A Comparison of Ground Reaction Forces, Tibial Forces, and Clinician Perspectives on Tibial Bone Load During Common Rehabilitation Exercises.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Meredith K Owen, Katherine M Rodzak, Tereza Janatova, Lauren N Erickson, Camille C Johnson, Karl E Zelik, Brian Noehren
{"title":"A Comparison of Ground Reaction Forces, Tibial Forces, and Clinician Perspectives on Tibial Bone Load During Common Rehabilitation Exercises.","authors":"Meredith K Owen, Katherine M Rodzak, Tereza Janatova, Lauren N Erickson, Camille C Johnson, Karl E Zelik, Brian Noehren","doi":"10.1249/MSS.0000000000004133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Optimal healing after a tibia fracture depends on appropriate mechanical loading. Ground reaction force is often used as an indicator of expected tibia load, but it does not account for internal forces placed on the tibia from muscle contractions. Objectives of this study were to 1) characterize peak forces on the distal tibia during common exercises used for rehabilitation after lower extremity injury, 2) compare peak tibial force to peak ground reaction forces for each exercise, and 3) compare rank-ordered exercises based on tibial force to clinician expectations of tibial load.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants (10 M/10 F) completed 16 rehabilitation exercises in standardized order while three-dimensional marker data and ground reaction forces were recorded synchronously. Physical therapists (n=12) completed a survey to rank the same exercises in order of expected tibial load. Compressive tibia force was estimated using a musculoskeletal model with ankle joint moment and ground reaction force as inputs. Exercises were ranked by peak tibial force and peak ground reaction force. Survey data were compiled to provide a clinician rank for each exercise.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The relationship between peak tibial force and ground reaction force was not consistent across exercises. Clinician ranking of exercises by tibial load differed from the model-estimated order of calculated tibia force.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Ground reaction forces are not a suitable surrogate for estimated distal tibia force across exercises, which may result in under- or over-dosing of load relative to recovery trajectory. This study provides a reference data set of estimated tibial force that can support clinicians' exercise prescription.</p>","PeriodicalId":18426,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000004133","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Optimal healing after a tibia fracture depends on appropriate mechanical loading. Ground reaction force is often used as an indicator of expected tibia load, but it does not account for internal forces placed on the tibia from muscle contractions. Objectives of this study were to 1) characterize peak forces on the distal tibia during common exercises used for rehabilitation after lower extremity injury, 2) compare peak tibial force to peak ground reaction forces for each exercise, and 3) compare rank-ordered exercises based on tibial force to clinician expectations of tibial load.

Methods: Participants (10 M/10 F) completed 16 rehabilitation exercises in standardized order while three-dimensional marker data and ground reaction forces were recorded synchronously. Physical therapists (n=12) completed a survey to rank the same exercises in order of expected tibial load. Compressive tibia force was estimated using a musculoskeletal model with ankle joint moment and ground reaction force as inputs. Exercises were ranked by peak tibial force and peak ground reaction force. Survey data were compiled to provide a clinician rank for each exercise.

Results: The relationship between peak tibial force and ground reaction force was not consistent across exercises. Clinician ranking of exercises by tibial load differed from the model-estimated order of calculated tibia force.

Conclusions: Ground reaction forces are not a suitable surrogate for estimated distal tibia force across exercises, which may result in under- or over-dosing of load relative to recovery trajectory. This study provides a reference data set of estimated tibial force that can support clinicians' exercise prescription.

地面反作用力、胫骨力和临床医生对常见康复运动中胫骨负荷的看法的比较。
目的:胫骨骨折后的最佳愈合取决于适当的机械负荷。地面反作用力通常被用作预期胫骨负荷的指标,但它不考虑肌肉收缩对胫骨施加的内力。本研究的目的是:1)表征用于下肢损伤后康复的常用运动中胫骨远端峰值力的特征;2)比较每次运动中胫骨峰值力与地面反作用力的峰值;3)比较基于胫骨力的顺序运动与临床医生期望的胫骨负荷。方法:参与者(10 M/10 F)按标准化顺序完成16项康复训练,同时同步记录三维标记数据和地面反作用力。物理治疗师(n=12)完成了一项调查,根据预期的胫骨负荷对相同的运动进行排名。胫骨压缩力的估计使用肌肉骨骼模型与踝关节力矩和地面反作用力作为输入。按胫骨力峰值和地反力峰值对运动进行排序。对调查数据进行汇编,为每种锻炼提供临床医生排名。结果:在不同的训练过程中,胫骨峰值力与地面反作用力的关系并不一致。临床医生根据胫骨负荷对运动的排序不同于模型估计的计算胫骨力的顺序。结论:地面反作用力不是估算胫骨远端力的合适替代物,这可能导致相对于恢复轨迹的负荷不足或过量。本研究提供了一个估计胫骨力的参考数据集,可以支持临床医生的运动处方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
4.90%
发文量
2568
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® features original investigations, clinical studies, and comprehensive reviews on current topics in sports medicine and exercise science. With this leading multidisciplinary journal, exercise physiologists, physiatrists, physical therapists, team physicians, and athletic trainers get a vital exchange of information from basic and applied science, medicine, education, and allied health fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书