Single-Leg Landings Following a Volleyball Spike May Increase the Risk of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury More Than Landing on Both-Legs
Single-Leg Landings Following a Volleyball Spike May Increase the Risk of Anterior Cruciate...
Xu, Datao;Jiang, Xinyan;Cen, Xuanzhen;Baker, Julien S.;Gu, Yaodong
2020-12-25 00:00:00
applied sciences Article Single-Leg Landings Following a Volleyball Spike May Increase the Risk of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury More Than Landing on Both-Legs 1 1 1 2 , 1 , Datao Xu , Xinyan Jiang , Xuanzhen Cen , Julien S. Baker * and Yaodong Gu * Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China; xudatao3@gmail.com (D.X.); jiangxinyan168@163.com (X.J.); cenxuanzhen@outlook.com (X.C.) Department of Sport and Physical Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong 999077, China * Correspondence: jsbaker@hkbu.edu.hk (J.S.B.); guyaodong@nbu.edu.cn (Y.G.); Tel.: +852-3411-8032 (J.S.B.); +86-574-8760-0456 (Y.G.) Abstract: Volleyball players often land on a single leg following a spike shot due to a shift in the center of gravity and loss of balance. Landing on a single leg following a spike may increase the probability of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the kinematics and kinetics differences during the landing phase of volleyball players using a single leg (SL) and double-leg landing (DL) following a spike shot. The data for vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF) and sagittal plane were collected. SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a smaller knee flexion angle (about 13.8 ) and hip flexion angle (about 10.8 ) during the whole landing phase, a greater knee and hip power during the 16.83–20.45% (p = 0.006) and 13.01–16.26% (p = 0.008) landing phase, a greater ankle plantarflexion angle and moment during the 0–41.07% (p < 0.001) and 2.76–79.45% (p < 0.001) landing phase, a greater VGRF during the 5.87–8.25% (p = 0.029), 19.75–24.14% (p = 0.003) landing phase when compared to DL. Most of these differences fall within the time range of ACL injury (30–50 milliseconds after landing). To reduce non-contact ACL injuries, a landing strategy of consciously increasing the hip and knee flexion, and plantarflexion of the ankle should be considered by volleyball players. Citation: Xu, D.; Jiang, X.; Cen, X.; Baker, J.S.; Gu, Y. Single-Leg Landings Following a Volleyball Spike May Keywords: volleyball spike landing; sagittal biomechanics; non-contact ACL injuries; statistical Increase the Risk of Anterior Cruciate parametric mapping (SPM) Ligament Injury More Than Landing on Both-Legs. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ app11010130 1. Introduction As a competitive sport, volleyball has a high rate of musculoskeletal injury [1]. The spe- Received: 28 October 2020 cial movements of volleyball, such as jumping, landing, blocking, and spiking, need to Accepted: 20 December 2020 be combined with fast movements, that put very high demands on the musculoskeletal Published: 25 December 2020 system of volleyball players. This can cause considerable damage to the musculoskeletal system of players [2,3]. High-level volleyball players are prone to suffering lower limb Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- injury following overuse caused by continuous blocking and attacking [3–5]. This is es- tral with regard to jurisdictional claims pecially true for the knee joint which is easily injured in the energy transmission process in published maps and institutional because it comprises of a joint capsule with multiple joints. Previous studies have shown affiliations. that 63 percent of musculoskeletal injuries in volleyball occur during the basic jump and landing tasks of blocking and spiking. Most of the injuries are located at the knee joint and most injuries are anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries [5]. Anterior cruciate ligament Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li- (ACL) injury is a common injury in sports, and 70–90% of ACL injuries are caused by censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This non-contacts [6–8]. article is an open access article distributed From a mechanical point of view, ACL injury is caused by excessive ACL tension. under the terms and conditions of the The non-contact injury of ACL is generally caused by the large force or moment generated Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) by the player himself on the knee joint, so that the force of ACL exceeds its ultimate load license (https://creativecommons.org/ capacity. The kinematics and kinetics of the sagittal plane are critical to ACL injury during licenses/by/4.0/). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app11010130 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 2 of 14 landing tasks, with the increase of the anterior tibial shear force (mainly from the sagittal plane), the load on the ACL (the risk of ACL injury) will increase [9–11]. Previous studies have also shown that the sagittal hip and knee joints play a major role in energy dissipation and buffering during landing, and smaller knee and hip flexion will increase the impact pressure on the knee (the anterior tibial shear force), leading to an increased risk of ACL injury [12–14]. At the same time, the knee and hip flexion angle during the landing phase were associated with ground reaction forces during jump-landing tasks. Increasing the knee and hip flexion angle might reduce impact force during landing tasks [15]. Ryan et al. found that the joint angle and joint moment were strongly correlated with the ACL strain force. When the knee and hip flexion angles decrease and the knee and hip extension moment goes up, the ACL strain force is significantly increased [9,16]. In the sagittal plane, the lower limb joint has a wide range of motion (ROM) and can provide enough shock absorption without excessive compression of the fragile soft tissue structures such as ligaments [17]. For the total energy dissipation of the lower limb joint during a jump- landing task, previous studies have shown that the sagittal plane is about 10 (landing with double-leg) and 20 (landing with single-leg) times larger than the frontal plane [17]. Therefore, the sagittal plane plays a major role in reducing lower limb injuries. Different landing modes will have a greater influence on the load of the lower limb joints and ligaments [18]. Unreasonable landing patterns include smaller knee and hip flexion angles in the sagittal plane, and greater vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF), which significantly increase the risk of ACL and lower limb injuries [12,13,19]. Volleyball players often land with a single leg after a spike due to a shift in the center of gravity and loss of balance [20]. This will increase the risk of lower limb injury when landing on a single leg, because the impact and energy transfer can only be absorbed by the muscle tissue of the individual leg in contact with the ground. Compared with landing using both legs, previous studies have shown that landing with a single leg will increase knee and hip flexion and extension moments, peak VGRF and power, which result will increase tension and stress of the knee ligament, thus increasing the risk of ACL injury [21–23]. However, there is a lack of research on the biomechanical differences caused by volleyball players landing on a single-leg after a spike, and it is also not clear that landing following a volleyball spike would make a greater difference than a typical landing. The injury risk of volleyball players while jumping and landing is determined by the spatial and temporal characteristics of the sport. This has been observed especially during landing after blocking and spiking and increases the probability of ACL injury of volleyball players [24]. In landing tasks, previous studies have shown that ACL injury is believed to occur 30–50 ms after initial ground contact [21]. In the biomechanical analysis of landing tasks that may cause damage, the timing of post-landing damage needs consideration. However, current kinematic and kinetic analyses only partially focus on the peak point data and assume that the peak point time in line with the critical time at the injury occurs. Jeffrey and Michael et al. compared and analyzed the peak joint angle and moment (knee and hip flexion, knee and hip moment) between single-leg and double-leg landing tasks [25–28]. Most of them focus on analyzing peak data. Wang and Rachael et al. also compared the peak VGRF and peak knee proximal tibia shear force during different landing tasks [19,29,30]. This analysis method is widely accepted in research, but the comparative peak misses the important time fluctuations that may happen in the whole landing phase. At present, great progress has been made in the study of biomechanics spatial and temporal variability, and a relatively complete model framework has been presented [11,31,32]. Statistical para- metric mapping (SPM) is a method, which can test the statistical differences of continuous data such as kinematics and kinetics over the whole period of motion to calculate accurately the significance threshold [33,34]. Therefore, based on the one-dimensional character of joint motion changing with time, combining traditional discrete analysis with statistical parametric mapping of one-dimensional (SPM 1d) was used to conduct statistical analysis on the sagittal biomechanical data of the landing task of volleyball players. This can reveal Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 3 of 14 ACL injury mechanics of volleyball players during landing tasks after a spike and provide injury prevention strategies. Therefore, the main aim of our study was to investigate the VGRF and kinematics and kinetics of the lower extremity sagittal plane movement in the whole landing stage of volley- ball players following a spike landing with single-leg landing (SL) and double-leg landing (DL). This will be achieved using traditional discrete kinematic and kinetics analysis and statistical parametric mapping of one-dimensional (SPM 1d) analysis. We hypothesized that significant biomechanical differences may be observed in the sagittal plane between SL and DL after a spike. Compared with DL, the SL could show smaller knee and hip flexion angles and angular velocities as well as greater moment, power, VGRF and loading rates. Meanwhile, most of these differences may be observed within the 30–50 milliseconds time frame of initial contact with the ground. Our hypothesized results may provide some clues to reveal the injury mechanism of ACL from the temporal kinematic and kinetic differences during landing phase. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants The sample size was calculated using the power package RStudio 3.6.1. A power analysis for Paired-samples T-test analysis of variance was performed for an effect size of 0.8 (significance level: 0.05; power: 0.8; alternative: two sided). The power analysis indicated that thirteen subjects (the minimal detectable difference threshold values ranged from 11.2 to 14.8) should be recruited for the study, but we only recruited twelve subjects who were eligible for this study. Therefore, twelve healthy semi-professional male volleyball players were recruited to participate in this experiment (age: 23.3 2.2 years, height: 1.87 0.04 m, weight: 80.2 6.3 kg). All were members of the volleyball team from the local university. They were also National Division 2 athletes or above. Subject exclusion criteria included: (1) a history of foot diseases and deformity or lower limbs surgery; (2) lower extremity injuries or medical problems that might affect athletic performance in the six months prior to the trial. All participates had the objectives, demands, experimental procedures and other details of this study explained to them in detail, and all participates provided written informed consent prior to the experiment. The study protocol was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of Ningbo University (Approval Number: RAGH20200121). All experimentation was performed at the same day, from 8:00 to 21:00 (about 13 h). 2.2. Instrumentation Before the formal test, the height and weight of all subjects were recorded with a calibrated weighing scale and stadiometer. A Vicon system with 8 cameras (Oxford Metric Ltd., Oxford, UK) was used to collect kinematic data during the test, and the data were sampled at a frequency of 200 Hz. An in-ground force plate (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) was used to obtain kinetic data, and the sampling frequency was set at 1000 Hz. Vicon Nexus software was used to synchronously capture force plate data and kinematics data. As shown in Figure 1, a total of thirty-six reflective markers with diameter of 12.5 mm were placed on the lower extremities and pelvis to track the motion trajectory according to the experimental requirements and details from a previous study [35]. The reflective markers were located in the bilateral lower limbs and pelvis, which included anterior and posterior (left and right) superior iliac spine, medial and lateral (left and right) condyle, medial and lateral (left and right) malleolus, first and fifth (left and right) metatarsal heads, distal interphalangeal joint (left and right) of the second toe, and six clusters were placed on the middle and lateral (left and right) heel, shank and thigh. The data set of initial coordinates were obtained via collected static experimental data on the subjects in an anatomically neutral position. All negative sagittal data represent flexion or plantarflexion, and all positive data represent extension or dorsiflexion. The data for joint motions were calculated using the Euler equation [36]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 an anatomically neutral position. All negative sagittal data represent flexion or plantar- Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 4 of 14 flexion, and all positive data represent extension or dorsiflexion. The data for joint mo- tions were calculated using the Euler equation [36]. Figure 1. Illustration of lower limb and pelvis reflective markers placement. Figure 1. Illustration of lower limb and pelvis reflective markers placement. 2.3. Experimental Procedure 2.3. Experimental Procedure Figure 2 outlines the experimental process. The whole experimental environment was Figure 2 outlines the experimental process. The whole experimental environment surrounded by eight infrared cameras and the force plate was located between the middle was surrounded by eight infrared cameras and the force plate was located between the line and the attack line as shown in the figure. Before the formal experiment, participants middle line and the attack line as shown in the figure. Before the formal experiment, par- Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 warmed up for 10 min in a manner of their choice. Following the warm-up, the partici- ticipants warmed up for 10 min in a manner of their choice. Following the warm-up, the pants were familiarized with the experimental environment and experimental process and participants were familiarized with the experimental environment and experimental pro- spike landing practice preceded the formal experiment. To avoid the error caused by the the force plate simultaneously. A successful trial of landing tasks was defined as the sub- cess and spike landing practice preceded the formal experiment. To avoid the error caused jects not falling after landing, the complete spike sequence agreed with the rules of vol- differences of participants’ flight-time and flight-distance in the air, all participants were by the differences of participants’ flight-time and flight-distance in the air, all participants leyball, and the ball landed in the designated area. Between each spike landing, partici- asked to take off from force plate and also land on the force plate. All participants were were asked to take off from force plate and also land on the force plate. All participants pants rested for 30 s to reduce the error due to any acute fatigue caused by successive asked to find the most appropriate way (including the most appropriate way to take off, jumping and landing tasks. Participants were asked to wear professional volleyball shoes were asked to find the most appropriate way (including the most appropriate way to take the durin most g the experiment, an appropriate d they were r distance abetween ndomly (by the simple r volleyball andomizat and ion: tparticipants) he subjects to straight spike off, the most appropriate distance between the volleyball and participants) to straight were randomly assigned directly) assigned to SL or DL tasks, a total of ten successful ex- during the spike landing practice. spike during the spike landing practice. periments were carried out (SL: five times, DL: five times). The average spike height of each subject during the match was recorded, and the height was then marked as the subject′s spike height in the experiment. In the spike land- ing task, the libero held the ball and passed it to the tosser, and the tosser then passed the ball directly in front of the participant (the height of the ball is the height recorded). The participant took off in their own individual way and then spiked the ball with maximal effort on the top of the force plate. After spiking the ball, the subject then landed on the force plate. All participants were asked to use the straight spike and spike the ball into a designated area (Figure 2, red frame area). The SL is outlined in Figure 3, the participants were asked to land on the force plate with their supporting leg (the supporting leg defined as a leg that is often used for support after landing [37]). The other leg did not contact with the ground to simulate landing with single leg as in an official match. For the DL task (Figure 3), the participants were asked to use the supporting leg to land on the force plate, and the other leg to be placed outside Figure 2. Illustration of the spike landing process. Figure 2. Illustration of the spike landing process. 2.4. Data Collection and Processing The force platform had a value of vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) surpassing 10 N, and we defined this as the initial point [11]. Data capture started 2 s prior to the initial contact point and ended 3 s after landing, a total of 5 s of data was collected. The filter frequency selection was based on previous studies by Winter [38]. The dynamic re- sidual analysis was executed in the subsets to confirm the most suitable SNR (signal to noise ratio). Finally, the data were filtered using Butterworth low-pass filters (order: fourth, phase lag: zero, kinematics: 10 Hz, kinetics: 20 Hz). The C3D format file was gen- erated using Vicon Nexus software, and then imported into the C3D file into Visual 3-D software (C-Motion Inc., Germantown, MD, USA) for static modeling and further pro- cessing. The joint angle, joint moment, joint angular velocity and joint power were calculated using Visual 3-D software by inverse kinetics algorithm. Joint power was defined as the product of the joint moment and joint angular velocity. The range of joint motion (ROM) was calculated from the difference between the initial contact joint angle (minimum flex- ion or plantarflexion) and the joint angle at maximum flexion (dorsiflexion). The jump height was calculated by the change of the center of gravity, and the calculation process also conducted using Visual 3-D software. The flight-time was calculated by the change of time point (the starting point: taking off from the force plate; the end point: landing on the force plate), which was conducted using the Vicon system. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 5 of 14 The average spike height of each subject during the match was recorded, and the height was then marked as the subject s spike height in the experiment. In the spike landing task, the libero held the ball and passed it to the tosser, and the tosser then passed the ball directly in front of the participant (the height of the ball is the height recorded). The participant took off in their own individual way and then spiked the ball with maximal effort on the top of the force plate. After spiking the ball, the subject then landed on the force plate. All participants were asked to use the straight spike and spike the ball into a designated area (Figure 2, red frame area). The SL is outlined in Figure 3, the participants were asked to land on the force plate with their supporting leg (the supporting leg defined as a leg that is often used for support after landing [37]). The other leg did not contact with the ground to simulate landing with single leg as in an official match. For the DL task (Figure 3), the participants were asked to use the supporting leg to land on the force plate, and the other leg to be placed outside the force plate simultaneously. A successful trial of landing tasks was defined as the subjects not falling after landing, the complete spike sequence agreed with the rules of volleyball, and the ball landed in the designated area. Between each spike landing, participants rested for 30 s to reduce the error due to any acute fatigue caused by successive jumping and landing tasks. Participants were asked to wear professional volleyball shoes Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14 during the experiment, and they were randomly (by simple randomization: the subjects were randomly assigned directly) assigned to SL or DL tasks, a total of ten successful experiments were carried out (SL: five times, DL: five times). Figure 3. The process of single leg landing (SL) and double-leg landing (DL) following a spike. Figure 3. The process of single leg landing (SL) and double-leg landing (DL) following a spike. 2.4. Data Collection and Processing The loading rate of VGRF was defined as the growth rate of VGRF over time. Then, we imThe ported a force ll platform data into MATLAB (V had a value of ersi vertical on: R2019 ground a, The reaction MathWorks, Na force (VGRF) tick, MA, surpassing USA) to process by 10 N, and we written scr defined thisip ast. A c the initial ustom point MATL [11AB scri ]. Data captur pt was used to i e started 2 snprior tercept to the the ti initial me contact point and ended 3 s after landing, a total of 5 s of data was collected. The filter point between the initial contact and the peak knee joint flexion during the landing pro- cess. 2.5. Statistical Analysis The landing phase was defined as the maximum knee flexion after initial contact with the ground. Prior to statistical analysis, all data were subjected to the Shapiro-Wilk nor- mality test. If the data showed nonconformity, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was executed for data analysis. For traditional analysis (discrete variable), the MATLAB script was written to extract and calculate the ROM of joint angle, peak data of angle, moment, power, angular veloc- ity, and VGRF. Paired-samples T-test was employed to test differences of ROM of joint angle, peak data of angle, moment, power, angular velocity and VGRF. All traditional analyses were conducted using SPSS 24.0 (SPSSs Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and the statistical significance was set as 0.05. Cohen’s d effect sizes (ES) were split into large (ES > 0.8), medium (0.2 < ES < 0.5), and small (ES < 0.2) benchmark sizes [39]. For SPM 1d analysis, each task generated a separate curve prior to analysis. Then, all data were extracted to expand into 101 data points time series curves (using a custom MATLAB script). The 101 data points represent the landing phase (0–100%). The open- source script of SPM 1d (Paired-samples T-test, significance threshold was 0.05) was used in the statistical analysis [34]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 6 of 14 frequency selection was based on previous studies by Winter [38]. The dynamic residual analysis was executed in the subsets to confirm the most suitable SNR (signal to noise ratio). Finally, the data were filtered using Butterworth low-pass filters (order: fourth, phase lag: zero, kinematics: 10 Hz, kinetics: 20 Hz). The C3D format file was generated using Vicon Nexus software, and then imported into the C3D file into Visual 3-D software (C-Motion Inc., Germantown, MD, USA) for static modeling and further processing. The joint angle, joint moment, joint angular velocity and joint power were calculated using Visual 3-D software by inverse kinetics algorithm. Joint power was defined as the product of the joint moment and joint angular velocity. The range of joint motion (ROM) was calculated from the difference between the initial contact joint angle (minimum flexion or plantarflexion) and the joint angle at maximum flexion (dorsiflexion). The jump height was calculated by the change of the center of gravity, and the calculation process also conducted using Visual 3-D software. The flight-time was calculated by the change of time point (the starting point: taking off from the force plate; the end point: landing on the force plate), which was conducted using the Vicon system. The loading rate of VGRF was defined as the growth rate of VGRF over time. Then, we imported all data into MATLAB (Version: R2019a, The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) to process by written script. A custom MATLAB script was used to intercept the time point between the initial contact and the peak knee joint flexion during the landing process. 2.5. Statistical Analysis The landing phase was defined as the maximum knee flexion after initial contact with the ground. Prior to statistical analysis, all data were subjected to the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. If the data showed nonconformity, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was executed for data analysis. For traditional analysis (discrete variable), the MATLAB script was written to extract and calculate the ROM of joint angle, peak data of angle, moment, power, angular veloc- ity, and VGRF. Paired-samples T-test was employed to test differences of ROM of joint angle, peak data of angle, moment, power, angular velocity and VGRF. All traditional analyses were conducted using SPSS 24.0 (SPSSs Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and the statistical significance was set as 0.05. Cohen’s d effect sizes (ES) were split into large (ES > 0.8), medium (0.2 < ES < 0.5), and small (ES < 0.2) benchmark sizes [39]. For SPM 1d analysis, each task generated a separate curve prior to analysis. Then, all data were extracted to expand into 101 data points time series curves (using a custom MATLAB script). The 101 data points represent the landing phase (0–100%). The open- source script of SPM 1d (Paired-samples T-test, significance threshold was 0.05) was used in the statistical analysis [34]. 3. Results For the time of landing phase, there were no differences (p = 0.31) between SL (193.6 29.8 ms) and DL (197.1 33.4 ms) landing task. For the jump height, there were no differences (p = 0.22) between SL (0.59 0.08 m) and DL (0.62 0.10 m) landing task. For the flight-time in the air, there were no differences (p = 0.09) between SL (0.66 0.09 s) and DL (0.71 0.12 s) landing task. For the results of ankle joint. SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly greater plantarflexion angle than DL during the 0–41.07% (SL: 19.8~24.6 , DL: 8.6~29.7 , p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater plantarflexion moment than DL during the 2.76–79.45% (SL: 1.01~ 1.41 Nm/kg, DL: 0.45~ 0.52 Nm/kg, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater joint power than DL during the 2.48–9.66% (SL: 5.20~ 31.37 W/kg, DL: 2.12~ 10.25 W/kg, p < 0.001) and 12.92–26.95% (SL: 19.71~ 2.89 W/kg, DL: 6.14~ 0.65 W/kg, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater dorsiflexion angular velocity than DL during the 0–23.54% (SL: 756.3~102.4 /s, DL: 509.9~18.2 /s, p < 0.001) and 44.73–47.63% (SL: 16.2~12.0 /s, DL: 17.4~21.1 /s, p = 0.016) landing phase (Figure 4). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 7 of 14 SL (Table 1) depicted greater peak plantarflexion angle (p = 0.001), ROM (p = 0.023), peak moment (p = 0.001), peak power (p = 0.001), and peak angular velocity (p = 0.001). For the results of the knee joint. SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly smaller flexion angle than DL during the 0–100% (SL: 7.0~ 72.2 , DL: 20.7~ 97.6 , p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly smaller flexion angular velocity than DL during the 0–32.69% (SL: 293.9~ 157.9 /s, DL: 407.3~ 275.9 /s, p < 0.001) and 44.36–55.40% (SL: 107.1~ 43.9 /s, DL: 195.8~ 133.6 /s, p = 0.014) landing phase, a significantly greater extension moment than DL during the 3.86–4.27% (p = 0.048) and 11.73–12.32% (p = 0.045) and 17.74–21.82% (3.03~4.16 Nm/kg, DL: 2.73~2.49 Nm/kg, p < 0.001) landing phase, a sig- nificantly greater joint power than DL during the 16.83–20.45% (SL: 25.9~ 29.3 W/kg, DL: 16.4~ 23.8 W/kg, p = 0.006) landing phase (Figure 4). SL (Table 1) depicted a smaller Appl. Sci. p e 2021 ak , 11 fl , x FO exio R P n EER an Rg El VIEW e (p = 0.001) and peak angular velocity (p = 0.001), greater peak8 of mo 14 m ent (p = 0.005), and peak power (p = 0.002). Figure 4. The Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) results between single-leg landing (SL) and double-leg landings (DL) Figure 4. The Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) results between single-leg landing (SL) and tasks following a spike, depicting the mean angle moment power and angular velocity and standard deviation of ankle double-leg landings (DL) tasks following a spike, depicting the mean angle moment power and knee and hip sagittal plane. Two dashed lines are the 30 and 50 ms time frame of initial contact. Grey shaded areas indicate that there are significant differences (p < 0.05) between SL and DL during the spike landing phase. angular velocity and standard deviation of ankle knee and hip sagittal plane. Two dashed lines are the 30 and 50 ms time frame of initial contact. Grey shaded areas indicate that there are significant differences (p < 0.05) between SL and DL during the spike landing phase. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 8 of 14 Table 1. Means standard deviations for the peak angle moment power and angular velocity of ankle knee and hip sagittal plane, peak VGRF and loading rate between SL and DL. SL DL p 19.88 8.80 * 8.58 8.28 * Peak Ankle Plantarflexion Angle ( ) 0.001 (initial contact) (initial contact) 25.93 7.94 34.31 14.49 Peak Ankle Dorsiflexion Angle ( ) 0.058 (193.6 29.8 ms) (197.1 33.4 ms) Ankle ROM ( ) 45.81 6.38 * 42.89 7.98 * 0.023 Ankle 3.26 0.55 * 1.12 0.37 * Peak Ankle Moment (Nm/kg) 0.001 (24.2 3.2 ms) (18.5 2.3 ms) 37.97 5.44 * 11.20 4.15 * Peak Ankle Power (W/kg) 0.001 (16.7 2.8 ms) (18.7 3.3 ms) 844.91 95.22 * 559.49 96.93 * Peak Ankle Angular Velocity ( /s) 0.001 (8.6 1.7 ms) (8.4 1.3 ms) 74.26 15.18 * 99.83 17.58 * Peak Knee Flexion Angle ( ) 0.001 (193.6 29.8 ms) (197.1 33.4 ms) 6.96 6.39 * 20.73 6.84 * Peak Knee Extension Angle ( ) 0.003 (initial contact) (initial contact) Knee ROM ( ) 67.30 10.99 79.10 17.33 0.056 Knee 5.52 1.79 * 3.88 1.50 * Peak Knee Moment (Nm/kg) 0.005 (9.7 3.5 ms) (8.5 1.9 ms) 42.77 5.77 * 29.44 5.57 Peak Knee Power (W/kg) 0.002 (26.3 4.1 ms) (27.8 4.4 ms) 464.22 80.49 * 671.56 77.83 * Peak Knee Angular Velocity ( /s) 0.001 (20.6 3.6 ms) (24.3 2.8 ms) 43.01 12.82 * 74.31 10.87 * Peak Hip Flexion Angle ( ) 0.001 (193.6 29.8 ms) (197.1 33.4 ms) 9.21 4.09 20.04 8.61 Peak Hip Extension Angle ( ) 0.021 (initial contact) (initial contact) Hip ROM ( ) 33.80 9.52 * 54.27 13.04 * 0.001 Hip 7.98 2.93 * 4.35 1.99 * Peak Hip Moment (Nm/kg) 0.007 (28.2 5.7 ms) (24.3 4.5 ms) 57.90 10.48 * 30.49 6.91 * Peak Hip Power (W/kg) 0.001 (30.1 6.2 ms) (24.7 4.8 ms) 302.56 68.56 * 426.14 75.13 * Peak Hip Angular Velocity ( /s) 0.001 (30.2 3.7 ms) (29.7 4.3 ms) 5.08 0.68 * 3.31 0.55 * Peak VGRF (BW) 0.001 (48.3 6.6 ms) (49.8 7.8 ms) VGRF Loading Rate (BW/s) 187.23 21.11 * 118.49 14.78 * 0.001 Note: The time corresponding to the occurrence of the peak data point is in parentheses, and the unit is milliseconds (ms). * refer to significance with p < 0.05. For the results of the hip joint, SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly smaller flexion angle than DL during the 0–100% (SL: 9.2~ 41.8 , DL: 20.0~ 71.7 , p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly smaller flexion angular velocity than DL during the 0–26.34% (SL: 69.2~ 150.1 /s, DL: 157.2~ 267.7 /s, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater joint moment than DL during the 3.80–4.60% (p = 0.043) and 12.45–14.49% (3.14~7.98 Nm/kg, DL: 4.17~2.37 Nm/kg, p = 0.019) landing phase, a sig- nificantly greater joint power than DL during the 13.01–16.26% (SL: 29.2~ 30.1 W/kg, DL: 21.9~ 4.2 W/kg, p = 0.008) landing phase (Figure 4). SL (Table 1) that SL depicted Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 9 of 14 a smaller peak flexion angle (p = 0.001) and ROM (p = 0.001) and peak angular velocity (p = 0.001), greater peak moment (p = 0.007) and peak power (p = 0.001). For the results of VGRF. SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly greater VGRF than DL during the 5.87–8.25% (SL: 1.62~1.43 BW, DL: 1.43~1.09 BW, p = 0.029), 19.75–24.14% (SL: 3.43~4.71 BW, DL: 2.28~2.94 BW, p = 0.003) and 47.09–52.46% (SL: Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14 1.79~1.93 BW, DL: 1.15 ~1.18 BW, p = 0.004) landing phase (Figure 5). Table 1 shows that SL depicted greater peak VGRF (p = 0.001) and loading rate of VGRF (p = 0.001) than DL. Figure 5. The Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) results between single-leg landing (SL) and Figure 5. The Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) results between single-leg landing (SL) and double-leg landings (DL) tasks following a spike, depicting the mean vertical ground reaction force double-leg landings (DL) tasks following a spike, depicting the mean vertical ground reaction (VGRF) and standard deviation. Two dashed lines are the 30 and 50 ms time frame of initial contact. force (VGRF) and standard deviation. Two dashed lines are the 30 and 50 ms time frame of initial Grey shaded areas indicate that there are significant differences (p < 0.05) between SL and DL during contact. Grey shaded areas indicate that there are significant differences (p < 0.05) between SL and DL du the ring spike the landing spike land phase. ing phase. 4. Discussion Table 1. Means ± standard deviations for the peak angle moment power and angular velocity of ankle knee and hip sagittal plane, peak VGRF and loading rate between SL and DL. We hypothesized that compared with DL, the SL will show smaller knee and hip flexion angles and angular velocities as well as greater moment, power, VGRF, and loading SL DL p rates. Meanwhile, the SL will show greater ankle plantarflexion angle and dorsiflexion −19.88 ± 8.80 * −8.58 ± 8.28 * angular velocity, and most of these differences were within the 30–50 milliseconds time Peak Ankle Plantarflexion Angle (°) 0.001 (initial contact) (initial contact) frame of initial contact with the ground. Our results agree in part with the proposed 25.93 ± 7.94 34.31 ± 14.49 hypothesis. SPM demonstrated that most differences occur in the first third of the landing Peak Ankle Dorsiflexion Angle (°) 0.058 (193.6 ± 29.8 ms) (197.1 ± 33.4 ms) phase. Our results are consistent with ACL injury mechanism in landing tasks, and SL may incr Ankle ease the ROpr M ( obability °) of ACL injury 45.81 ± 6. risk. 38 * 42.89 ± 7.98 * 0.023 The wide ROM of the knee and hip sagittal plane are key to lower limb cushioning Ankle −3.26 ± 0.55 * −1.12 ± 0.37 * Peak Ankle Moment (Nm/kg) 0.001 during landing [17]. Smaller knee flexion during landing can result in lower limb shock (24.2 ± 3.2 ms) (18.5 ± 2.3 ms) absorption, leaving the ACL at a higher risk of injury [40–43]. Our results revealed that SL −37.97 ± 5.44 * −11.20 ± 4.15 * Peak Ankle Power (W/kg) 0.001 depicted a smaller knee flexion angle (about 13.8 ) and hip flexion angle (about 10.8 ) than (16.7 ± 2.8 ms) (18.7 ± 3.3 ms) DL during the landing phase, and SL also has resulted in a flexion angle of less than 45 844.91 ± 95.22 * 559.49 ± 96.93 * within the 30–50 ms time frame of initial contact. Markolf and Drahanich et al. both found Peak Ankle Angular Velocity (°/s) 0.001 (8.6 ± 1.7 ms) (8.4 ± 1.3 ms) that the quadriceps force will augment ACL loading, when the knee joint flexion angle −74.26 ± 15.18 * −99.83 ± 17.58 * is from 0 to 45 [18,44]. Therefore, our current evidence pointed out that the quadriceps Peak Knee Flexion Angle (°) 0.001 (193.6 ± 29.8 ms) (197.1 ± 33.4 ms) force of SL seems to increase the load on the ACL. Meanwhile, SL appears to be a hard −6.96 ± 6.39 * −20.73 ± 6.84 * landing with the smaller hip flexion angle, and the results of hard landing patterns are Peak Knee Extension Angle (°) 0.003 followed by an increase in knee (init andihip al contac moments. t) W(init ithin ial contac the 30–50 t) ms time frame of the initial landing phase, we found that the knee moment of SL is about 2 Nm/kg greater Knee ROM (°) 67.30 ± 10.99 79.10 ± 17.33 0.056 than DL during the 17.74–21.82% (about 35–43 ms after initial ground contact) landing Knee 5.52 ± 1.79 * 3.88 ± 1.50 * Peak Knee Moment (Nm/kg) 0.005 phase. Consistent with previous studies, smaller flexion angles are accompanied by larger (9.7 ± 3.5 ms) (8.5 ± 1.9 ms) moments, and this increases the risk of ACL injury [45]. At the same time, SL depicted a −42.77 ± 5.77 * −29.44 ± 5.57 Peak Knee Power (W/kg) 0.002 (26.3 ± 4.1 ms) (27.8 ± 4.4 ms) −464.22 ± 80.49 * −671.56 ± 77.83 * Peak Knee Angular Velocity (°/s) 0.001 (20.6 ± 3.6 ms) (24.3 ± 2.8 ms) −43.01 ± 12.82 * −74.31 ± 10.87 * Peak Hip Flexion Angle (°) 0.001 (193.6 ± 29.8 ms) (197.1 ± 33.4 ms) Hip −9.21 ± 4.09 −20.04 ± 8.61 Peak Hip Extension Angle (°) 0.021 (initial contact) (initial contact) Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 10 of 14 greater negative knee joint power and hip joint power during the landing phase. Previous studies have shown that the case of the negative knee and hip joint power suggests that eccentric work is done by the extensor muscles of the knee and hip joint to consume the impact of energy [12]. With the increase of negative joint power, this means that the eccentricity to the joint extensor increases. The strain on the ACL will increase with the eccentricity to the joint extensor (quadriceps femoris and anterior tibia) then the risk of ACL injury will increase [13,45]. The knee joint plays a significant role in absorbing shock during contact between the body and the ground [12]. During the landing task, the increased VGRF will also increase the contractile force of the quadriceps femoris, thus increasing the load on the ACL [13]. Previous studies have shown that higher VGRF and insufficient VGRF dissipation during the landing phase may also be a risk factor for ACL injury [12,46]. Our results revealed that the SL depicted a significantly greater VGRF than DL during the 19.75–24.14% (38–47 ms after initial ground contact) landing phase, and SL also depicted greater peak VGRF (p = 0.001) and loading rate of VGRF (p = 0.001) than DL. Cerulli and Lamontagne found that the maximum ACL tension occurred at the moment of the peak VGRF [44,47]. A higher VGRF loading rate indicates a greater impact in a shorter period, thus increasing the risk of ACL injury with a high probability [3,48,49]. Yu et al. found that the angular velocity of the knee and hip flexion was negatively correlated with the peak VGRF during landing tasks, the active knee and hip flexion may be the key factor to reduce the impact force [13]. Consistent with our results, SL depicted a smaller knee and hip flexion angular velocity during the 0–32.69% and 0–26.34% landing phases respectively. It has been shown that increasing the angular velocity of hip and knee flexion during landing can be reduce VGRF, especially in the early landing phase. The difference in VGRF and angular velocity during the landing phase also occurred within the 30–50 ms time frame. This also seems to be associated with ACL injury mechanisms. During the landing task, the lower limb undergoes a load pattern of distal-to-proximal in which the foot and ankle joint are loaded primarily, and then the load is dissipated to the knee and hip joints. At the moment of initial contact during the landing phase, a greater ankle plantarflexion angle will increase the time to reach the peak VGRF, and a larger plantarflexion landing method can use plantar flexor muscles for attenuation buffering according to previous studies [50,51]. It is also thought to increase lower extremity shock absorption and reduce non-contact ACL injuries [50]. Our results revealed that SL depicted a greater plantarflexion angle (within 83 ms after initial ground contact), power (about 5–54 ms after initial ground contact) during the landing phase. It is worth noting that the time at which these differences occur is also within the framework of the time at which the ACL is thought to occur. The ankle joint in the SL shows higher energy dissipation due to a larger plantarflexion landing method, thus the load impact on the knee joint is relatively reduced. Although the initial contact plantarflexion angle of the ankle joint affects the ROM and peak angular velocity of the knee joint, the knee joint always maintains a constant energy dissipation contribution rate [52,53]. Previous studies have shown that the total energy dissipation of the lower extremities is greater with soft landing (larger knee and hip flexion, ankle plantarflexion) techniques than with hard landing techniques, increasing the total energy dissipation of the lower limb during landing will reduce the potential injury risk of passive joint structure [12,14,54]. Therefore, a landing strategy of consciously increasing the knee and hip flexion, plantarflexion of ankle should be considered by volleyball players in order to reduce non-contact ACL injuries. There are some limitations that should be considered in the present study. Firstly, we did not use electromyography (EMG) to compare and analyze the muscle activity during the spiking landing task. The muscle activity of the knee extensor also has great significance to this study, and EMG data should be considered for subsequent studies. Secondly, the subjects in our experiment did not include female volleyball players. Previous studies have shown differences between male and female athletes during landing [41,53]. Therefore, female subjects should be considered in future studies. Finally, although we Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 11 of 14 attempted in the experiment to simulate real volleyball match conditions, it is unavoidable that some parameters (e.g., the distance between the ball and participant’s hand, the spiked volleyball speed in the air) cannot be quantified. The sample size of our study included twelve semi-professional male volleyball players. This may have contributed to the limita- tions, so increasing the sample size in the future studies could further verify the results presented here. 5. Conclusions In summary, this study presents the kinematic and kinetic differences of the lower limb sagittal plane of motion throughout a volleyball players spike landing phase of single and double leg landing. Appendix A exhibits the STROBE Checklist for reporting this study (Appendix A: Table A1). The results of our study are partially consistent with previous studies about typical landings. Following a spike, landing with a single leg shows a smaller flexion angle and angular velocity of the knee and hip joints, a greater joint moment, joint power, VGRF and loading rate. Most of these differences may increase the risk of ACL injury and fall within the time range of ACL injury. SL depicted a smaller knee flexion angle (about 13.8 ) and hip flexion angle (about 10.8 ), and SL also showed a flexion angle of less than 45 within the 30–50 milliseconds time frame of initial contact with the ground. Therefore, a landing strategy of consciously increasing knee flexion and hip flexion, and plantarflexion of the ankle, should be considered by volleyball players in order to reduce non-contact ACL injuries. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.X. and Y.G.; methodology, D.X., X.J. and Y.G.; software, D.X. and Y.G.; validation, D.X., X.J. and X.C.; investigation, Y.G., X.J. and J.S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, D.X., X.J. and X.C.; writing—review and editing, J.S.B. and Y.G.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This study was funded by the by Key Project of the National Social Science Foundation Informed Consent Statement: Please add “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.” OR “Patient consent was waived due to REASON (please provide a detailed justi- fication).” OR “Not applicable” for studies not involving humans.of China (19ZDA352), National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81772423), NSFC-RSE Joint Project (81911530253), and K.C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University. Data Availability Statement: Data available in a publicly accessible repository. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. An adapted STROBE Checklist for reporting this study. Section/Topic Item Number Recommendation Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of Title and abstract 1 “The Risk of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury (ACL) Following Different Volleyball Spike Landing Ways” Introduction Explain the scientific background and rationale about ACL injury Background/rationale 2 following different volleyball spike landing ways for the investigation being reported Objectives 3 State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses Methods Report numbers of individuals of study (e.g., numbers potentially Participants 4 eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study) Describe the hardware and software equipment used to complete Instrumentation 5 the study (e.g., Vicon motion capture system, AMTI force plate, MATLAB R2019a) Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 12 of 14 Table A1. Cont. Section/Topic Item Number Recommendation Study design 6 Present key elements of this experimental procedure Data collection and processing 7 Describe the data collection and processing process of this study Statistical analysis methods 8 Describe all statistical analysis method Results Main results 9 Present main results of this study Visual data 10 Present figures and tables of key data Discussion Key results 11 Summarize key results with reference to study objectives Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of Limitations 12 potential bias (e.g., lack of female subjects, small sample size) Provide a general interpretation of results and discuss a landing Conclusion 13 strategy to avoid ACL injury Other information Author contributions 14 Describe author contributions of this study Funding 15 Present the funding of this study References 1. Briner, W.; Benjamin, H.J. Managing acute and overuse disorders. Phys. Sportsmed. 1999, 27, 48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Bere, T.; Kruczynski, J.; Veintimilla, N.; Hamu, Y.; Bahr, R. Injury risk is low among world-class volleyball players: 4-year data from the FIVB Injury Surveillance System. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 1132–1137. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Kabacinski, J.; Murawa, M.; Dworak, L.B.; Maczynski, J. Differences in ground reaction forces during landing between volleyball spikes. Trends Sport Sci. 2017, 24, 87–92. 4. Salci, Y.; Kentel, B.B.; Heycan, C.; Akin, S.; Korkusuz, F. Comparison of landing maneuvers between male and female college volleyball players. Clin. Biomech. 2004, 19, 622–628. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Ferretti, A.; Papandrea, P.; Conteduca, F.; Mariani, P.P. Knee ligament injuries in volleyball players. Am. J. Sports Med. 1992, 20, 203–207. [CrossRef] 6. Griffin, L.Y.; Agel, J.; Albohm, M.J.; Arendt, E.A.; Dick, R.W.; Garrett, W.E.; Garrick, J.G.; Hewett, T.E.; Huston, L.; Ireland, M.L. Noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: Risk factors and prevention strategies. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2000, 8, 141–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Caraffa, A.; Cerulli, G.; Projetti, M.; Aisa, G.; Rizzo, A. Prevention of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in soccer. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 1996, 4, 19–21. [CrossRef] 8. McNair, P.; Marshall, R.; Matheson, J. Important features associated with acute anterior cruciate ligament injury. N. Z. Med. 1990, 103, 537–539. [CrossRef] 9. Bakker, R.; Tomescu, S.; Brenneman, E.; Hangalur, G.; Laing, A.; Chandrashekar, N. Effect of sagittal plane mechanics on ACL strain during jump landing. J. Orthop. Res. 2016, 34, 1636–1644. [CrossRef] 10. Ali, N.; Robertson, D.G.; Rouhi, G. Sagittal plane body kinematics and kinetics during single-leg landing from increasing vertical heights and horizontal distances: Implications for risk of non-contact ACL injury. Knee 2014, 21, 38–46. [CrossRef] 11. Xu, D.; Cen, X.; Wang, M.; Rong, M.; István, B.; Baker, J.S.; Gu, Y. Temporal Kinematic Differences between Forward and Backward Jump-Landing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6669. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Devita, P.; Skelly, W.A. Effect of landing stiffness on joint kinetics and energetics in the lower extremity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1992, 24, 108–115. [CrossRef] 13. Yu, B.; Lin, C.F.; Garrett, W.E. Lower extremity biomechanics during the landing of a stop-jump task. Clin. Biomech. 2006, 21, 297–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Zhang, S.N.; Bates, B.T.; Dufek, J.S. Contributions of lower extremity joints to energy dissipation during landings. Med. Sports Exerc. 2000, 32, 812–819. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Aizawa, J.; Ohji, S.; Koga, H.; Masuda, T.; Yagishita, K. Correlations between sagittal plane kinematics and landing impact force during single-leg lateral jump-landings. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2016, 28, 2316–2321. [CrossRef] 16. Zhou, H.; Ugbolue, U.C. Is There a Relationship Between Strike Pattern and Injury During Running: A Review. Phys. Act. Health 2019, 3, 127–134. [CrossRef] 17. Yeow, C.H.; Lee, P.V.; Goh, J.C. An investigation of lower extremity energy dissipation strategies during single-leg and double-leg landing based on sagittal and frontal plane biomechanics. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2011, 30, 624–635. [CrossRef] 18. Jaarsma, E.; Smith, B. The Development and Evaluation of a Participant Led Physical Activity Intervention for People with Disabilities Who Intend to Become More Active. Phys. Act. Health 2019, 3, 89–107. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 13 of 14 19. Taylor, J.B.; Ford, K.R.; Nguyen, A.-D.; Shultz, S.J. Biomechanical comparison of single-and double-leg jump landings in the sagittal and frontal plane. Orth. J. Sport Med. 2016, 4, 2325967116655158. [CrossRef] 20. Tillman, M.D.; Hass, C.J.; Brunt, D.; Bennett, G.R. Jumping and landing techniques in elite women’s volleyball. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2004, 3, 30–36. 21. Krosshaug, T.; Slauterbeck, J.R.; Engebretsen, L.; Bahr, R. Biomechanical analysis of anterior cruciate ligament injury mechanisms: Three-dimensional motion reconstruction from video sequences. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2007, 17, 508–519. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 22. Markolf, K.L.; O’Neill, G.; Jackson, S.R.; McAllister, D.R. Effects of applied quadriceps and hamstrings muscle loads on forces in the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments. Am. J. Sports Med. 2004, 32, 1144–1149. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Hewett, T.E.; Myer, G.D.; Ford, K.R.; Heidt, R.S., Jr.; Colosimo, A.J.; McLean, S.G.; Bogert, A.J.; Paterno, M.V.; Succop, P. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: A prospective study. Am. J. Sports Med. 2005, 33, 492–501. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Zwerver, J.; Gouttebarge, V.; Verhagen, E.; Maas, M.; Kilic, O. Incidence, aetiology and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in volleyball: A systematic review of the literature. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2017, 17, 1–29. [CrossRef] 25. Wang, L.; Peng, H. Biomechanical comparisons of single-and double-legged drop jumps with changes in drop height. Int. J. Sports Med. 2014, 35, 522–527. [CrossRef] 26. Donohue, M.R.; Ellis, S.M.; Heinbaugh, E.M.; Stephenson, M.L.; Zhu, Q.; Dai, B. Differences and correlations in knee and hip mechanics during single-leg landing, single-leg squat, double-leg landing, and double-leg squat tasks. Res. Sports Med. 2015, 23, 394–411. [CrossRef] 27. Gu, Y.; Ren, X.; Li, J.; Lake, M.; Zhang, Q.; Zeng, Y. Computer simulation of stress distribution in the metatarsals at different inversion landing angles using the finite element method. Int. Orthop. 2010, 34, 669–676. [CrossRef] 28. Lim, B.; An, K.O.; Cho, E.; Lim, S.T.; Cho, J. Differences in anterior cruciate ligament injury risk factors between female dancers and female soccer players during single-and double-leg landing. Sci. Sports 2020. [CrossRef] 29. Wang, L.I. The lower extremity biomechanics of single-and double-leg stop-jump tasks. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2011, 10, 151–156. [PubMed] 30. Jiang, C. The Effect of Basketball Shoe Collar on Ankle Stability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys. Act. Health 2020, 4, 11–18. [CrossRef] 31. Hébert-Losier, K.; Pini, A.; Vantini, S.; Strandberg, J.; Abramowicz, K.; Schelin, L.; Häger, C.K. One-leg hop kinematics 20 years following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: Data revisited using functional data analysis. Clin. Biomech. 2015, 30, 1153–1161. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Smeets, A.; Malfait, B.; Dingenen, B.; Robinson, M.A.; Vanrenterghem, J.; Peers, K.; Nijs, S.; Vereecken, S.; Staes, F.; Ver- schueren, S. Is knee neuromuscular activity related to anterior cruciate ligament injury risk? A pilot study. Knee 2019, 26, 40–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Pataky, T.C.; Robinson, M.A.; Vanrenterghem, J. Vector field statistical analysis of kinematic and force trajectories. J. Biomech. 2013, 46, 2394–2401. [CrossRef] 34. Pataky, T.C. Generalized n-dimensional biomechanical field analysis using statistical parametric mapping. J. Biomech. 2010, 43, 1976–1982. [CrossRef] 35. Cappozzo, A.; Cappello, A.; Croce, U.D.; Pensalfini, F. Surface-marker cluster design criteria for 3-D bone movement reconstruc- tion. Bio-Med. Mater. Eng. 1997, 44, 1165–1174. [CrossRef] 36. Bosco, C.; Luhtanen, P.; Komi, P.V. A Simple Method for Measurement of Mechanical Power in Jumping. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1983, 50, 273–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37. McNitt-Gray, J.; Hester, D.; Mathiyakom, W.; Munkasy, B. Mechanical demand and multijoint control during landing depend on orientation of the body segments relative to the reaction force. J. Biomech. 2001, 34, 1471–1482. [CrossRef] 38. Winter, D.A. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 154–219. [CrossRef] 39. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 19–32. 40. Boden, B.P.; Dean, G.S.; Feagin, J.A.; Garrett, W.E. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Orthopedics 2000, 23, 573–578. [CrossRef] 41. Lephart, S.M.; Ferris, C.M.; Riemann, B.L.; Myers, J.B.; Fu, F.H. Gender differences in strength and lower extremity kinematics during landing. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2002, 401, 162–169. [CrossRef] 42. Olsen, O.E.; Myklebust, G.; Engebretsen, L.; Bahr, R. Injury mechanisms for anterior cruciate ligament injuries in team handball: A systematic video analysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2004, 32, 1002–1012. [CrossRef] 43. Yeow, C.H.; Cheong, C.H.; Ng, K.S.; Lee, P.V.S.; Goh, J.C. Anterior cruciate ligament failure and cartilage damage during knee joint compression: A preliminary study based on the porcine model. Am. J. Sports Med. 2008, 36, 934–942. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Draganich, L.F.; Vahey, J.W. An in vitro study of anterior cruciate ligament strain induced by quadriceps and hamstrings forces. J. Biomech. 1990, 8, 57–63. [CrossRef] 45. Nunley, R.M.; Wright, D.; Renner, J.B.; Yu, B.; Garrett, W.E., Jr. Gender comparision of patella tendon tibial shaft angle with weight bearing. Res. Sports Med. 2003, 11, 173–185. [CrossRef] 46. Boden, B.P.; Torg, J.S.; Knowles, S.B.; Hewett, T.E. Video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament injury: Abnormalities in hip and ankle kinematics. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009, 37, 252–259. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47. Cerulli, G.; Benoit, D.L.; Lamontagne, M.; Caraffa, A.; Liti, A. In vivo anterior cruciate ligament strain behaviour during a rapid deceleration movement: Case report. Knee. Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2003, 11, 307–311. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 130 14 of 14 48. Shu, Y.; Sun, D.; Hu, Q.L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.S.; Gu, Y.D. Lower Limb Kinetics and Kinematics during Two Different Jumping Methods. J. Biomim. Biomater. Biomed. Eng. 2015, 22, 29–35. [CrossRef] 49. Bates, N.A.; Ford, K.R.; Myer, G.D.; Hewett, T.E. Impact differences in ground reaction force and center of mass between the first and second landing phases of a drop vertical jump and their implications for injury risk assessment. J. Biomech. 2013, 46, 1237–1241. [CrossRef] 50. Shimokochi, Y.; Ambegaonkar, J.P. Changing sagittal plane body position during single-leg landings influences the risk of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury. Knee. Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2013, 21, 888–897. [CrossRef] 51. Zhang, B.; Lu, Q. A Current Review of Foot Disorder and Plantar Pressure Alternation in the Elderly. Phys. Act. Health 2020, 4, 95–106. [CrossRef] 52. Yu, P.; Gong, Z.; Meng, Y.; Baker, J.S.; István, B.; Gu, Y. The Acute Influence of Running-Induced Fatigue on the Performance and Biomechanics of a Countermovement Jump. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4319. [CrossRef] 53. Decker, M.J.; Torry, M.R.; Wyland, D.J.; Sterett, W.I.; Steadman, J.R. Gender differences in lower extremity kinematics, kinetics and energy absorption during landing. Clin. Biomech. 2003, 18, 662–669. [CrossRef] 54. Norcross, M.F.; Blackburn, J.T.; Goerger, B.M.; Padua, D.A. The association between lower extremity energy absorption and biomechanical factors related to anterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin. Biomech. 2010, 25, 1031–1036. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png
Applied Sciences
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/single-leg-landings-following-a-volleyball-spike-may-increase-the-risk-ztPG50xu1m