Changes in lower extremity biomechanics due to a short-term fatigue protocol

Nelson Cortes, Eric Greska, Roger Kollock, Jatin Ambegaonkar, James A Onate, Nelson Cortes, Eric Greska, Roger Kollock, Jatin Ambegaonkar, James A Onate

Abstract

Context: Noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury has been reported to occur during the later stages of a game when fatigue is most likely present. Few researchers have focused on progressive changes in lower extremity biomechanics that occur throughout fatiguing.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of a sequential fatigue protocol on lower extremity biomechanics during a sidestep-cutting task (SS).

Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Setting: Laboratory.

Patients or other participants: Eighteen uninjured female collegiate soccer players (age = 19.2 ± 0.9 years, height = 1.66 ± 0.5 m, mass = 61.6 ± 5.1 kg) volunteered.

Intervention(s): The independent variable was fatigue level, with 3 levels (prefatigue, 50% fatigue, and 100% fatigue). Using 3-dimensional motion capture, we assessed lower extremity biomechanics during the SS. Participants alternated between a fatigue protocol that solicited different muscle groups and mimicked actual sport situations and unanticipated SS trials. The process was repeated until fatigue was attained.

Main outcome measure(s): Dependent variables were hip- and knee-flexion and abduction angles and internal moments measured at initial contact and peak stance and defined as measures obtained between 0% and 50% of stance phase.

Results: Knee-flexion angle decreased from prefatigue (-17° ± 5°) to 50% fatigue (-16° ± 6°) and to 100% fatigue (-14° ± 4°) (F2,34 = 5.112, P = .004). Knee flexion at peak stance increased from prefatigue (-52.9° ± 5.6°) to 50% fatigue (-56.1° ± 7.2°) but decreased from 50% to 100% fatigue (-50.5° ± 7.1°) (F2,34 = 8.282, P = 001). Knee-adduction moment at peak stance increased from prefatigue (0.49 ± 0.23 Nm/kgm) to 50% fatigue (0.55 ± 0.25 Nm/kgm) but decreased from 50% to 100% fatigue (0.37 ± 0.24) (F2,34 = 3.755, P = 03). Hip-flexion angle increased from prefatigue (45.4° ± 10.9°) to 50% fatigue (46.2° ± 11.2°) but decreased from 50% to 100% fatigue (40.9° ± 11.3°) (F2,34 = 6.542, P = .004). Hip flexion at peak stance increased from prefatigue (49.8° ± 9.9°) to 50% fatigue (52.9° ± 12.1°) but decreased from 50% to 100% fatigue (46.3° ± 12.9°) (F2,34 = 8.639, P = 001). Hip-abduction angle at initial contact decreased from prefatigue (-13.8° ± 6.6°) to 50% fatigue (-9.1° ± 6.5°) and to 100% fatigue (-7.8° ± 6.5°) (F2,34 = 11.228, P < .001). Hip-adduction moment decreased from prefatigue (0.14 ± 0.13 Nm/kgm) to 50% fatigue (0.08 ± 0.13 Nm/kgm) and to 100% fatigue (0.06 ± 0.05 Nm/kg) (F2,34 = 5.767, P = .007).

Conclusions: The detrimental effects of fatigue on sagittal and frontal mechanics of the hip and knee were visible at 50% of the participants' maximal fatigue and became more marked at 100% fatigue. Anterior cruciate ligament injury-prevention programs should emphasize feedback on proper mechanics throughout an entire practice and not only at the beginning of practice.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Changes in lower extremity biomechanics throughout the fatiguing protocol for hip-abduction angles at initial contact, A, hip-abduction moment at initial contact, B, hip-abduction moment at peak stance, C, knee-abduction moment at initial contact, D, and knee-flexion angle at initial contact, E. a Indicates less abducted than at prefatigue. b Indicates less than at prefatigue. c Indicates less than at prefatigue and 50% fatigue. d Indicates less knee flexion than at prefatigue and 50% fatigue. These variables presented a progressive deterioration from prefatigue to 100% fatigue.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
A remarkable pattern was observed for some of the dependent measures, hip flexion at initial contact, A, hip flexion at peak stance, B, knee abduction at initial contact, C, knee-adduction moment at peak stance, D, and knee flexion at peak stance, E. These variables describe improved performance from prefatigue to 50% fatigue and a sudden decline from 50% to 100% fatigue. a Indicates less than at prefatigue and 50% fatigue. b Indicates less than at prefatigue. c Indicates less abducted than at 50% fatigue. d Indicates less than at 50% fatigue.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera