Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Johan Lambeck PT
EWAC allied health consultant
International Aquatic Therapy Foundation
www.halliwick.eu
Contents
!! Kinetics
! Fluidmechanics
! Ground Reaction Forces (GRF)
!! Kinematics
! Temporal and spatial parameters
! Joint movements
! Muscle moments
!! EMG studies
Why biomechanics
!! To understand:
! the mechanical loads on the body
! Human adaptation to changes of mechanical constraints
!! To contribute to:
! A more appropriate prescription of walking in water as
part of rehabilitation programmes
Land vs water
!! Kato et al 2001:
! In water, the strategy of locomotion is quite different from
that on land
!! Fd= .5 * d * Ap * v2 * c
!! Dynamic similarity
! At different speeds and in different environments we try to
preserve energy as best as possible. For this,
biomechanically, we need to walk with similar Froude
numbers
o! Froude number: ratio of inertia forces over gravity forces
! Ref: Exploring biomechanics, animals in locomotion. R. McNeill Alexander (1992).
Scientific American Library, New York. ISBN 0 7167 5035 X
Elastic similarity
!! Gait conditions
! ISG: slow gait, arms next to the body (0.41 m/s)
! IQG: quick gait, arms next to the body (0.55 m/s)
! OSG: slow gait, arms out of water (0.43 m/s)
! OQG: quick gait, arms out of water (0.66 m/s)
!! Cohorts
! 1: manubrium sterni at 1.34
! 2: manubrium sterni at 1.40
! 3: manubrium sterni at 1.47
!! Water depth 1.40, young adults n = 70
Roesler 2006
Water walking velocity
!! Comfortable = 0.55 m/s
!! Fast = 0.93 m/s
! Miyoshi 05
!! Self selected = 0.5 m/s (1.8 km/h)
! Barela 06a and 06b
!! Slow = 0.41 0.43 m/s
!! Fast = 0.55 0.66 m/s
Roesler 06
!! Slow = 0.5 m/s
!! Fast = 0.8 m/s
! Masumoto 04 Treadmill
!! Slow / normal = 0.51 m/s
!! Fast = 0.61 m/s
! Fowler-Horne 00
!! Comfortable = 0.75 m/s
! Chevutschi 07
Barela 2006b
Barela et al 2006a: young adults Barela & Duarte 2006b: elderly
Nakazawa 94b
Differences in depth
Kinematics
stance swing
Barela etal, 2006a: young adults Barela & Duarte 2006b: elderly
Conclusions young adults
swing
Barela 06
Comparison stance phases adults
Conclusions elderly
!! Elderly significantly:
! Smaller overall ankle ROM
! More knee flexion at initial contact
! Less dorsiflexion ankle at initial swing
! Less knee flexion at initial swing
! More hip flexion at initial swing
o! > less movements in ankle and knee, compensated by the hip +
less weight catching
Shono et al 2005: walking faster changes knee ext / or knee flexion
Pyhnen 02
Hoffman- reflex (H-reflex)
Pyhnen 02
EMG comfortable walking young adults
Biceps femoris
Vastus medialis
Tibialis Anterior
Gastrocnemius
Soleus
Nakazawa 1994b
Nakazawa 94
Masumoto et al 2004
Conclusions Masumoto
Nakazawa = + - =
Nakazawa = = + = =
50% weight
Chevutschi +
averaged
Kottka + - = + = +
start
Petrowski - = =
122 cm
Masumoto - - - - - - - - - -
Erector L1 Rectus abd Glut max Tensor fl Soleus
St sw St sw St sw St sw St sw
Barela adult - + - +
end
Barela elder + +
end
Nakazawa -
Nakazawa +
Chevutschi + -
Kottka
Petrowski -
Masumoto - -
Conclusions GRF
!! In water
! A decrease of magnitude and impact of the vertical GRF
o! Depends on depth and velocity
! The a-p GRF is always positive / propulsive
Conclusions Kinematics
!! Stride time increases in water
! % same increase of both stance and swing
!! The comfortable velocity in water is about 50% of land velocity
!! Stride length does not alter
!! Joint angles are roughly identical in water and on land with small
changes because of buoyancy and drag effects
!! Increase of speed: knee angles more in the flexion range
Conclusions EMG
!! Moments
! Of plantar flexion significantly decreased
! Of knee extension shows 1 peak at late stance, on land 2
peaks
! Constant hip extension during stance
! Of hip extension increase with velocity