Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00002412-201403010-00010.
|
Author: | Nielsen, Rasmus Oestergaard 1,2; Buist, Ida 3; Parner, Erik Thorlund 4; Nohr, Ellen Aagaard 5; Sorensen, Henrik 1; Lind, Martin 6; Rasmussen, Sten 2
|
Institution: | (1)Section of Sport Science, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark (2)Orthopaedic Surgery Research Unit, Science and Innovation Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark (3)Center for Sports Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands (4)Section of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark (5)Section for Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark (6)Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
|
Title: | Foot pronation is not associated with increased injury risk in novice runners wearing a neutral shoe: a 1-year prospective cohort study.[Article]
|
Source: | British Journal of Sports Medicine. 48(6):440-447, March 2014.
|
Abstract: | Objective: To investigate if running distance to first running-related injury varies between foot postures in novice runners wearing neutral shoes.
Design: A 1-year epidemiological observational prospective cohort study.
Setting: Denmark.
Participants: A total of 927 novice runners equivalent to 1854 feet were included. At baseline, foot posture on each foot was evaluated using the foot-posture index and categorised into highly supinated (n=53), supinated (n=369), neutral (n=1292), pronated (n=122) or highly pronated (n=18). Participants then had to start running in a neutral running shoe and to use global positioning system watch to quantify the running distance in every training session.
Main outcome measure: A running-related injury was defined as any musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back caused by running, which restricted the amount of running for at least 1 week.
Results: During 1 year of follow-up, the 1854 feet included in the analyses ran a total of 326 803 km until injury or censoring. A total of 252 participants sustained a running-related injury. Of these, 63 were bilateral injuries. Compared with a neutral foot posture, no significant body mass index-adjusted cumulative risk differences (RD) were found after 250 km of running for highly supinated feet (RD=11.0% (-10% to 32.1%), p=0.30), supinated feet (RD=-1.4% (-8.4% to 5.5%), p=0.69), pronated feet (RD=-8.1% (-17.6% to 1.3%), p=0.09) and highly pronated feet (RD=9.8% (-19.3% to 38.8%), p=0.51). In addition, the incidence-rate difference/1000 km of running, revealed that pronators had a significantly lower number of injuries/1000 km of running of -0.37 (-0.03 to -0.70), p=0.03 than neutrals.
Conclusions: The results of the present study contradict the widespread belief that moderate foot pronation is associated with an increased risk of injury among novice runners taking up running in a neutral running shoe. More work is needed to ascertain if highly pronated feet face a higher risk of injury than neutral feet.
(C) 2014 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine
|
Author Keywords: | Running; Running shoes; Injury Prevention; Lower extremity injuries; Gait analysis.
|
References: | 1. Nielsen RO, Buist I, Sorensen H, et al.. Training errors and running related injuries: a systematic review. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2012;7:58-75.
2. Richards CE, Magin PJ, Callister R. Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based? Br J Sports Med 2009;43:159-62.
3. Schwellnus MP, Stubbs G. Does running shoe prescription alter the risk of developing a running injury? Int SportMed J 2006;7:138-53.
4. Enke RC, Laskowski ER, Thomsen KM. Running shoe selection criteria among adolescent cross-country runners. PMR 2009;1:816-19.
5. Ryan MB, Valiant GA, McDonald K, et al.. The effect of three different levels of footwear stability on pain outcomes in women runners: a randomised control trial. Br J Sports Med 2011;45:715-21.
6. Knapik JJ, Swedler DI, Grier TL, et al.. Injury reduction effectiveness of selecting running shoes based on plantar shape. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:685-97.
7. Knapik JJ, Brosch LC, Venuto M, et al.. Effect on injuries of assigning shoes based on foot shape in air force basic training. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:S197-211.
8. Knapik JJ, Trone DW, Swedler DI, et al.. Injury reduction effectiveness of assigning running shoes based on plantar shape in Marine Corps basic training. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:1759-67.
9. Nielsen RO, Ramskov D, Sorensen H, et al.. Protocol for the dano-run study: a 1-year observational follow up study on running related injuries in 1000 novice runners. Br J Sports Med 2011;45:365.
10. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al.. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344-9.
11. Nielsen RO, Cederholm P, Buist I, et al.. Can GPS be used to detect deleterious progression in training volume among runners? J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27:1471-8.
12. Buist I, Bredeweg SW, van Mechelen W, et al.. No effect of a graded training program on the number of running-related injuries in novice runners: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:33-9.
13. Redmond AC, Crosbie J, Ouvrier RA. Development and validation of a novel rating system for scoring standing foot posture: the Foot Posture Index. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2006;21:89-98.
14. Keenan AM, Redmond AC, Horton M, et al.. The Foot Posture Index: Rasch analysis of a novel, foot-specific outcome measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88:88-93.
15. Redmond AC, Crane YZ, Menz HB. Normative values for the Foot Posture Index. J Foot Ankle Res 2008;1:6.
16. Cornwall MW, McPoil TG, Lebec M, et al.. Reliability of the modified Foot Posture Index. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2008;98:7-13.
17. Klein JP, Logan B, Harhoff M, et al.. Analyzing survival curves at a fixed point in time. Stat Med 2007;26:4505-19.
18. Bertelsen ML, Jensen JF, Nielsen MH, et al.. Footstrike patterns among novice runners wearing a conventional, neutral running shoe. Gait Posture 2012; In press.
19. Buist I, Bredeweg SW, Bessem B, et al.. Incidence and risk factors of running-related injuries during preparation for a 4-mile recreational running event. Br J Sports Med 2010;44:598-604.
20. Buist I, Bredeweg SW, Lemmink KA, et al.. Predictors of running-related injuries in novice runners enrolled in a systematic training program: a prospective cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:273-80.
21. Chuter VH. Relationships between foot type and dynamic rearfoot frontal plane motion. J Foot Ankle Res 2010;3:9.
22. Menz HB. Alternative techniques for the clinical assessment of foot pronation. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1998;88:119-29.
23. Mundermann A, Stefanyshyn DJ, Nigg BM. Relationship between footwear comfort of shoe inserts and anthropometric and sensory factors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:1939-45.
24. Buist I, Bredeweg SW. Higher risk of injury in overweight novice runners. Br J Sports Med 2011;45:338.
25. Nielsen RO, Buist I, Parner ET, et al.. Predictors of running-related injuries among 930 novice runners: a 1-year prospective follow-up study. Orthop J Sports Med 2013;1:1-7.
26. van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, et al.. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2007;41:469-80.
27. Hreljac A. Etiology, prevention, and early intervention of overuse injuries in runners: a biomechanical perspective. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2005;16:651-67, vi.
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Original article.
|
Journal Subset: | Clinical Medicine.
|
ISSN: | 0306-3674
|
NLM Journal Code: | 0432520, b2w
|
DOI Number: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjspo...- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|