Sex Differences in Tibiocalcaneal Kinematics

Open access

Abstract

Purpose. Female runners typically suffer more from chronic running injuries than age-matched males, although the exact biome-chanical mechanisms behind the increased susceptibility of female runners are unknown. This study aimed to compare sex differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics during the stance phase of running. Methods. Twenty male and twenty female participants ran at 4.0 m · s–1. Tibiocalcaneal kinematics were measured using an eight-camera motion analysis system and compared using independent samples t tests. Results. Peak eversion and tibial internal rotation angles were shown to be significantly greater in female runners. Conclusions. based on these observations, it was determined that female runners may be at increased risk from chronic injury development in relation to excessive tibiocalcaneal motions in the coronal and transverse planes.

1. Abramowitz, M. Stegun, I.A. (1965), Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover, New York.

1. Taunton J.E., ryan M.b., Clement D.b., McKenzie D.C., Lloyd-Smith D.r., Zumbo b.D., A prospective study of running injuries: the Vancouver Sun run “In Training” clinics. Br J Sports Med, 2003, 37 (3), 239–244, doi: 10. 1136/bjsm.37.3.239.

2. Lilley K., Dixon S., Stiles V., A biomechanical comparison of the running gait of mature and young females. Gait Posture, 2011, 33 (3), 496–500, doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011. 01.002.

3. robinson r.L, Nee r.J., Analysis of hip strength in females seeking physical therapy treatment for unilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2007, 37 (5), 232–238, doi:10.2519/jospt.2007.2439.

4. Sinclair J., Greenhalgh A., Edmundson C.J., brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Gender Differences in the Kinetics and Kinematics of Distance running: Implications for Footwear Design. Int J Sports Sci Eng, 2012, 6 (2), 118–128.

5. Ferber r., Davis I.M., Williams D.S., Gender differences in lower extremity mechanics during running. Clin Bio-mech, 2003, 18 (4), 350–357, doi: 10.1016/S02680033 (03)00025-1.

6. Hennig E.M., Gender differences for running in athletic footwear. In: Henning E.M., Stacoff A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Footwear biomechanics. Zurich, Switzerland 2001, 44–45.

7. Stefanyshyn D.J., Stergiou P., Nigg b.M., rozitis A.I., Goepfert b., Do females require different running foot-wear? In: Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Footwear biomechanics Queenstown, New Zealand 2003, 91–92.

8. Sinclair J., Hobbs S.J., Currigan G., Giannandrea M., Taylor P.J., Tibiocalcaneal kinematics during barefoot and in barefoot-inspired shoes in comparison to conventional running footwear. Mov Sport Sci, 2014, 83, 67–75, doi: 10.1051/sm/2013104.

9. Eslami M., begon M., Farahpour N., Allard P., Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin Biomech, 2007, 22 (1), 74–80, doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech. 2006.08.002.

10. Edington C.J., Frederick E.C., Cavanagh P.r., rearfoot motion in distance running. In: Cavanagh P.r. (ed.), bio-mechanics of distance running. Human Kinetics, Champaign 1990.

11. De Leo A.T., Dierks T.A., Ferber r., Davis I.S., Lower extremity joint coupling during running: a current update. Clin Biomech, 2004, 19 (10), 983–991, doi: 10.1016/j. clinbiomech.2004.07.005.

12. Nawoczenski D.A., Saltzman C.L., Cook T.M., The effect of foot structure on the three-dimensional kinematic coupling behaviour of the leg and rearfoot. Phy Ther, 1998, 78 (4), 404–416.

13. Cavanagh P.r., Lafortune M.A., Ground reaction forces in distance running. J Biomech, 1980, 13 (5), 397–406, doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(80)90033-0.

14. Sinclair J., Hobbs S.J., Taylor P.J., Currigan G., Green-halgh A., The Influence of Different Force and Pressure Measuring Transducers on Lower Extremity Kinematics Measured During running. J Appl Biomech, 2014, 30, 166–172, doi: 10.1123/jab.2012-0238.

15. Sinclair J., Edmundson C.J., brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Evaluation of kinematic methods of identifying gait events during running. Int J Sports Sci Eng, 2011, 5 (3), 188–192.

16. Cappozzo A., Catani F., Della Croce U., Leardini A., Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech, 1995, 10 (4), 171–178, doi: 10.1016/0268-0033(95)91394-T.

17. Sinclair J., Taylor P.J., Greenhalgh A., Edmundson C.J., brooks D., Hobbs S.J., The Test-retest reliability of Anatomical Co-Ordinate Axes Definition for the Quantification of Lower Extremity Kinematics During running. J Hum Kinet, 2012, 35 (1), 15–25, doi: 10.2478/v10078-012- 0 075-8.

18. Winter D.A., biomechanics and motor control of human movement. John Wiley and Sons, New York 1990.

19. Sinclair J., Taylor P.J., Edmundson C.J., brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Influence of the helical and six available Cardan sequences on 3D ankle joint kinematic parameters. Sports Biomech, 2012, 11 (3), 430–437, doi: 10.1080/14763141. 2012.656762.

20. Viitasalo J.T., Kvist M., Some biomechanical aspects of the foot and ankle athletes with and without shin splints. Am J Sports Med, 1983, 11 (3), 125–130, doi: 10.1177/ 036354658301100304.

21. Lee S.Y., Hertel J., Lee S.C., rearfoot eversion has indirect effects on plantar fascia tension by changing the amount of arch collapse. The Foot, 2010, 20 (2–3), 64–70, doi: 10.1016/j.fo ot. 2 010.0 6.0 03.

22. Wunderlich r.E., Cavanagh P.r., Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Med Sci Sport Exerc, 2001, 33 (4), 605–611.

23. Sinclair J., Greenhalgh A., Taylor P.J., Edmundson C.J., brooks D., Hobbs S.J., Differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics measured with skin and shoe-mounted markers. Hum Mov, 2013, 14 (1), 64–69, doi: 10.2478/humo-2013-0005.

24. Leardini A., benedetti M., berti L., bettinelli D., Nativo r., Giannini S., rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. Gait Posture, 2007, 25 (3), 453–462, doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.05.017.

Human Movement

The Journal of University School of Physical Education, Wroclaw

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.41

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.208
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.230

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 240 238 20
PDF Downloads 68 67 8