Do Injury-Resistant Runners Have Distinct Differences in Clinical Measures Compared with Recently Injured Runners?

Dillon, Sarah; Burke, Aoife; Whyte, Enda; O’Connor, Siobhán; Gore, Shane; Moran, Kieran

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002649

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants were directed to use maximum effort and were given 15 second rest periods between bouts. Moderate to excellent intra-rater reliability was found for these measures (ICC = 0.83–0.99, lower–upper bound 95% CI = 0.53–0.99) [ 20 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Running towards injury? A prospective investigation of factors associated with running injuries

Dillon,

Burke,

Whyte

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Given the high incidence and heavy burden of running related injuries, large-scale, prospective multifactorial investigations examining potential risk factors are warranted. This study aimed to identify factors associated with running related injuries and to evaluate their potential in injury screening. Study design Prospective cohort study. Materials and methods Two hundred and seventy-four recreational runners were recruited. Clinical measures (strength, range of motion, foot position), injury and training history (via questionnaire), impact loading (via accelerometery) and running technique measures were collected at baseline. Runners were tracked for injury for one year via fortnightly check-ins. A binary logistic regression, (injury versus no injury), was performed for each variable univariably, and then adjusting for age, sex and mileage. A multivariable regression was also performed to evaluate the model’s discriminative ability. Results Of the 225 runners included in the final analysis 52% experienced a running related injury. Injury history in the past year, less navicular drop, and measures of running technique (knee, hip, and pelvis kinematics) were associated with increased odds of injury (p < .05). The multivariable logistic regression model was statistically significant, χ2(11) = 56.45, p < .001, correctly classifying 74% of cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 72% and 76%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 (CI95% = 0.73–0.85), demonstrating acceptable discriminative ability. Conclusions This study found a number of clinical and running technique factors to be associated with prospective running related injuries among recreational runners. With the exception of injury history, the factors identified as being significantly associated with injury may be modifiable and therefore, could form the basis of interventions. Range of motion, spatiotemporal parameters and strength measures were not associated with injury and thus their utilisation in injury prevention practices should be reconsidered.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Running towards injury? A prospective investigation of factors associated with running injuries

Dillon,

Burke,

Whyte

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important point to note is that inadequate lower extremity strength (hip abductors, knee flexors/extensors, ankle plantar/dorsiflexors) is commonly cited risk for increasing impact force transmission and running-related injuries. 29,57 Yet, there is inconsistent evidence supporting that low strength metrics alone are associated with injury, 41,57 hip angles, 58 muscle activation, and neuromotor control. 59,60 Low hip abduction strength may be related to ITB syndrome, but not strongly to patellofemoral pain, tibial stress syndrome, or fracture or Achilles tendinopathy.…”

Section: Strengthening the Kinetic Chainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Injury Prevention, Safe Training Techniques, Rehabilitation, and Return to Sport in Trail Runners

Vincent

Brownstein

Vincent

2022

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This current concept, narrative review provides the latest integrated evidence of the musculoskeletal injuries involved with trail running and therapeutic strategies to prevent injury and promote safe participation. Running activities that comprise any form of off-road running (trail running, orienteering, short-long distance, different terrain, and climate) are relevant to this review. Literature searches were conducted to 1) identify types and mechanisms of acute and chronic/ overuse musculoskeletal injuries in trail runners, 2) injury prevention techniques most relevant to running trails, 3) safe methods of participation and rehabilitation timelines in the sport. The majority of acute and chronic trail running-related musculoskeletal injuries in trail running occur in the lower leg, primarily in the knee and ankle. More than 70% are due to overuse, and ankle sprains are the most common acute injury. Key mechanisms underlying injury and injury progression include inadequate neuromotor control-balance-coordination, running through fatigue, and abnormal kinematics on variable terrain. Complete kinetic chain prehabilitation programs consisting of dynamic flexibility, neuromotor strength and balance, and plyometrics exercise can foster stable, controlled movement on trails. Patient education about early musculoskeletal pain symptoms and training adjustment can help prevent injury from progressing to serious overuse injuries. Real-time adjustments to cadence, step length, and knee flexion on the trail may also mitigate impactrelated risk for injury. After injury occurs, rehabilitation will involve similar exercise components, but it will also incorporate rest and active rest based on the type of injury. Multicomponent prehabilitation can help prevent musculoskeletal injuries in trail runners through movement control and fatigue resistance.

show abstract

“…Where more than one recently injured or acquired injury resistant runner could be matched to the never injured runner, the runner was chosen at random by flipping a coin, so as to eliminate bias from the matching selection. Runners who had been injured 1-2 years pre-testing were excluded from selection in order to ensure a clear demarcation between the "injury resistant" and "recently injured" running groups [12].…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…> 2 years since their most previous injury). These runners appear to have acquired an injury resistance, and may be less likely to have maintained the related factors of their previous injury [12], or perhaps have adopted a more injury resistant running technique. Finally, a third group of interest would be those runners who have never been injured.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With a high lifetime incidence of RRIs reported (> 90%) [13], this minority, but perhaps very insightful group, appear to have a smaller risk for injury compared to the aforementioned groups (recently injured runners and injury resistant runners). Only one study has previously compared these three groups [12], but the focus of this study was in clinical measures of strength and mobility rather than impact acceleration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of impact accelerations between injury-resistant and recently injured recreational runners

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction/Purpose Previous injury has consistently been shown to be one of the greatest risk factors for running-related injuries (RRIs). Runners returning to participation following injury may still demonstrate injury-related mechanics (e.g. repetitive high impact loading), potentially exposing them to further injuries. The aim of this study was to determine if the magnitude (Peakaccel) and rate of loading (Rateaccel) at the tibia and sacrum differ between runners who have never been injured, those who have acquired injury resistance (runners who have not been injured in the past 2 years) and those who have been recently injured (RRI sustained 3–12 months ago). Methods Runners completed an online survey capturing details of their RRI history over the previous 2 years. Never injured runners were matched by sex, quarterly annual mileage and typical training speed to runners who had acquired injury resistance and to runners who had been recently injured. Differences in Peakaccel and Rateaccel of the tibia and sacrum were assessed between the three groups during a treadmill run at a set speed, with consideration for sex. Results A total of 147 runners made up the three injury status groups (n: 49 per group). There was a significant main effect of injury status for Peakaccel and Rateaccel at the sacrum, with recently injured runners demonstrating significantly greater Rateaccel than never injured and acquired injury resistant runners. There was also a significant main effect for sex, with females demonstrating greater tibial Peakaccel, sacrum Peakaccel and Rateaccel than males. Conclusion Rateaccel at the sacrum distinguishes recently injured runners from never injured runners and runners who may have acquired injury resistance, potentially highlighting poor impact acceleration attenuation in recently injured runners.

show abstract

Do Injury-Resistant Runners Have Distinct Differences in Clinical Measures Compared with Recently Injured Runners?

Cited by 5 publications

References 47 publications

Running towards injury? A prospective investigation of factors associated with running injuries

Running towards injury? A prospective investigation of factors associated with running injuries

Injury Prevention, Safe Training Techniques, Rehabilitation, and Return to Sport in Trail Runners

Comparison of impact accelerations between injury-resistant and recently injured recreational runners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About