Associations between biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical factors and running-related injuries among recreational runners: a 52-week prospective cohort study.
Joint range of motion
Kinematics
Muscle flexibility
Muscle strength
Risk factors
Journal
Injury epidemiology
ISSN: 2197-1714
Titre abrégé: Inj Epidemiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101652639
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2020
01 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
10
12
2019
accepted:
18
03
2020
entrez:
3
4
2020
pubmed:
3
4
2020
medline:
3
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate whether runners with certain biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics sustain more running-related injuries than runners with other biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics. The study was designed as a prospective cohort with 52-weeks follow-up. A total of 224 injury-free, recreational runners were recruited from the Gothenburg Half Marathon and tested at baseline. The primary exposure variables were biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical measures, including strength, lower extremity kinematics, joint range of motion, muscle flexibility, and trigger points. The primary outcome measure was any running-related injury diagnosed by a medical practitioner. Cumulative risk difference was used as measure of association. A shared frailty approach was used with legs as the unit of interest. A total of 448 legs were included in the analyses. The cumulative injury incidence proportion for legs was 29.0% (95%CI = 24.0%; 34.8%). A few biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical factors influence the number of running-related injuries sustained in recreational runners. Runners with a late timing of maximal eversion sustained 20.7% (95%CI = 1.3; 40.0) more injuries, and runners with weak abductors in relation to adductors sustained 17.3% (95%CI = 0.8; 33.7) more injuries, compared with the corresponding reference group. More injuries are likely to occur in runners with late timing of maximal eversion or weak hip abductors in relation to hip adductors.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate whether runners with certain biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics sustain more running-related injuries than runners with other biomechanical or clinical/anthropometrical characteristics.
METHODS
METHODS
The study was designed as a prospective cohort with 52-weeks follow-up. A total of 224 injury-free, recreational runners were recruited from the Gothenburg Half Marathon and tested at baseline. The primary exposure variables were biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical measures, including strength, lower extremity kinematics, joint range of motion, muscle flexibility, and trigger points. The primary outcome measure was any running-related injury diagnosed by a medical practitioner. Cumulative risk difference was used as measure of association. A shared frailty approach was used with legs as the unit of interest. A total of 448 legs were included in the analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The cumulative injury incidence proportion for legs was 29.0% (95%CI = 24.0%; 34.8%). A few biomechanical and clinical/anthropometrical factors influence the number of running-related injuries sustained in recreational runners. Runners with a late timing of maximal eversion sustained 20.7% (95%CI = 1.3; 40.0) more injuries, and runners with weak abductors in relation to adductors sustained 17.3% (95%CI = 0.8; 33.7) more injuries, compared with the corresponding reference group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
More injuries are likely to occur in runners with late timing of maximal eversion or weak hip abductors in relation to hip adductors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32234070
doi: 10.1186/s40621-020-00237-2
pii: 10.1186/s40621-020-00237-2
pmc: PMC7110719
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
10Subventions
Organisme : Sten A Olssons Stiftelse för Forskning och Kultur
ID : na
Références
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2018 Feb 7;4(1):e000333
pubmed: 29527322
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Mar;48(6):440-7
pubmed: 23766439
J Biomech. 2002 Apr;35(4):543-8
pubmed: 11934426
J Foot Ankle Res. 2011 May 30;4:15
pubmed: 21619710
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2018 Jun 26;4(1):e000394
pubmed: 30018792
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Oct;48(10):740-748
pubmed: 29895234
Br J Sports Med. 2017 Oct;51(20):1454-1455
pubmed: 28512189
Br J Sports Med. 2003;37(5):384-92
pubmed: 14514527
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005 Aug;16(3):651-67, vi
pubmed: 16005398
Orthop J Sports Med. 2013 May 02;1(1):2325967113487316
pubmed: 26535228
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Jan;54(2):70-71
pubmed: 31113774
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Feb;40(2):42-51
pubmed: 20118526
Sports Med. 2019 Jul;49(7):1095-1115
pubmed: 31028658
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016 Apr;46(4):300-11
pubmed: 26954269
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(9):2211-2221
pubmed: 29791183
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014 May;9(3):338-45
pubmed: 24944852
Hum Mov Sci. 2017 Apr;52:197-202
pubmed: 28237655
PM R. 2011 Sep;3(9):792-801
pubmed: 21821478
Sports Med. 2017 May;47(5):869-886
pubmed: 27785775
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020 Apr;30(4):732-740
pubmed: 31900980
Sports Med. 2014 Aug;44(8):1153-63
pubmed: 24809248
J Foot Ankle Res. 2012 Feb 17;5:3
pubmed: 22340625
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015 May;45(5):375-80
pubmed: 25808527
Hum Mov Sci. 2016 Jun;47:9-15
pubmed: 26827155