PLoS ONE (Jan 2018)

Kinetics and perception of basketball landing in various heights and footwear cushioning.

  • Qiang Wei,
  • Zhao Wang,
  • Jeonghyun Woo,
  • Jacobus Liebenberg,
  • Sang-Kyoon Park,
  • Jiseon Ryu,
  • Wing-Kai Lam

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201758
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 8
p. e0201758

Abstract

Read online

BACKGROUND:The previous studies on basketball landing have not shown a systematic agreement between landing impacts and midsole densities. One plausible reason is that the midsole densities alone used to represent the cushioning capability of a shoe seems over simplified. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of different landing heights and shoes of different cushioning performance on tibial shock, impact loading and knee kinematics of basketball players. METHODS:Nineteen university team basketball players performed drop landings from different height conditions (0.45m vs. 0.61m) as well as with different shoe cushioning properties (regular, better vs. best-cushioned). For each condition, tibial acceleration, vertical ground reaction force and knee kinematics were measured with a tri-axial accelerometer, force plate and motion capture system, respectively. Heel comfort perception was indicated on the 150-mm Visual Analogue Scale. A 2 (height) x 3 (footwear) ANOVA with repeated measures was performed to determine the effects of different landing heights and shoe cushioning on the measured parameters. RESULTS:We did not find significant interactions between landing height and shoe conditions on tibial shock, impact peak, mean loading rate, maximum knee flexion angle and total ankle range of motion. However, greater tibial shock, impact peak, mean loading rates and total ankle range of motion were determined at a higher landing height (P < 0.01). Regular-cushioned shoes demonstrated significantly greater tibial shock and mean loading rate compared with better- and best-cushioned shoes (P < 0.05). The correlation analysis indicated that the heel comfort perception was fairly associated with impact peak and mean loading rate regardless of heights (P < 0.05), but not associated with tibial shock. CONCLUSIONS:Determination of shoe cushioning performance, regardless of shoe midsole materials and constructions, would be capable in order to identify optimal shoe models for better protection against tibial stress fracture. Subjective comfort rating could estimate the level of impact loading in non-laboratory based situations.