Patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon loads during overground and treadmill running Richard W

31 Pages·2016·1.91 MB·English

Patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon loads during overground and treadmill
running
Richard W. Willy, PhD, PT, OCS1, Lisa Halsey, DPT1, Andrew Hayek, DPT 1, Holly
n. Johnson, BS1, John D. Willson, PhD, PT1
o
missi
er
p
out 1Department of Physical Therapy, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.
h
wit
es
us
er
h Key words: running, patellofemoral joint, Achilles tendon, biomechanics
ot
o
N
y.
nl
o
use Compliance with Ethical Standards:
al
n
o
pers The authors have no declared conflicts of interest and there are no disclosures of
or
F
Melbourne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved. ptprheraeosre ftreicaesirspscuaiholnt nspt saroo lp ftr ortehicolaiosrt l it poowrn eaesssnhe riaopnplstl pm swrteouitnvdhety cdi.no W bmthyrp iisttaht einenni veE aesans osdtitrg vCmaeatairorbnonauli.lfn aPcacor itUnousrnr eeitvornse ti rnwwsiithatiyaos t Hiomoubnamt ayo/aifnw nteih ldSli s buf resbotnjumeedcf yitats ,lf l rthoem
® y of orts Research Board.
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp CRADCsoieocsplrhlireasaegtrrastedmnp oWtoe fPnn iAltrdl yoloil finfee gPds s haHoyuerst aihcloathlr :TS hceiernacpeys
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27834
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 1
Patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon loads during overground and treadmill
running
n.
missio Compliance with Ethical Standards:
er
p
ut The authors have no declared conflicts of interest and there are no disclosures of
o
h
wit
uses professional relationships with companies or manufacturers who may/will benefit from
er
h
ot
No the results of this present study. Written and verbal consent was obtained from all
y.
nl
o
e
us participants prior to enrollment in this investigation. Prior to initiation of this study, the
al
n
o
ers
or p research protocol was approved by the East Carolina University Human Subjects
F
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved. Research Board.
MelboPhysic
® y of orts
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 2
Abstract
1
  Study design: Level 4: Controlled laboratory study.
2
  Background: Little is known regarding potential differences between treadmill and
3
  overground running in regards to patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon loading
n.
o
missi
er 4
  characteristics.
p
ut
o
h
wit
uses 5
  Objectives: We sought to compare measures of loading to the patellofemoral joint and
er
h
ot
No 6
  Achilles tendon across treadmill and overground running in healthy, uninjured runners.
y.
nl
o
e
us
al 7
  Methods: Eighteen healthy runners ran at their self-selected speed on an instrumented
n
o
ers
p
For 8
  treadmill and overground while three-dimensional running mechanics were sampled. A
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved. 11019

  mpeeaurcs h1c ukclioolonsmkdeietliteoetnra. l o Dmf acootdane tlwi ndeueroreiuv sae ndrua pnlyenzaienkdg l ofvoairad ,t hpreaa tiepre aodtfe llTolo-atfeedsmintsgo raaannl djdo ienPste taiamnrsadot eAnd’cs hc icullomersru etlaelatnitvdioeon nlso faotodr
MelboPhysic 12
  detect differences and assess relationships, respectively, between the two running
® y of orts
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp 1111134567

  mRf1po eeerka sidtlkhuoiu elmtAms epc:s teh e.Na ilrlko eo, s dft hicftfeeoe nnrrdetainonteunc eo ofsufo sr(lo cprae>ud 0n(i.nnp0ig<n5,0g) o..w0 rH0 eeo1rsew)t, i femo1vua5ent.re6d, d% tbr ec eaugtwdmremeuaeiltlanel t rrit vurleeno anapdidnamigtnei gllrll e oarsfaneutdmlet e ooodvrfa e inlrA g jo2croih1nui.tl5l nes%dstr regtuesrnesnn adpitnoeegnrr
18
  force (p<0.001) and 14.2% greater estimated cumulative Achilles tendon force per 1
19
  kilometer of continuous running (p<0.001) compared with overground running. There
20
  were strong (r>0.70) and moderate agreements (r>0.50) for most patellofemoral joint
21
  and Achilles measures, respectively, between treadmill and overground running.
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 3
22
  Conclusions: No differences were observed in loading characteristics to the
23
  patellofemoral joint between running mediums, yet treadmill running resulted in greater
24
  Achilles tendon loading compared with overground running, Future investigations
25
  should determine if sudden bouts of treadmill running places the Achilles tendon at risk
n.
o
missi 26
  for mechanical overload in runners who habitually train overground.
er
p
ut
o
h
wit 27
  Key words: Knee, ankle, biomechanics, musculoskeletal model
es
us
er
h
ot
No 28

y.
nl
o
e
us
al
n
o
ers
p
or
F
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved.
MelboPhysic
® y of orts
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 4
29
  Introduction
30
  The patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon are among the most common sites of
31
  injuries sustained by runners. More specifically, patellofemoral pain and Achilles
n. 32
  tendinopathy represents up to 25% and 9.5% of all running injuries, respectively. 31, 46
o
missi
er 33
  As a result of the high prevalence associated with these injuries, it is not surprising that
p
ut
o
h
wit 34
  individuals with these injuries make up a large portion of patients in sports medicine
es
us
other 35
  clinics.15, 35
o
N
y.
nl
o
e
us 36
  Factors previously related to patellofemoral pain and Achilles tendinopathy in runners
al
n
o
ers
or p 37
  include injury history, age, strength deficits, training errors, structural issues, biological
F
Melbourne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. Physical Therapy®. All rights reserved. 33448901

  sabraeniotxaem t)o eaamcnnhdidca anibnl iic osaatm rlh ueliocgctahhudlarysen rsi(ec i.padeelu. ,tr ioiptnivvegeea r krlmou lanoadnaniidnnnsegg)r. 1a(i2si,r. ee1c. 9,go, cem3un2pme, ler3uax3ll,a lyat3i 7vna,e dp 3 pl9oml,i aeu5dd4lts iaf)Ba tt cioaoe matrearetdpicc.ih duSa larnparie tcsecat irl(f uiic.cleaot.lua,l yrdleo,i nsalga da rignnoedgf
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The University of Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports 4444423456

  trsTceahornteonedauv odaeldnmnn sdaiie l lltlntsh obt r,teo aap ulrc aegcor huntic mcstohuidumelaela mrrctleiyoovd uned rip nusllo erabia nciodoegfsm iainoen cfcr ulhtethnramae.n1i en,i pcn9inaa,t 1gtl e2wi nll eaovTanefhetdshum teisgror,ea rmohatiraloe bnjwaoislsihin tuoeatr fnte cito sahon repo tsitflsia eopeg nsetetstair n uakfgoc nsltrodu. a orAeTducssrtdeh., oaitlhlodeerms riltolulesann dndaiinonrgeng
47
  are restricted. Treadmills are also routinely used in clinical gait analysis and gait
48
  retraining programs due to the ability to evaluate and retrain running mechanics in a
49
  controlled environment.4, 13, 43 Further, treadmills are often a fixture in training programs
50
  and return to running programs after injury to the patellofemoral joint or Achilles tendon.
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 5
51
  Instrumented treadmills are now commonly used in biomechanical studies of ankle and
52
  knee mechanics during running.8, 29, 30, 40, 52 In particular, instrumented treadmills enable
53
  the study of repetitive gait cycles and facilitate more in-depth analyses, such as exertion
54
  and gait modification studies.23, 51 Despite their common use in either of these
n.
o
missi 55
  applications, little is known regarding the potential differences of loading to the
er
p
ut
ho 56
  patellofemoral joint and the Achilles tendon during overground and treadmill running.
wit
es
us
er
h
ot 57
  Seminal biomechanical comparisons between treadmill and overground running
o
N
y.
nl
e o 58
  suggest that these running mediums have largely similar knee and ankle kinematics,
us
al
n
erso 59
  particularly in the sagittal plane.20, 40 However, potential differences in joint kinetics exist,
p
or
F
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved. 66660123

  sareuunxngtdeng niAenscsgoht irhni llagems sto h bmtaeetene tndnhto e rnrece pob aomerrteptwe adedrie eftfndoe rorewevnisetchureg ltsr oo iinvnu e nalrodgna r aodanuipndnpg dr toc rexhriauamdnraamnctienitlellg yrr. iu4s20nt 7inc% isnT golho.fe wtF heoperre ppainaeksta etkkall nnoinecfeteeem ,r neotraxreatla elk dnjnomseionielrtl
® y of Melboorts Physic 64
  moment likely closely relates to peak quadriceps force 2 which in turn greatly influences
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp 6666656789

  pta(arpalreseataoeatde l)olml olcobficefelleu mtmwrru.o5eonr earTnanlih ln jeogtjrroi,ene2inat0f o,td r r4eme0sa ,ti acrlilett i scaoissonn =rd urf eonposrcacvpleeteoea.rn5lgrl2do r ioiff ne Hutgmhno edowrre reeadr vulua encrjronet,i ii onnadntgsi f . fr ikeneCnr aeeopcnenatci vtoefeelnelsrl oxs iffienooel rnympc, ae omtt/rhepaaelayll o t cepafeolellsmonaoftkoea brmcpaet oll a alrjenoarestilna satcr doswfulnteorrtexuiansolcdgsrt
70
  moment and eccentric ankle joint power may be as much as 14% and 16% higher,
71
  respectively, during treadmill running 40 suggesting greater Achilles tendon demands.
72
  Previous work has also investigated temporospatial differences between treadmill and
73
  overground running that can have an important effect on cumulative loading for the
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 6
74
  patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon. Compared with overground, runners tend to
75
  adopt 1-5% shorter step length during treadmill running.18, 40 This potentially important
76
  temporospatial difference may have consequences for patellofemoral joint and Achilles
77
  tendon loading. Firstly, a shorter step length during treadmill running may indicate a
n.
o
missi 78
  shorter stance phase which may, in turn, result in a greater loading rate of the
er
p
ut
ho 79
  patellofemoral joint and Achilles tendon if peak loads are of the same or greater
wit
es
er us 80
  magnitude as overground running. Secondly, the shorter step length associated with
h
ot
o
N
y. 81
  treadmill running may result in a greater number of steps i.e., loading cycles, to cover a
nl
o
e
us
al 82
  given distance which may in turn increase cumulative loading on the patellofemoral joint
n
o
ers
p
or 83
  and Achilles tendon during a sustained run.
F
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved. 888456

  Tloovhaeedr ignprguo ruponofds etrh uoenf n tipnhagist.e slDlotuufedemy t oow raaasl r etjoodi unacts esaden skdsn eptheee ae kxA tleocnhasidlolser,s mratoetemn doeofn ntl,o awddueirn ihngyg pa ontrtdhe eacsduimmzeiuldl la tathinvadet
® y of Melboorts Physic 87
  treadmill running would result in reduced peak patellofemoral joint stress and
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp 8899989012

  pbhlMoaeyaept dtegohilrnlteoohgadfee twssemi orz oeuArdladc lh rtihjelolaseinuts tl tgt sedrtenuraedetso etsnor llaoco uaarmdedidinunuglgac teariavdnet des .tpl eoCapato delneilnlvnogegfe rtrshmae tdoelyur ,adr ilwun rgjeoin itnhgrety taprsedotamrtehdiselmls sr iiulzla nernnuddin n tnhgAia.nc t gh .ti lhlFeeisnre at lewlyno,d uwoledn
93
  Prior to study initiation, the research protocol was approved by the East Carolina
94
  University Institutional Human Subjects Research Board. An a priori sample size
95
  estimate was conducted to determine the number of participants necessary to detect
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 7
96
  differences between conditions. Using α = 0.05, β = 0.2, and means and variability of
97
  the peak knee extensor and plantarflexor moments between running overground and on
98
  a treadmill from Riley and colleagues40, 18 participants were conservatively determined
99
  to be necessary to adequately power this study. For this investigation, we recruited 18
n.
o
missi 100
  recreational runners (9 males, 9 females) from a large university and area running
er
p
ut
ho 101
  clubs.
wit
es
us
er
h
ot 102
  All participants provided written and verbal consent prior to enrollment. In order to
o
N
y.
nl
e o 103
  qualify, all participants were required to be habitual runners (defined as at least 10
us
al
n
erso 104
  km/week for at least the previous 6 months), free of any lower extremity surgeries and
p
or
F
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved. 111100005678

  iaimnngjteureocr yhdto-auf rncleieimceds i ft.bo h3yr8 e aatTte ghrleroeeagraesetftneo terrh eiaet,yg p oeirnn er layvb iniovoguomeslu.e 13nc6 ,th me4a1e onCrnsicot shwm shaf.o onPr dtaw wrAetiicrtchehip itlcarleoensmat sdtf eomwnrietldalr oberunl eln im pnwriiontietpghde c trtratoeine a1 sad8 fmt-fh3eia5lclt t rymrueunaannyrnsi ni bngoeg,f
® y of Melboorts Physic 109
  defined as a score of at least “8” on a visual analog scale (“0” and “10” corresponding to
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp 111111111101234

  cW(cF“ooirfhumhtyinol-penrsl tiei nnxoto gefr t ler yeuat xrnnuopn nreienecrfcroileselmu ncisncftoii eovtrh”ent)ai / smewb xilaanecsrv lkuv eaeesslrirstossiog nuw a cscteo irocrliletnoee .mcra i tofpefnildxe,.e t cePdol ylteno atc intsoheume os fuboesirelta a intTbevAlreoaB,ll v LrleoEemws 1pee enrfo cte rtii xnvdt ereeelmynm)do,i utgwierraaesnpr, echp eieec lrsnvu riosno fnl aletinhndged.
115
  trunk of each participant. Static calibration and dynamic hip trials28 were collected. The
116
  pelvis coordinate system was defined by markers placed on the midline of the iliac
117
  crests and the greater trochanters. The thigh coordinate system was defined proximally
118
  by the calculated hip joint center from the dynamic hip trial and distally by the femoral
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 8
119
  condyles. The shank coordinate system was defined proximally by the tibial condyles
120
  and distally by the malleoli. Finally, the foot was defined proximally by the malleoli and
121
  distally by the 1st and 5th metatarsal heads and the distal aspect of the shoe. Tracking
122
  markers consisted of markers placed on the anterior superior iliac spines and shell-
n.
o
missi 123
  mounted clusters on the sacrum, posterolateral aspect of the thigh and shank, and a
er
p
ut
ho 124
  cluster of three markers on the rearfoot. This is a common marker set configuration and
wit
es
er us 125
  was similar to the marker set used by Fellin et al. (2010), a study of comparison for the
h
ot
o
y. N 126
  present investigation.20
nl
o
e
us
al
n
erso 127
  After a 6-minute treadmill accommodation period,34 3-dimensional running mechanics
p
or
F
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved. 111122338901

  wPdeusaetrrraitenibc gliip sstaahhnmeetd sp, ml ewbdieda rdsefleoe dcr u oeo1f dn0a t toshs eetcac honpondaodarsstreid c itaphttrai asni ents’aispnc eghfee drepu dbanbar.at siccTeikhpd,ea o ndnstu’ esrpil nfe-sgsrce eeltlfhep-sectiet oelfnedin c oatreflu dtn4h n eriminur gnirn nuusinntpnegeis ne gsdop fpe waethacdees.
® y of Melboorts Physic 132
  treadmill accommodation period. Ground reaction forces and marker trajectories were
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp 111113333334567

  saSwSanWoamdksE k pp2i) l,ee0 Crdr0feo o srarHpmpt .ze,e1 cd0Ybti 0yvou0 eks aloiynH h.g z1aP 0mabr- icadyoa ,irg tmhJittoeaae plrs aitanta unscmd)thr.y ouo tmmiinToeeihntnite aet cterit aodrepen vtta,eur detrrrymeae d0ailsml.d 2ymirs lumlt inel(l/ Bnmssieenp crge(t Qe uectpdur,i a atcoWllya s4wloiib.sra0tr hs amCi tninoo/gsornt.pot (.dn,Hl ou, TGnrOi-gno5hegt5hir o0 er,0tu nh,nUb anOuSnirnn Agg5o),
138
  minutes of sustained running and an approximately 10-minute rest period was provided
139
  to each runner between the end of treadmill testing and initiation of overground testing
140
  to minimize fatigue.
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 9
141
  Next, 3-D overground running mechanics were sampled as runners traversed a 25-
142
  meter runway at their same self-selected running speed (±3%) used during the treadmill
143
  running. Each runner practiced execution of the overground trials for several minutes to
144
  accommodate to the overground collection procedures, including establishment of
n.
o
missi 145
  running speed and runway starting position. Displacement of a single marker attached
er
p
ut
ho 146
  to the sacrum has previously been demonstrated to correspond to the displacement of a
wit
es
er us 147
  runner’s estimated center of mass.21, 22 Therefore, we tracked the anterior velocity of a
h
ot
o
N
y. 148
  sacral marker in real-time to measure running speed as the runner traversed force
nl
o
e
us
al 149
  plates flush with the runway floor (AMTI, Watertown, Mass, USA). In post-processing,
n
o
ers
p
or 150
  this method for tracking overground running velocity was highly correlated to the
F
urne - Faculties on June 15, 2016. al Therapy®. All rights reserved. 111555123

  avwenitlthoe craiiot yrro ovofet ltmohceei tasyna o csfrq atuhl aemr erau renkrenrore rra=’sn 0de. s1et simmtim/asteaectde) .dc A ecnneytne ttrer iroa flos mf tmhaasatss f se(:cl loP orerueatslrasidtoieon n’ts hb ere= vt we0el.o9ec6ni t pya <rna0ten.0rg0ioe1r,
MelboPhysic 154
  in which the participant was visibly changing velocity in the capture volume or when the
® y of orts
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Downloaded from www.jospt.org at The Universit Copyright © ${year} Journal of Orthopaedic & Sp 111111555556567890

  ftm7skor aiiMnaarmcelrasekmer e ki pnadpel ta aritec htrtefsarifssa ema jcmewnetcsdetate ronokerrnsin nie te aeatsrhrt s igwe(c Qe stamht,use oraa destglh eysbnasp yituiets uttdc)ihdl itifaeizefven eseprdd laeoy grnf)dt .rtis uc o egriupigannamigtdn evttr ehnewletaoea ccrlt teriviteo ieedanlsido s fmccoaiarnticilredlde s tesfr,oi dawjro.cl eiTen(r2h tep 0e mls0 arao taemHmt izoptea nlnearagtdnslee d wta ifnn1iotgdh0r 0ectph0xaoe cnwH l ueehzdxra isafnvo.c3gert,
161
  The order of testing (treadmill first followed by overground testing) was chosen to
162
  determine each participant’s safe self-selected running speed for the treadmill trials. In
163
  testing during protocol development, pilot subjects tended to self-select a running speed
Overground
 and
 treadmill
 comparison
 of
 patellofemoral
 joint
 and
 Achilles
 tendon
 loads,
 Page
 10