.02.003

Abstract

Background: The double-leg jump-landing (DLJL) task is commonly used as a movement screen that can be implemented in large cohorts of athletes. However, it is debatable whether the DLJL is ecologically valid and reflects sporting requirements or injury-prone situations, such as cutting and pivoting.

Research question: Which jump-landing movement variation best represents the kinematics of unanticipated side-step cutting?

Methods: Forty-two participants (25 males and 17 females) performed unanticipated side-step cutting and four jump-landing tasks: DLJL, rotated DLJL (DLJL_rot), single-leg jump-landing (SLJL), and rotated SLJL (SLJL_rot). Ankle, knee, hip, pelvis, and trunk angles and angular velocities, and pelvic linear accelerations were collected at initial contact and during the first 100 milliseconds after initial contact (minimum, maximum, and range values) using a three-dimensional infrared camera system and inertial measurement units. Pre-contact foot-ground angles and subjective task difficulty ratings were also recorded. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between cutting and jump-landing kinematics were calculated for each participant and jump-landing variation. Friedman tests with pairwise comparisons were then used to compare the degree of association between the four different jump-landing tasks at the specified time events and to compare the difficulty ratings.

Results: Considering the ICC values across the events of interest, the kinematics of the DLJL were the least associated with those of cutting (ICC = 0.00 to 0.81), and DLJL_rot (ICC = 0.34 to 0.81) and SLJL_rot (ICC = 0.31 to 0.80) biomechanics the most. Participants rated the perceived challenge of the single-leg tasks in a similar manner to cutting (p > 0.103), and the SLJL_rot as the most difficult task (median = "neutral", mode = "neutral").

Significance: Due to their biomechanical associations with cutting maneuver and subjectively-rated difficulty levels, both DLJL_rot and SLJL_rot may be more appropriate and ecologically valid for screening for risk of injury across a range of sports.

Keywords: ACL; Double-leg landing; Injury risk screening; Rotated double-leg landing; Rotated single-leg landing; Single-leg landing.

MeSH terms

Adolescent
Adult
Anticipation, Psychological / physiology*
Athletes* / psychology
Athletic Injuries / etiology*
Athletic Injuries / physiopathology
Athletic Injuries / psychology
Biomechanical Phenomena
Female
Humans
Lower Extremity / physiology*
Male
Movement / physiology*
Risk Assessment
Torso / physiology*
Young Adult