Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (82)
- Postprint (17)
- Conference Proceeding (10)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (114)
Keywords
- EMG (6)
- young athletes (6)
- Children (5)
- back pain (5)
- fertilization (5)
- trunk (5)
- Biodiversity Exploratories (4)
- Biodiversity exploratories (4)
- Nitrogen (4)
- land use (4)
Institute
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (49)
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (35)
- Strukturbereich Kognitionswissenschaften (8)
- Institut für Chemie (7)
- Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät (4)
- Institut für Ernährungswissenschaft (4)
- Institut für Informatik und Computational Science (3)
- Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät (2)
- Department Erziehungswissenschaft (1)
- Extern (1)
The aim of this study was to acquire static and dynamic foot geometry and loading in childhood, and to establish data for age groups of a population of 1-13 year old infants and children.
A total of 10,382 children were recruited and 7788 children (48% males and 52% females) were finally included into the data analysis. For static foot geometry foot length and foot width were quantified in a standing position. Dynamic foot geometry and loading were assessed during walking on a walkway with self selected speed (Novel Emed X, 100 Hz, 4 sensors/cm(2)). Contact area (CA), peak pressure (PP), force time integral (FTI) and the arch index were calculated for the total, fore-, mid- and hindfoot.
Results show that most static and dynamic foot characteristics change continuously during growth and maturation. Static foot length and width increased with age from 13.1 +/- 0.8 cm (length) and 5.7 +/- 0.4 cm (width) in the youngest to 24.4 +/- 1.5 cm (length) and 8.9 +/- 0.6 cm (width) in the oldest. A mean walking velocity of 0.94 +/- 0.25 m/s was observed. Arch-index ranged from 0.32 +/- 0.04 [a.u.] in the one-year old to 0.21 +/- 0.13 [a.u.] in the 5-year olds and remains constant afterwards.
This study provides data for static and dynamic foot characteristics in children based on a cohort of 7788 subjects. Static and dynamic foot measures change differently during growth and maturation. Dynamic foot measurements provide additional information about the children's foot compared to static measures.
Background: Isokinetic measurements are widely used to assess strength capacity in a clinical or research context. Nevertheless, the validity of isokinetic measures for identifying strength deficits and the evaluation of therapeutic process regarding different pathologies is yet to be established. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to evaluate the validity of isokinetic measures in a specific case: that of muscular capacity in low back pain (LBP).
Methods: A literature search (PubMed; ISI Web of Knowledge; The Cochrane Library) covering the last 10 years was performed. Relevant papers regarding isokinetic trunk strength measures in healthy and patients with low back pain (PLBP) were searched. Peak torque values [Nm] and peak torque normalized to body weight [Nm/kg BW] were extracted for healthy and PLBP. Ranked mean values across studies were calculated for the concentric peak torque at 60 degrees/s as well as the flexion/extension (F/E) ratio.
Results: 34 publications (31 flexion/extension; 3 rotation) were suitable for reporting detailed isokinetic strength measures in healthy or LBP (untrained adults, adolescents, athletes). Adolescents and athletes were different compared to normal adults in terms of absolute trunk strength values and the F/E ratio. Furthermore, isokinetic measures evaluating therapeutic process and isokinetic rehabilitation training were infrequent in literature (8 studies).
Conclusion: Isokinetic measurements are valid for measuring trunk flexion/extension strength and F/E ratio in athletes, adolescents and (untrained) adults with/without LBP. The validity of trunk rotation is questionable due to a very small number of publications whereas no reliable source regarding lateral flexion could be traced. Therefore, isokinetic dynamometry may be utilized for identifying trunk strength deficits in healthy adults and PLBP.
Mueller, J, Mueller, S, Stoll, J, Baur, H, and Mayer, F. Trunk extensor and flexor strength capacity in healthy young elite athletes aged 11-15 years. J Strength Cond Res 28(5): 1328-1334, 2014-Differences in trunk strength capacity because of gender and sports are well documented in adults. In contrast, data concerning young athletes are sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess the maximum trunk strength of adolescent athletes and to investigate differences between genders and age groups. A total of 520 young athletes were recruited. Finally, 377 (n = 233/144 M/F; 13 +/- 1 years; 1.62 +/- 0.11 m height; 51 +/- 12 kg mass; training: 4.5 +/- 2.6 years; training sessions/week: 4.3 +/- 3.0; various sports) young athletes were included in the final data analysis. Furthermore, 5 age groups were differentiated (age groups: 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 years; n = 90, 150, 42, 43, and 52, respectively). Maximum strength of trunk flexors (Flex) and extensors (Ext) was assessed in all subjects during isokinetic concentric measurements (60 degrees center dot s(-1); 5 repetitions; range of motion: 55 degrees). Maximum strength was characterized by absolute peak torque (Flex(abs), Ext(abs); N center dot m), peak torque normalized to body weight (Flex(norm), Ext(norm); N center dot m center dot kg(-1) BW), and Flex(abs)/Ext(abs) ratio (RKquot). Descriptive data analysis (mean +/- SD) was completed, followed by analysis of variance (alpha = 0.05; post hoc test [Tukey-Kramer]). Mean maximum strength for all athletes was 97 +/- 34 N center dot m in Flex(abs) and 140 +/- 50 N center dot m in Ext(abs) (Flex(norm) = 1.9 +/- 0.3 N center dot m center dot kg(-1) BW, Ext(norm) = 2.8 +/- 0.6 N center dot m center dot kg(-1) BW). Males showed statistically significant higher absolute and normalized values compared with females (p < 0.001). Flex(abs) and Ext(abs) rose with increasing age almost 2-fold for males and females (Flex(abs), Ext(abs): p < 0.001). Flex(norm) and Ext(norm) increased with age for males (p < 0.001), however, not for females (Flex(norm): p = 0.26; Ext(norm): p = 0.20). RKquot (mean +/- SD: 0.71 +/- 0.16) did not reveal any differences regarding age (p = 0.87) or gender (p = 0.43). In adolescent athletes, maximum trunk strength must be discussed in a gender- and age-specific context. The Flex(abs)/Ext(abs) ratio revealed extensor dominance, which seems to be independent of age and gender. The values assessed may serve as a basis to evaluate and discuss trunk strength in athletes.
Stumbling led to an increase in ROM, compared to unperturbed gait, in all segments and planes. These increases ranged between 107 +/- 26% (UTA/rotation) and 262 +/- 132% (UTS/lateral flexion), significant only in lateral flexion. EMG activity of the trunk was increased during stumbling (abdominal: 665 +/- 283%; back: 501 +/- 215%), without significant differences between muscles. Provoked stumbling leads to a measurable effect on the trunk, quantifiable by an increase in ROM and EMG activity, compared to normal walking. Greater abdominal muscle activity and ROM of lateral flexion may indicate a specific compensation pattern occurring during stumbling. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Background
Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations.
Methods
Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP.
Results
No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups.
Conclusion
BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations.
Background
Back pain patients (BPP) show delayed muscle onset, increased co-contractions, and variability as response to quasi-static sudden trunk loading in comparison to healthy controls (H). However, it is unclear whether these results can validly be transferred to suddenly applied walking perturbations, an automated but more functional and complex movement pattern. There is an evident need to develop research-based strategies for the rehabilitation of back pain. Therefore, the investigation of differences in trunk stability between H and BPP in functional movements is of primary interest in order to define suitable intervention regimes. The purpose of this study was to analyse neuromuscular reflex activity as well as three-dimensional trunk kinematics between H and BPP during walking perturbations.
Methods
Eighty H (31m/49f;29±9yrs;174±10cm;71±13kg) and 14 BPP (6m/8f;30±8yrs;171±10cm;67±14kg) walked (1m/s) on a split-belt treadmill while 15 right-sided perturbations (belt decelerating, 40m/s2, 50ms duration; 200ms after heel contact) were randomly applied. Trunk muscle activity was assessed using a 12-lead EMG set-up. Trunk kinematics were measured using a 3-segment-model consisting of 12 markers (upper thoracic (UTA), lower thoracic (LTA), lumbar area (LA)). EMG-RMS ([%],0-200ms after perturbation) was calculated and normalized to the RMS of unperturbed gait. Latency (TON;ms) and time to maximum activity (TMAX;ms) were analysed. Total motion amplitude (ROM;[°]) and mean angle (Amean;[°]) for extension-flexion, lateral flexion and rotation were calculated (whole stride cycle; 0-200ms after perturbation) for each of the three segments during unperturbed and perturbed gait. For ROM only, perturbed was normalized to unperturbed step [%] for the whole stride as well as the 200ms after perturbation. Data were analysed descriptively followed by a student´s t-test to account for group differences. Co-contraction was analyzed between ventral and dorsal muscles (V:R) as well as side right:side left ratio (Sright:Sleft). The coefficient of variation (CV;%) was calculated (EMG-RMS;ROM) to evaluate variability between the 15 perturbations for all groups. With respect to unequal distribution of participants to groups, an additional matched-group analysis was conducted. Fourteen healthy controls out of group H were sex-, age- and anthropometrically matched (group Hmatched) to the BPP.
Results
No group differences were observed for EMG-RMS or CV analysis (EMG/ROM) (p>0.025). Co-contraction analysis revealed no differences for V:R and Srigth:Sleft between the groups (p>0.025). BPP showed an increased TON and TMAX, being significant for Mm. rectus abdominus (p = 0.019) and erector spinae T9/L3 (p = 0.005/p = 0.015). ROM analysis over the unperturbed stride cycle revealed no differences between groups (p>0.025). Normalization of perturbed to unperturbed step lead to significant differences for the lumbar segment (LA) in lateral flexion with BPP showing higher normalized ROM compared to Hmatched (p = 0.02). BPP showed a significant higher flexed posture (UTA (p = 0.02); LTA (p = 0.004)) during normal walking (Amean). Trunk posture (Amean) during perturbation showed higher trunk extension values in LTA segments for H/Hmatched compared to BPP (p = 0.003). Matched group (BPP vs. Hmatched) analysis did not show any systematic changes of all results between groups.
Conclusion
BPP present impaired muscle response times and trunk posture, especially in the sagittal and transversal planes, compared to H. This could indicate reduced trunk stability and higher loading during gait perturbations.