Knee

The Effect of Work Boots on Center of Pressure Location at the Knee in Static Kneeling

INTRODUCTION: Workers in industry wear steel toe boots; however, these boots are inflexible and may restrict foot movement. Occupational kneeling is also associated with an increased risk of knee osteoarthritis. Examination of the effects of work boots in kneeling is needed to better understand potential injury risk. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the center of pressure (COP) at the knee during kneeling when shod and barefoot. METHODS: Fifteen, young, healthy males completed five 10-second static kneeling trials in each condition. Lower body kinematics were obtained using the Optotrak system (Certus and 3020, NDI, Waterloo, ON, CA). Force data were measured from a force plate under the knee of the dominant leg (OR6-7, AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA). The mean COP location was determined with respect to the medial tibial plateau (normalized to tibial width) and the tibial tuberosity (normalized to tibial length) for the medial/lateral and longitudinal directions, respectively. RESULTS: COP was located more medially in the shod condition (34% (±10.6%) tibial width) compared to the barefoot condition (40% (±11.9%) tibial width) (p=0.0485). COP was located above the tibial tuberosity, with no difference between conditions (shod 11% (±3.2%) tibial length, barefoot: (7%) (±8.8%) tibial length) (p=0.97). DISCUSSION: There is a difference in COP location in shod compared to barefoot kneeling. A COP location farther from the joint center of rotation, as occurred in the frontal plane of the shod condition, would increase the moment arm of the ground reaction force and thus the moment at the knee.
Listed In: Biomechanics


Are static and dynamic squatting activities comparable?

Background: Numerous studies have described 3D kinematics, 3D kinetics and electromyography (EMG) of the lower limb during quasi-static or dynamic squatting activities. However there is only little information on the comparison of these two squatting conditions. Only one study compared these activities in terms of 3D kinematics, but no information was available on 3D kinetics and EMG. The purpose of this study was to compare simultaneous recordings of 3D kinematics, 3D kinetics and EMG of the lower limb during quasi-static and fast dynamic squats. Methods: Ten subjects were recruited. 3D knee kinematics was recorded with a motion capture system, 3D kinetics was recorded with a force plate, and EMG of 8 muscles was recorded with surface electrodes. Each subject performed a quasi-static squat and several fast dynamic squats from 0° to 70° of knee flexion. Findings: Mean differences between quasi-static and dynamic squats were 1.6° for rotations, 1.8 mm for translations, 38 N ground reaction forces (2.1 % of subjects’ body weight), 6 Nm for torques, 13.0 mm for center of pressure, and 7 µV for EMG (6.3% of the maximum dynamic electromyographic activities ). Some significant differences (P < 0.05) were found in anterior-posterior translation, vertical forces and EMG. Interpretation: All differences found between quasi-static and fast dynamic squats can be considered small. 69.5% of the compared data were equivalent. In conclusion, this study show for the first time that quasi-static and dynamic squatting activities are comparable in terms of 3D kinematics, 3D kinetics and EMG.


Listed In: Biomechanical Engineering, Biomechanics, Gait, Orthopedic Research, Posturography