EFFECTS OF SURFACE ON TRIPLE HOP DISTANCE AND KINEMATICS
Gregory AB, Nguyen AD, Taylor JB, Ford KR
International journal of sports physical therapy · 2 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Controlled clinical trial (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2020-12-01 · Int J Sports Phys Ther · vol. 15 · issue 6 · pp. 920–927
- Cited
- 2 citations · more than 21% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
- References
- 34 works
- Access
- Open access (free to publish) · CC-BY-NC
- Research areas
- Foot and Ankle Surgery · Tendon Structure and Treatment · Sports injuries and prevention
- Keywords
- Kinematics, Sagittal plane, Medicine, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Trunk, Range of motion, Biomechanics, Ankle, Hop (telecommunications), Physical therapy, Repeated measures design, Ankle dorsiflexion, Motion analysis, Mathematics, Surgery, Statistics, Computer science, Anatomy, Telecommunications, Artificial intelligence, Physics
4 authors
From US
- Amanda B. GregoryHigh Point University
- Anh‐Dung NguyenWest Virginia University
- Jeffrey B. TaylorHigh Point University
- Kevin Ray FordHigh Point University
Abstract
Background
The single leg triple hop (SLTH) test is often utilized by rehabilitation practitioners as a functional performance measure in a variety of patient groups. Accuracy and consistency are important when measuring the patient progress and recovery. Administering the SLTH test on different surfaces, consistent with the patient's sport, may affect the hop distances and movement biomechanics.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of court and turf surfaces on the hop distance, limb symmetry index (LSI), and lower extremity kinematics of a SLTH test.
Methods
Recreationally active female participants (n=11, height 163.8 ± 7.1cm, mass 63.1 ± 7.1kg, age 18.9 ± 0.9yrs), without injury, volunteered to participate in the study. Three maximal effort SLTH test trials on two different surfaces (court, synthetic turf) were collected and analyzed using 3D motion analysis techniques. Outcome variables included SLTH test distances and LSI values and sagittal plane kinematics including trunk, hip, knee and ankle range of motion (ROM) during the last two landings of each SLTH test trial. The second landing involves an absorption phase and propulsion phase in contrast to the final landing which involves absorption and final balance on the single leg. Paired t-tests were used to determine differences between surfaces in hop distance and LSI values. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA were used to determine differences between surfaces in kinematic variables.
Results
The total SLTH test distance was not statistically different between the court (4.11 ± 0.47m) and turf (4.03 ± 0.42m, p=0.47) surfaces. LSI for the court surface was 100.8 ± 3.0% compared to 99.7 ± 3.0% for turf surface, which was not statistically different (p=0.30). Knee flexion ROM was significantly less (p=0.04) on the turf compared to the court surface during the second landing. Ankle flexion range of motion was also significantly less (p=0.03) during the second landing on turf compared to court.
Conclusions
Type of surface influenced landing kinematics but not total SLTH test distance. When evaluating the quality of landings during a SLTH test, it may be warranted to observe each type of landing and the type of surface used during single leg tests.
Level of evidence
2.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.