Table 1

Summary of biomechanical studies of loading mechanisms in impact landings

Mechanism

Study

Study type

Load estimation approach

Landing task protocol

Landing height

Key loading response finding(s)


Technique


Knee joint flexion


[15]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Double-foot)

0.15-1.05 m

Inverse relationship between initial knee flexion & peak GRFr


[16]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Double-foot)

0.59 m

Inverse relationship between maximum knee flexion & GRFv


[23]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.80 m & 1.15 m

Higher (32%) GRFv with stiff than soft knee (0.80 m, hard mat)


[25]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Double-foot)

0.32 m, 0.62 m,1.03 m

Direct relationship between knee stiffness & peak GRFv


[26]

Laboratory

Spring-mass assumption

Drop (Double-foot)

0.30 m (12 inch)

Higher GRFv (55%) with stiff than soft (bent) knee


[27]

Laboratory

Simulation modelling

0.10 m-0.40 m

Non-linear, inverse relationship between knee flexion & peak GRFv


[51]

Theoretical

Drop (Double-foot)

0.46 m

Change in peak GRFv (1.5 BW) with modified knee flexion timing


Foot placement


[17]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics & electromyography

Drop (Double-foot)

0.40 m

Higher (3.4 times) GRFv impact peak in HTL than FFL


[18]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.30 m

Unreported kinetic measures


Gender-specific


[11]

Laboratory

Electromyography

Drop (Double-foot)

0.52 m

No gender difference in peak GRFv or IGRF at 50 & 100 ms


[18]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.30 m

Unreported kinetic measures


[28]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Double-foot)

0.60 m

No gender difference in magnitude, time and rate of peak GRFv


[30]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Stop-jump

Not reported

Higher peak GRFv (24%) in females than males


[31]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Single-foot)

0.30 m

Higher peak GRFv (9%) in females than males


[34]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Stop-jump

Not reported

Higher knee extension & valgus moments in females than males


[35]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Double-foot)

0.60 m

Higher peak GRFv (34%) in females than males


Landing height


[2]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.69 m, 1.25 m, 1.82 m

Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv


[14]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.32 m, 0.72 m, 1.28 m

Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv


[15]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Double-foot)

0.15-1.05 m

Exponential relationship between landing height & peak GRFr


[23]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.80 m & 1.15 m

Unreported kinetic measures


[24]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.30 m, 0.60 m, 0.90 m

No reported statistical comparison between heights


[25]

Laboratory

Inverse dynamics

Drop (Double-foot)

0.32 m, 0.62 m,1.03 m

Positive relationship between landing height & peak GRFv


[27]

Laboratory

Spring-mass assumption

Jump (Double-foot)

0.10 m-0.40 m

Exponential relationship between landing height & peak GRFv


Impacting interface


[2]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.69 m, 1.25 m, 1.82 m

No difference in peak GRFv between mat stiffness


[23]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.80 m & 1.15 m

No difference in peak GRFv between mat stiffness


[46]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Drop (Double-foot)

0.43 m

Peak GRFv sensitivity to heel pad stiffness


Performer experience


[14]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.32 m, 0.72 m, 1.28 m


[24]

Laboratory

Drop (Double-foot)

0.30 m, 0.60 m, 0.90 m

Higher GRFv in gymnasts than recreational athletes (0.60 & 0.90 m)


Landing task


[32]

Laboratory

Backward rotating tuck & pike (beam)

2.18 m & 2.22 m

Unreported kinetic measures


Laboratory

Inverse dynamics & electromyography

Drop, front & back tucked salto (beam)

0.72 m

Between task differences in net joint moments after contact


[48]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Backward & forward rotating somersault (vault)

Not reported

Reduced peak GRFv & GRFh in tasks using optimised strategies


Mass composition


[19]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Drop (Double-foot)

0.43 m

Peak GRFv (24.3 bodyweights) attenuated by soft tissues


[20]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Drop (Double-foot)

0.46 m

Peak GRFv sensitivity to soft & rigid mass composition


[46]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Drop (Double-foot)

0.43 m

Higher peak GRFv (13%) with higher bone mass (20%)


[49]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Drop (Double-foot)

0.46 m

Peak GRFv (8.6 bodyweights) attenuated by soft tissues


Mass coupling


[20]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Drop (Double-foot)

0.46 m

Subject-specific GRFv response to coupling parameter changes


[47]

Theoretical

Simulation modelling

Drop (Double-foot)

0.43 m

Insensitivity in peak GRFv to coupling parameters


GRFr: Peak resultant ground reaction force, GRFv: Peak vertical ground reaction force, GRFvh Peak horizontal ground reaction force IGRF: ground reaction force impulse, HTL: heel-toe landing, FFL: forefoot landing

Gittoes and Irwin Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology 2012 4:4   doi:10.1186/1758-2555-4-4

Open Data