Despite its positive influence on physical and mental wellbeing, running is associated with a high incidence of musculoskeletal injury. Potential modifiable risk factors for running-related injury have been identified, including running biomechanics. Gait retraining is used to address these biomechanical risk factors in injured runners. While recent systematic reviews of biomechanical risk factors for running-related injury and gait retraining have been conducted, there is a lack of information surrounding the translation of gait retraining for injured runners into clinical settings. Gait retraining studies in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome have shown a decrease in pain and increase in functionality through increasing cadence, decreasing hip adduction, transitioning to a non-rearfoot strike pattern, increasing forward trunk lean, or a combination of some of these techniques. This literature suggests that gait retraining could be applied to the treatment of other injuries in runners, although there is limited evidence to support this specific to other running-related injuries. Components of successful gait retraining to treat injured runners with running-related injuries are presented.

While some studies have found strong correlations between peak tibial accelerations (TAs) and early stance ground reaction forces (GRFs) during running, others have reported inconsistent results. One potential explanation for this is the lack of a standard orientation for the sensors used to collect TAs. Therefore, our aim was to test the effects of an established sensor reorientation method on peak Tas and their correlations with GRFs. Twenty-eight runners had TA and GRF data collected while they ran at a self-selected speed on an instrumented treadmill. Tibial accelerations were reoriented to a body-fixed frame using a simple calibration trial involving quiet standing and kicking. The results showed significant differences between raw and reoriented peak TAs (p < 0.01) for all directions except for the posterior (p = 0.48). The medial and lateral peaks were higher (+0.9–1.3 g), while the vertical and anterior were lower (−0.5–1.6 g) for reoriented vs. raw accelerations. Correlations with GRF measures were generally higher for reoriented TAs, although these differences were fairly small (Δr² = 0.04–0.07) except for lateral peaks (Δr² = 0.18). While contingent on the position of the IMU on the tibia used in our study, our results first showed systematic differences between reoriented and raw peak accelerations. However, we did not find major improvements in correlations with GRF measures for the reorientation method. This method may still hold promise for further investigation and development, given that consistent increases in correlations were found.

Background: Bone stress injury (BSI) is a common overuse injury in female athletes that can occur in a variety of bones, including both proximal (pelvis, sacrum, femoral neck) or distal (tibia, fibula, metatarsals) locations. Prior work has demonstrated differences in running biomechanics in those with BSI; however, this was not separated by anatomy. We hypothesised that both female athletes with distal BSI and female athletes with proximal BSI would have lower cadence, higher centre of mass (COM) and lower duty factor than those without prior BSI. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 45 female athletes (15 with prior distal BSI, 15 with prior proximal BSI and 15 with no BSI history). Each ran on an instrumented treadmill at self-selected and 5-kilometre race speeds, with data collected in a fresh and exerted state. A series of analysis of variance tests (ANOVAs, group by condition) were used to analyse the results. Results: Participants with previous proximal BSI ran with greater vertical COM excursion compared with those with no previous BSI at race speed (10.2±1.7 cm vs 8.5±0.8 cm (p<0.001)). The proximal BSI population had a lower cadence than the no prior BSI population at race speed (170±13 steps per minute vs 180±10 steps per minute (p=0.012)). Duty factor was lower in the proximal BSI group compared with the distal BSI group at the race speed (32±3% vs 34±3% (p=0.013)). Conclusion: COM and cadence should be further investigated for association with proximal BSI.

Objectives: Non-insertional Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is a common running injury. Exercise loading programme (EXER) is the primary treatment. Other options include radial pressure wave (RPW, commonly referred to as shockwave) and photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT). We hypothesised that EXER+RPW and EXER+RPW+PBMT would result in greater reduction in symptoms measured using the eight-item Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) and greater improvement in functional outcomes compared with EXER. A secondary aim was to explore outcomes using elective treatment for three additional months. Methods: Runners with AT and symptoms exceeding 3 months were randomised to EXER, EXER+RPW or EXER+RPW+ PBMT. RPW was delivered once weekly for three treatments. Those assigned to receive PBMT additionally received treatment two times a week for 3 weeks. VISA-A, University of Wisconsin Running Injury and Recovery Index and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item were obtained at baseline and intervals over 3 months. Afterwards, runners could elect to receive a different treatment for three additional months. Results: Forty-six runners enrolled (24 males, 22 females; average age±SD:40±12 years). Runners assigned EXER+RPW had a greater improvement than EXER at 3 months in VISA-A (mean 33 vs 18 points, p=0.023; 95% CI 28.4 to 2.4), and no differences were detected between EXER+RPW+ PBMT and EXER (25 vs 18 points, p=0.12; 95% CI 25.9 to –10.8). There were greater improvements in running index measures, pain interference and social roles in EXER+RPW compared with EXER. VISA-A increased over 3 month crossover to EXER+RPW and EXER+RPW+PBMT (11 points, both p<0.05 compared with EXER). Discussion: Combined EXER and RPW had the largest measured reduction in symptoms at 3 months. However, all groups met clinical improvement, highlighting the importance of EXER. Larger studies in other physically active populations may clarify clinical benefits of each treatment. Trial registration number: NCT04725513.

Iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) is a common running related injury. While previous studies have evaluated the relationship between biomechanical variables and ITBS, most have found limited evidence, particularly with measures related to ground reaction force (GRF). The purpose of this study was to use a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to determine whether the combination of GRF measures would be strongly associated in runners with ITBS. A cross-sectional study was performed at an outpatient center focused on running injuries. A convenience sample of 52 runners with ITBS, assessed between September 2012 and July 2022, were evaluated for eligibility, from which, 30 rearfoot strike runners with ITBS and no secondary running-related injuries were selected. Injured runners were matched to 30 healthy controls from a normative database. Each ran on an instrumented treadmill at a self-selected speed. GRF variables were calculated, including peak GRFs, loading rates, and impulses. CART analysis was performed to identify interactions between GRF data and runners with ITBS. An ROC curve was executed, to determine the accuracy of the model. Posterior GRF impulse (PGRFI), anterior GRF (AGRFI), peak anterior GRF (PAGRF), and vertical stiffness at initial loading (VSIL) all emerged as variables associated with ITBS in the CART analysis. The model was able to correctly identify 25 (83.3%) runners with ITBS and 25 (83.3%) controls. The area under the ROC curve (accuracy) was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77–0.96; SE, 0.04; p < 0.001). In conclusion, interactions between GRF variables were associated with ITBS in runners. The best classification included interactions between PGRFI, AGRFI, AGRFP, and VSIL, using specific cut-off values. Loading rates were not independently associated with ITBS.