Such approaches have shown limited accuracy in estimating injury likelihood, and it has been suggested that this could be attributed, in part, to the reduced objectivity of these approaches in comparison to 3-dimensional kinematic analyses. The quantification of these movement assessment tests is typically performed with simple visual analysis and rating, 1 or occasionally using video recording and later 2-dimensional analysis. Depending on the particular sport’s performance requirements and injury patterns, different test batteries are employed in an effort to identify at-risk individuals to target for tailored interventions. Precompetition medical assessment of athletes commonly includes assessment of movement quality while athletes perform standardised testing procedures. Poor correlation was seen for the rotation movements.ConclusionsThis study supports the use of dual Kinect v2 configuration with the iPi software as a valid tool for assessment of sagittal and frontal plane hip and knee kinematic parameters but not axial rotation in athletes. For peak angles, results showed excellent agreement for knee flexion. The tests were simultaneously recorded using both a marker-based motion capture system and two Kinect v2 cameras using iPi Mocap Studio software.ResultsExcellent agreement between systems for the flexion/extension range of motion of the shin during all tests and for the thigh abduction/adduction during SLS were seen. ObjectivesTo determine whether a dual-camera markerless motion capture system can be used for lower limb kinematic evaluation in athletes in a preseason screening setting.DesignDescriptive laboratory study.SettingLaboratory setting.ParticipantsThirty-four (n=34) healthy athletes.Main outcome measuresThree dimensional lower limb kinematics during three functional tests: Single Leg Squat (SLS), Single Leg Jump, Modified Counter-movement Jump.
0 kommentar(er)
