Biomechanical Characteristics between Bionic Shoes and Normal Shoes during the Drop-Landing Phase: A Pilot Study

Abstract

With the development of unstable footwear, more research has focused on the advantages of this type of shoe. This type of shoe could improve the muscle function of the lower limb and prevent injury risks in dynamic situations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate differences in lower-limb kinetics and kinematics based on single-leg landing (SLL) using normal shoes (NS) and bionic shoes (BS). The study used 15 male subject volunteers (age 23.4 ± 1.14 years, height 177.6 ± 4.83cm, body weight (BW) 73.6 ± 7.02 kg). To ensure the subject standardization of the participants, there were several inclusion criteria used for selection. There were two kinds of experimental shoes used in the landing experiment to detect the change of lower limbs when a landing task was performed. Kinetics and kinematic data were collected during an SLL task, and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) analysis was used to evaluate the differences between NS and BS. We found that the flexion and extension angles of the knee (p = 0.004) and hip (p = 0.046, p = 0.018) joints, and the dorsiflexion and plantarflexion of ankle (p = 0.031) moment were significantly different in the sagittal planes. In the frontal plane, the eversion and inversion of the ankle (p = 0.016), and the abduction and adduction of knee (p = 0.017, p = 0.007) angle were found significant differences. In the horizontal plane, the external and internal rotation of hip (p = 0.036) and knee (p < 0.001, p = 0.029) moment were found significant differences, and knee angle (p = 0.043) also. According to our results, we conclude that using BS can cause bigger knee and hip flexion than NS. Also, this finding indicates that BS might be considered to reduce lower-limb injury risk during the SLL phase.

Effect of the Construction of Carbon Fiber Plate Insert to Midsole on Running Performance

“…Further, differences in gender, weight, and shoe size can differently influence the plate on running mechanics, which should be evaluated in future research. There was evidence that the manufacturer should design the footwear according to the runners who have obvious differences in functional needs and running goals [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. Future work should aim to concern the subjective comfort of runners after long-distance running.…”

Biomechanical analysis of barefoot walking and three different sports footwear in children aged between 4 and 6 years old

“…Footwear also influences foot morphology and plantar arch [12,13]. Individuals who have worn no shoes for extended periods appear to have broader feet, fewer toe and foot abnormalities, a higher foot arch, and lower hallux angles [14,15]. In addition, the flexibility of habitually shod feet is known to be reduced [13][14][15][16][17].…”

“…Individuals who have worn no shoes for extended periods appear to have broader feet, fewer toe and foot abnormalities, a higher foot arch, and lower hallux angles [14,15]. In addition, the flexibility of habitually shod feet is known to be reduced [13][14][15][16][17]. Also, the prevalence of flatfoot was higher in those who started wearing shoes before the age of 6 years.…”

An Investigation of Differences in Lower Extremity Biomechanics During Single-Leg Landing From Height Using Bionic Shoes and Normal Shoes

“…Compared to the general unstable shoes, the bionic shoes with a personalized bionic customized signature are a structure that both combines the barefoot design of barefoot shoes and the unstable structure of unstable shoes. Zhou further explains that the most significant difference between unstable and bionic shoes is that bionic shoes combined the benefit of original human walking and unstable shoes ( Zhou et al, 2021a ). This kind of bionic shoe adopts the personalized foot shape as the outsole can restore the original barefoot condition of humans to the greatest extent and may reduce injury in the human lower limbs.…”