{"title":"长时间负重对膝关节内收幅度和速度的影响","authors":"G. J. Salverda","doi":"10.18122/td.1835.boisestate","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Adopting knee adduction biomechanics during prolonged load carriage, a common military occupational \n activity, may increase service members knee osteoarthritis (OA) risk. Although service members reportedly increase knee adduction \n motions and moments during prolonged load carriage, it is unknown if either body borne load or walk duration increases velocity \n of knee adduction biomechanics, and subsequent knee OA risk. Varus thrust and alignment are also related to greater knee OA risk, \n yet it is unknown whether varus thrust and/or alignment are related to magnitude and velocity of knee adduction biomechanics \n during prolonged load carriage. Purpose: To determine whether body borne load and walk duration impacted \n magnitude and velocity of knee adduction biomechanics, or whether increases in knee adduction biomechanics are related \n to knee varus thrust or alignment. Methods: Seventeen participants (11 male/6 female, 23.2 ± 2.9 yrs, \n 1.8 ± .09 m, 71.0 ± 12.1 kg) had knee adduction biomechanics quantified while walking 1.3 m/s for 60 minutes with three \n body borne loads (0 kg, 15 kg, and 30 kg). Specifically, peak, average and maximum velocity, as well as time to peak, \n for knee adduction angle and moment, and varus thrust (first 16% of stance) were calculated at minutes 0, 30, and 60 \n of the load carriage task. Static knee alignment was calculated as the frontal plane knee projection \n angle. Statistical Analysis: Participants were defined as varus thrust (VT, n=8) or control (CON, n=9). Then, \n each knee adduction measurement was submitted to a repeated measures ANCOVA to test the main effect and interaction \n between body borne load (0 kg, 15 kg, and 30 kg), time (minutes 0, 30, and 60), and \n group (VT and CON), with static alignment considered a covariate. Results: A significant 3-way \n interaction for maximum varus thrust velocity (p=0.014), revealed the VT group exhibited greater maximum velocity at \n minutes 0 through 60 (p ≤ 0.038) with the 0 kg load, and minutes 0 and 60 (p ≤ 0.043) with the 15 kg load. Significant \n load by group interactions for magnitude (p=0.008) and average velocity (p=0.013) of varus thrust, and maximum KAA \n velocity (p=0.041) revealed VT participants exhibited larger and faster varus thrust and knee adduction angle than \n the CON group with the 0 kg and 15 kg loads (p < 0.050). Additionally, both magnitude and maximum velocity of KAM \n increased with the addition of load (p=0.009 and p=0.004), and walk duration increased magnitude of varus thrust \n (p=0.044). Static alignment was not a significant covariate for any knee adduction measure \n (p > 0.05). Conclusion: During prolonged load carriage participants adopted larger, faster knee adduction \n biomechanics, potentially increasing risk of knee OA. The VT group exhibited greater knee OA risk, and larger, faster \n knee adduction motions when walking with the lighter (0 kg and 15 kg) loads; while CON adopted increases in knee \n adduction biomechanics related to knee OA with the heavy (30 kg) load.","PeriodicalId":72381,"journal":{"name":"Biomechanics (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prolonged Load Carriage Impacts Magnitude and Velocity of Knee Adduction Biomechanics\",\"authors\":\"G. J. Salverda\",\"doi\":\"10.18122/td.1835.boisestate\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Adopting knee adduction biomechanics during prolonged load carriage, a common military occupational \\n activity, may increase service members knee osteoarthritis (OA) risk. Although service members reportedly increase knee adduction \\n motions and moments during prolonged load carriage, it is unknown if either body borne load or walk duration increases velocity \\n of knee adduction biomechanics, and subsequent knee OA risk. Varus thrust and alignment are also related to greater knee OA risk, \\n yet it is unknown whether varus thrust and/or alignment are related to magnitude and velocity of knee adduction biomechanics \\n during prolonged load carriage. Purpose: To determine whether body borne load and walk duration impacted \\n magnitude and velocity of knee adduction biomechanics, or whether increases in knee adduction biomechanics are related \\n to knee varus thrust or alignment. Methods: Seventeen participants (11 male/6 female, 23.2 ± 2.9 yrs, \\n 1.8 ± .09 m, 71.0 ± 12.1 kg) had knee adduction biomechanics quantified while walking 1.3 m/s for 60 minutes with three \\n body borne loads (0 kg, 15 kg, and 30 kg). Specifically, peak, average and maximum velocity, as well as time to peak, \\n for knee adduction angle and moment, and varus thrust (first 16% of stance) were calculated at minutes 0, 30, and 60 \\n of the load carriage task. Static knee alignment was calculated as the frontal plane knee projection \\n angle. Statistical Analysis: Participants were defined as varus thrust (VT, n=8) or control (CON, n=9). Then, \\n each knee adduction measurement was submitted to a repeated measures ANCOVA to test the main effect and interaction \\n between body borne load (0 kg, 15 kg, and 30 kg), time (minutes 0, 30, and 60), and \\n group (VT and CON), with static alignment considered a covariate. Results: A significant 3-way \\n interaction for maximum varus thrust velocity (p=0.014), revealed the VT group exhibited greater maximum velocity at \\n minutes 0 through 60 (p ≤ 0.038) with the 0 kg load, and minutes 0 and 60 (p ≤ 0.043) with the 15 kg load. Significant \\n load by group interactions for magnitude (p=0.008) and average velocity (p=0.013) of varus thrust, and maximum KAA \\n velocity (p=0.041) revealed VT participants exhibited larger and faster varus thrust and knee adduction angle than \\n the CON group with the 0 kg and 15 kg loads (p < 0.050). Additionally, both magnitude and maximum velocity of KAM \\n increased with the addition of load (p=0.009 and p=0.004), and walk duration increased magnitude of varus thrust \\n (p=0.044). Static alignment was not a significant covariate for any knee adduction measure \\n (p > 0.05). Conclusion: During prolonged load carriage participants adopted larger, faster knee adduction \\n biomechanics, potentially increasing risk of knee OA. The VT group exhibited greater knee OA risk, and larger, faster \\n knee adduction motions when walking with the lighter (0 kg and 15 kg) loads; while CON adopted increases in knee \\n adduction biomechanics related to knee OA with the heavy (30 kg) load.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biomechanics (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biomechanics (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18122/td.1835.boisestate\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomechanics (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18122/td.1835.boisestate","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prolonged Load Carriage Impacts Magnitude and Velocity of Knee Adduction Biomechanics
Introduction: Adopting knee adduction biomechanics during prolonged load carriage, a common military occupational
activity, may increase service members knee osteoarthritis (OA) risk. Although service members reportedly increase knee adduction
motions and moments during prolonged load carriage, it is unknown if either body borne load or walk duration increases velocity
of knee adduction biomechanics, and subsequent knee OA risk. Varus thrust and alignment are also related to greater knee OA risk,
yet it is unknown whether varus thrust and/or alignment are related to magnitude and velocity of knee adduction biomechanics
during prolonged load carriage. Purpose: To determine whether body borne load and walk duration impacted
magnitude and velocity of knee adduction biomechanics, or whether increases in knee adduction biomechanics are related
to knee varus thrust or alignment. Methods: Seventeen participants (11 male/6 female, 23.2 ± 2.9 yrs,
1.8 ± .09 m, 71.0 ± 12.1 kg) had knee adduction biomechanics quantified while walking 1.3 m/s for 60 minutes with three
body borne loads (0 kg, 15 kg, and 30 kg). Specifically, peak, average and maximum velocity, as well as time to peak,
for knee adduction angle and moment, and varus thrust (first 16% of stance) were calculated at minutes 0, 30, and 60
of the load carriage task. Static knee alignment was calculated as the frontal plane knee projection
angle. Statistical Analysis: Participants were defined as varus thrust (VT, n=8) or control (CON, n=9). Then,
each knee adduction measurement was submitted to a repeated measures ANCOVA to test the main effect and interaction
between body borne load (0 kg, 15 kg, and 30 kg), time (minutes 0, 30, and 60), and
group (VT and CON), with static alignment considered a covariate. Results: A significant 3-way
interaction for maximum varus thrust velocity (p=0.014), revealed the VT group exhibited greater maximum velocity at
minutes 0 through 60 (p ≤ 0.038) with the 0 kg load, and minutes 0 and 60 (p ≤ 0.043) with the 15 kg load. Significant
load by group interactions for magnitude (p=0.008) and average velocity (p=0.013) of varus thrust, and maximum KAA
velocity (p=0.041) revealed VT participants exhibited larger and faster varus thrust and knee adduction angle than
the CON group with the 0 kg and 15 kg loads (p < 0.050). Additionally, both magnitude and maximum velocity of KAM
increased with the addition of load (p=0.009 and p=0.004), and walk duration increased magnitude of varus thrust
(p=0.044). Static alignment was not a significant covariate for any knee adduction measure
(p > 0.05). Conclusion: During prolonged load carriage participants adopted larger, faster knee adduction
biomechanics, potentially increasing risk of knee OA. The VT group exhibited greater knee OA risk, and larger, faster
knee adduction motions when walking with the lighter (0 kg and 15 kg) loads; while CON adopted increases in knee
adduction biomechanics related to knee OA with the heavy (30 kg) load.