S of any type, it is critical to execute the analysis systematically. We present a distal-to-proximal analysis plan. The order of the evaluation is not critical. However, it is extremely important to perform the entire evaluation, including all segments, joints, and whole body variables consistently, to avoid missing subtle yet potentially important kinematic abnormalities. Although numerous freeware options exist with extremely helpful tools for measuring biomechanical variables on order Lurbinectedin running video (angles, distances, etc), it is generally not necessary. Most of the metrics in this article can be easily identified visually on slow motion video, or evaluation when progressing through the video frame by frame. To date, cutoffs for kinematics to be identified as abnormal, or predictive of injury, do not exist. As such, the analyses included here does not provide the reader with specific angles or measures that are “abnormal.” Each metric is described, and indicators of normal kinematics are provided. It is the responsibility of the evaluator toAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPhys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 01.SouzaPagedetermine what threshold for normal and UNC0642MedChemExpress UNC0642 abnormal should be applied to an individual runner and associated with the biomechanical contributor to injury. Phases It is important to identify specific moments within the running cycle that can be used for evaluation. Many of the phases of the running cycle are clear. However, particularly for evaluating stride mechanics, it is important to differentiate between video frames of rapidly evolving events. Take, for example, the images provided in Fig. 1. Fig. 1A is the final frame of the swing phase, Fig. 1B displays initial contact, and Fig. 1C displays loading response (which is identified by the presence of shoe deformation in the image). Different kinematic variables are evaluated on images from different phases of running. It is important for the evaluator to become familiar with identifying each of these phases (and others as described elsewhere in this article). Inconsistent identification of phases of running in evaluating biomechanics of running gait will make performing a reliable analysis impossible.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptSIDE VIEWFoot Strike Pattern Identification of foot strike pattern can be easily performed on slow motion video or by evaluating video in a frame-by-frame manner (Fig. 2). It is recommended to always confirm foot strike pattern in this fashion, because even after considerable practice, it is not uncommon to misidentify a foot strike type when observing running at full speed. Foot strike types can be categorized as forefoot strike (FFS), midfoot strike, and rear foot strike. Recent literature suggests that video-based identification of foot strike patterns by a single rater are highly reliable, although interrater measures was found to be less reliable.17 At this time, there is limited evidence that any 1 foot strike pattern is more or less likely to cause a runner to sustain an injury. However, this is an area of active research and data on this issue are emerging.18,19 One study on competitive collegiate runners suggested that runners with a rear foot strike pattern developed more repetitive overuse injuries when compared with runners with an FFS pattern.20 And although these finding suggest possible association between foot st.S of any type, it is critical to execute the analysis systematically. We present a distal-to-proximal analysis plan. The order of the evaluation is not critical. However, it is extremely important to perform the entire evaluation, including all segments, joints, and whole body variables consistently, to avoid missing subtle yet potentially important kinematic abnormalities. Although numerous freeware options exist with extremely helpful tools for measuring biomechanical variables on running video (angles, distances, etc), it is generally not necessary. Most of the metrics in this article can be easily identified visually on slow motion video, or evaluation when progressing through the video frame by frame. To date, cutoffs for kinematics to be identified as abnormal, or predictive of injury, do not exist. As such, the analyses included here does not provide the reader with specific angles or measures that are “abnormal.” Each metric is described, and indicators of normal kinematics are provided. It is the responsibility of the evaluator toAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPhys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 01.SouzaPagedetermine what threshold for normal and abnormal should be applied to an individual runner and associated with the biomechanical contributor to injury. Phases It is important to identify specific moments within the running cycle that can be used for evaluation. Many of the phases of the running cycle are clear. However, particularly for evaluating stride mechanics, it is important to differentiate between video frames of rapidly evolving events. Take, for example, the images provided in Fig. 1. Fig. 1A is the final frame of the swing phase, Fig. 1B displays initial contact, and Fig. 1C displays loading response (which is identified by the presence of shoe deformation in the image). Different kinematic variables are evaluated on images from different phases of running. It is important for the evaluator to become familiar with identifying each of these phases (and others as described elsewhere in this article). Inconsistent identification of phases of running in evaluating biomechanics of running gait will make performing a reliable analysis impossible.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptSIDE VIEWFoot Strike Pattern Identification of foot strike pattern can be easily performed on slow motion video or by evaluating video in a frame-by-frame manner (Fig. 2). It is recommended to always confirm foot strike pattern in this fashion, because even after considerable practice, it is not uncommon to misidentify a foot strike type when observing running at full speed. Foot strike types can be categorized as forefoot strike (FFS), midfoot strike, and rear foot strike. Recent literature suggests that video-based identification of foot strike patterns by a single rater are highly reliable, although interrater measures was found to be less reliable.17 At this time, there is limited evidence that any 1 foot strike pattern is more or less likely to cause a runner to sustain an injury. However, this is an area of active research and data on this issue are emerging.18,19 One study on competitive collegiate runners suggested that runners with a rear foot strike pattern developed more repetitive overuse injuries when compared with runners with an FFS pattern.20 And although these finding suggest possible association between foot st.
