Recovery of the medial gastrocnemius muscle after calcaneus fracture differs between contractile and elastic components.

Brand, Andreas; Kröger, Inga; Klöpfer-Krämer, Isabella; Wackerle, Hannes; Müßig, Janina Anna; Dietrich, Andrea M.; Böttger, Moritz; Gaul, Leander; Gabel, J.; Augat, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105664

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is well established that magnitude and timing of tendon and muscle response to mechanical stimuli induced by training are different [46][47][48]. Similarly, following an injury, the contractile and elastic components of a muscle-tendon complex may have different recovery timelines [49]. There is therefore a practical need to assess them separately for applications in sport training and for monitoring injury recovery.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Free-oscillation technique: The effect of the magnitude of the impulse applied on muscle and tendon stiffness around the ankle

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of the muscle-tendon complex in sport and for activities of everyday living is well recognised. The free oscillation technique is frequently used to determine the musculo-articular “apparent” stiffness (obtained from vertical ground reaction force) and other parameters. However, an in-depth understanding of the muscle-tendon complex can be gained by separating the muscle (soleus) and the tendon (Achilles tendon) components and studying the “true” stiffness for each of these components (by considering the ankle joint moment arms), which can be valuable in improving our understanding of training, injury prevention, and recovery programs. Hence, this study aimed to investigate if muscle and tendon stiffness (i.e., “true” stiffness) are similarly affected by different impulse magnitudes when using the free-oscillation technique. Three impulse magnitudes (impulse 1, 2 and 3), corresponding to peak forces of 100, 150 and 200 N, were used to estimate the stiffness of the ankle joint in 27 males, using multiple loads (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 kg). A significant decrease (p < 0.0005) was found in musculo-articular “apparent” stiffness (29224 ± 5087 N.m-1; 27839 ± 4914 N.m-1; 26835 ± 4880 N.m-1) between impulses 1, 2 and 3 respectively, when loads were collapsed across groups. However, significant differences (p < 0.001) were only found between the median (Mdn) of impulse 1 (Mdn = 564.31 (kN/m)/kN) and 2 (Mdn = 468.88 (kN/m)/kN) and between impulse 1 (Mdn = 564.31 (kN/m)/kN) and 3 (Mdn = 422.19 (kN/m)/kN), for “true” muscle stiffness, but not for “true” tendon stiffness (Mdn = 197.35 kN/m; Mdn = 210.26 kN/m; Mdn = 201.60 kN/m). The results suggest that the musculo-articular “apparent” stiffness around the ankle joint is influenced by the magnitude of the impulse applied. Interestingly, this is driven by muscle stiffness, whereas tendon stiffness appears to be unaffected.

show abstract