4.2 Article

Copers exhibit altered ankle and trunk kinematics compared to the individuals with chronic ankle instability during single-leg landing

期刊

SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2022.2058989

关键词

Chronic ankle instability; coper; reactive single-leg landing; proactive single-leg landing; trunk kinematics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the differences in kinematics and kinetics among Copers, chronic ankle instability (CAI) group, and control (CTR) group in landing tasks. The results suggest that Copers can efficiently absorb ground reaction forces by increasing trunk flexion angle and extending the time to reach the minimum peak vGRF.
Copers are individuals who have had a lateral ankle sprain but have no history of recurrent lateral ankle sprain, residual symptoms, or functional disability. Copers have shown no significant difference in lower limb kinematics in landing for proactive conditions compared with a control (CTR) group. However, the copers (CPR) group has shown differences compared to CTR and chronic ankle instability (CAI) groups for dynamic balance conditions, suggesting that the trunk may compensate for foot instability during shock absorption. This study aimed to examine the differences in the kinematics and kinetics among CPR, CAI and CTR groups in reactive and proactive single-leg landing tasks. Participants were physically active adults with CAI (n = 14), CPR (n = 14), and CTR (n = 14), who performed proactive and reactive single-leg landings. The lower limb, trunk kinematics, vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) peak value, and the time to minimum peak vGRF were analysed. It might be conceivable that the CPR group could absorb vGRF efficiently by increasing the trunk flexion angle and increasing the time to reach the minimum peak vGRF regardless of landing condition. The results suggest that evaluating the movements of the entire body, including the ankle and trunk, is essential.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据