|
| 地表面倾斜度与踝关节护具对垂直着地运动中地面反作用力、踝关节运动学和动力学的效应 |
| Effects of inverted surface and ankle brace on ground reaction force and ankle kinematics and kinetics during landing |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词:踝关节扭伤 着地 斜面 踝关节护具 生物力学 |
| 英文关键词:ankle sprain, landing inverted surface ankle brace biomechanics |
| 基金项目: |
|
| Hits: 3796 |
| Download times: 4187 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 研究背景：现有研究文献尚无有关在着地过程中不同表面倾斜度和踝关节护具效应的运动学、动力学和地面反作用力的综合数据。通过对比25°斜面和平面的着地以及使用和不使用踝关节护具情况下来检测踝关节的生物力学特性。研究方法： 11名健康受试者[年龄：（24.6±3.5）岁，身高：（24.6±0.10）m，质量：（65.6±14.9）kg）参与本次研究。受试者在4个动态运动条件下各进行5五次实验：从0.45米高处垂直下落至25°的斜面（IS）或平面（FS）上，使用或不使用半刚性踝关节护具，同时采集三维运动学和测力台地面反作用力数据。利用2×2(表面X踝关节护具)的重复测量方差分析来评估选定的变量。研究结果：与平面着地相比，斜面着地造成较小的垂直和内侧地面反作用力峰值。研究还发现踝关节背曲运动范围、着地角度和背曲速度、最大外翻与跖曲角速度提高，但产生了更大内翻角度和运动范围、着地内翻速度和最大跖曲力矩。踝关节护具在斜面着地时减少了达到地面反作用力第二垂直峰值的时间、着地角度、背曲速度、最大外翻和跖曲速度，但增加了跖曲力矩的最大值。研究结论：斜面增加踝关节额状面的运动范围和踝关节负荷。但是，就斜面着地而言，踝关节护具对踝关节额状面的运动范围和踝关节负荷的影响是相当有限的。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Currently there are no comprehensive data in the literature on effects of different surface inclination and ankle brace on ankle kinematics, kinetics and GRF in landing activity. Objective: To examine ankle biomechanical characteristics during drop landing on a 25° inverted surface with an ankle brace compared to landing on a flat surface, both with and without an ankle brace.
Design: Descriptive laboratory study.Setting: Sports medicine research laboratory.Patients or Other Participants: A total of 11 healthy subjects (age: 24.6 ± 3.5 years, height: 1.70 ± 0.10 m, mass: 65.6 ± 14.9 kg) participated in this study.Intervention(s): Subjects performed five trials in each of four dynamic movement conditions: drop landing from 0.45 m onto a 25° inverted surface and flat surface with and without a semi-rigid ankle brace.Main Outcome Measure(s): The three-dimensional kinematics and ground reaction forces (GRF) were collected simultaneously. A 2 × 2 (surface × brace) repeated measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate selected variables. Results: Landing on the inverted surface caused smaller peak vertical and medial GRFs but greater lateral GRF. It also introduced reduced dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM), contact and maximum dorsiflexion velocities and plantar flexion moment, but greater inversion angle and ROM, contact inversion velocity and peak eversion moment compared to landing on flat surface. The ankle brace decreased the time of 2nd peak vertical GRF, contact angle and dorsiflexion velocity, maximum eversion velocity and plantarflexion velocity, and the time to peak eversion moment, but increased maximum plantarflexion moment in inverted surface landing. Conclusions. These results suggest that the inverted surface increased frontal-plane ROM and loading of ankle complex. In addition, the effects of the ankle brace on frontal-plane ROM and loading of ankle complex is rather limited during landing on the inverted surface. |
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download PDF reader |
| Close |
