SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 7

Gender differences between the three dimensional gait analysis data of young athletes

Dilek ÖZTAŞ
İlhan Avni BAYHAN
Canan Gönen AYDIN
Hanife Hale HEKİM
Hanefi ÜÇPINAR
Pages
1949–1955
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We suggest that normal data and biomechanical factors will be clearer as the gait analysis results of the athletes increase.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: There are differences in skeletal structures between genders.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The secondary purpose was to form a representative gait sample of Turkish athletes.Material and Methods: A total of 51 athletes; 29 females, 22 males (5-18 years, mean age: 11.7) who did not have any disease thatmight lead to gait pathology were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We suggest that normal data and biomechanical factors will be clearer as the gait analysis results of the athletes increase.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: There are differences in skeletal structures between genders. These differences also have an impact on the gait patterns ofindividuals. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the differences between two genders with regard to gait parametersof young Turkish athletes. The secondary purpose was to form a representative gait sample of Turkish athletes.Material and Methods: A total of 51 athletes; 29 females, 22 males (5-18 years, mean age: 11.7) who did not have any disease thatmight lead to gait pathology were included in the study. Three-dimensional gait analysis was performed on all participants withViconBonita System (Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, England). Temporo-spatial, kinematic, and kinetic variables were compared amongthe groups.Results: Regarding the time-distance parameters; step distance (p=0.001) and stride length (p=0.002) were found to be greaterin girls than in boys. The kinematic analysis showed that the maximum hip extension during the stance phase (H2, p=0.03) wasgreater in boys compared to the extension during the stance phase of the girls. The maximum hip flexion during the swing phase(H3, p=0.02), maximum hip adduction (H4, p=0.01) and maximum ankle plantar flexion (A3, p=0.04) were found to be higher in girlsthan in boys.Conclusion: The gait analysis data had signifiant gender differences. Sport technology and biomechanics have been advancingrapidly. We suggest that normal data and biomechanical factors will be clearer as the gait analysis results of the athletes increase.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTAŞ, D., BAYHAN, İ. A., AYDIN, C. G., HEKİM, H. H., ÜÇPINAR, H. (2022). Gender differences between the three dimensional gait analysis data of young athletes. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 7, 1949–1955. https://ajindex.com/articles/446220

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Winter DA. Biomechanics of human movement with applications to the study of human locomotion. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 1984;9:287-314
  2. Gage JR. The identifiation and treatment of gait problems in cerebral palsy. 2nd Ed. Mac Keith Press, London 2009;31-66
  3. Miller F. Cerebral palsy. 1st Ed. Springer, New York, 2005;40-82
  4. Jacquelin P, Judith B. Gait analysis: normal and pathological function. J Sports Sci Med. 2010;9:353
  5. Weiss MJ, Moran MF, Parker ME, et al. Gait analysis of teenagers and young adults diagnosed with autism and severe verbal communication disorders. Front Integr Neurosci 2013;7:1-18
  6. Winter DA, Patla AE, Frank JS, Walt SE. Biomechanical walking pattern changes in the fi and healthy elderly. Phys Ther 1990;70:340-7
  7. Bugané F, Benedetti M, Casadio G, Attala S, Biagi F, Manca M, et al. Estimation of spatial-temporal gait parameters in level walking based on a single accelerometer: validation on normal subjects by standard gait analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2012;108:129-37
  8. Horváth M, Tihanyi T, Tihanyi J. Kinematic and kinetic analyses of gait patterns in hemiplegic patients. Facta Universities-Series: Physical Education and Sport 2001;1:25-35
  9. Webster JB, Darter BJ. Principles of normal and pathologic gait. Atlas of orthoses and Assistive Devices. 5th edition. Elsevier, Virginia, 2019;49-62 10. Thummerer Y, Von Kries R, Marton MA, et al. Is age or speed the predominant factor in the development of trunk movement in normally developing children? Gait Posture 2012;35:23-8
  10. Holm I, Tveter AT, Fredriksen PM, Vøllestad N. A normative sample of gait and hopping on one leg parameters in children 7-12 years of age. Gait Posture 2009;29:317-21
  11. Lythgo N, Wilson C, Galea M. Basic gait and symmetry measures for primary school-aged children and young adults whilst walking barefoot and with shoes. Gait Posture 2009;30:502-6
  12. Lythgo N, Wilson C, Galea M. Basic gait and symmetry measures for primary school-aged children and young adults. II: walking at slow, free and fast speed. Gait Posture 2011;33:29-35
  13. Shih Y, Chen C, Chen W, et al. Lower extremity kinematics in children with and without flexible flatfoot: a comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012;13:31-40
  14. Hallemans A, De Clercq D, Otten B, et al. 3D joint dynamics of walking in toddlers: a cross-sectional study spanning the fist rapid development phase of walking. Gait posture 2005;22:107-18
  15. Davis RB, Õunpuu S, Tyburski D, et al. A gait