Ulm, Univ. Diss., 2006.

Previous studies have used accelerometers with various operating ranges (ORs) when measuring biomechanical parameters. However, it is still unclear whether ORs influence the accuracy of running parameters, and whether the different stiffnesses of footwear midsoles influence this accuracy. The purpose of the present study was to systematically investigate the influence of OR on the accuracy of stride length, running velocity, and on peak tibial acceleration. Twenty-one recreational heel strike runners ran on a 15-m indoor track at self-selected running speeds in three footwear conditions (low to high midsole stiffness). Runners were equipped with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) affixed to the heel cup of the right shoe and with a uniaxial accelerometer at the right tibia. Accelerometers (at the tibia and included in the IMU) with a high OR of ±70 g were used as the reference and the data were cut at ±32, ±16, and at ±8 g in post-processing, before calculating parameters. The results show that the OR influenced the outcomes of all investigated parameters, which were not influenced by tested footwear conditions. The lower ORs were associated with an underestimation error for all biomechanical parameters, which increased noticeably with a decreasing OR. It can be concluded that accelerometers with a minimum OR of ±32 g should be used to avoid inaccurate measurements.

Previous studies have used accelerometers with various operating ranges (ORs) when measuring biomechanical parameters. However, it is still unclear whether ORs influence the accuracy of running parameters, and whether the different stiffnesses of footwear midsoles influence this accuracy. The purpose of the present study was to systematically investigate the influence of OR on the accuracy of stride length, running velocity, and on peak tibial acceleration. Twenty-one recreational heel strike runners ran on a 15-m indoor track at self-selected running speeds in three footwear conditions (low to high midsole stiffness). Runners were equipped with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) affixed to the heel cup of the right shoe and with a uniaxial accelerometer at the right tibia. Accelerometers (at the tibia and included in the IMU) with a high OR of ±70 g were used as the reference and the data were cut at ±32, ±16, and at ±8 g in post-processing, before calculating parameters. The results show that the OR influenced the outcomes of all investigated parameters, which were not influenced by tested footwear conditions. The lower ORs were associated with an underestimation error for all biomechanical parameters, which increased noticeably with a decreasing OR. It can be concluded that accelerometers with a minimum OR of ±32 g should be used to avoid inaccurate measurements.

Background: We performed a biomechanical comparison of 2 methods for operative stabilization of pronation-abduction stage III ankle fractures; group 1: Anterior-posterior lag screws fixing the posterior tibial fragment and lateral fibula plating (LSLFP) versus group 2: locked plate fixation of the posterior tibial fragment and posterior antiglide plate fixation of the fibula (LPFP). Methods: Seven pairs of fresh-frozen osteoligamentous lower leg specimens (2 male, and 5 female donors) were used for the biomechanical testing. Bone mineral density (BMD) of each specimen was assessed by means of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. After open transection of the deltoid ligament, an osteotomy model of pronation abduction stage III ankle fracture was created. Specimens were systematically assigned to LSLFP (group 1, left ankles) or LPPFP (group 2, right ankles). After surgery, all specimens were evaluated via CT to verify reduction and fixation. Axial load was then applied onto each specimen using a servohydraulic testing machine starting from 0 N (Zwick/Roell, Ulm, Germany) at a speed of 10 N/s with the foot fixed in a 10 degrees pronation and 15 degrees dorsiflexion position. Construct stiffness, yield, and ultimate strength were measured and dislocation patterns were documented with a high-speed camera. The normal distribution of all data was analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk test. The group comparison was performed using paired Student t test. Statistical significance was assumed at a P value of .05. Results: All specimens had BMD values consistent with osteoporosis. BMD values did not differ between the left and right ankles of the same pair (P = .762). The mean BMD values between feet of men (0.603 g/cm²) and women (0.329 g/cm²) were statistically different (P = .005). The ultimate strength for LSLFP (group 1) with 1139 ± 669 N and LPPFP (group 2) with 2008 ± 943 N was statistically different (P = .036) as well as the yield in LSLFP (group 1) 812 ± 452 N and LPPFD (group 2) 1292 ± 625 N (P = .016). Construct stiffness trended to be higher in group 2 (179 ± 100 kNn) compared to group 1 (127 ± 73 kN/m) but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .120). BMD correlated with bone-construct failure. Conclusion: Fixation of the posterior tibial edge with a posterolateral locking plate resulted in higher biomechanical stability than anterior-posterior lag screw fixation in an osteoporotic pronation-abduction fracture model. Clinical Relevance: The clinical implication of this biomechanical study is that the posterior antiglide plating might be advantageous in patients with osteoporotic pronation abduction stage III ankle fracture.