The Effect of Different Rowing Stroke Rates on Kinematics of Lower Extremity Joints Related to Overuse Injuries in Professional Teenager Rowers: A Cross-Sectional Study

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors
Faezeh Pakravan 1
Ali Abbasi 2
Zdenek Svoboda 3
Mehdi Khaleghi Tazji 2
1 PhD Student, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Injuries, School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Injuries, School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Natural Sciences in Kinanthropology, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
10.22122/jrrs.v16i0.3638
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of different rates of rowing stroke on kinematics of lower extremity joints related to overuse injuries in professional teenager rowers.Materials and Methods: 15 elite young rowers volunteered to participate in this study. Lower extremity kinematic data were recorded during incremental rowing test on ergometer with seven Vicon cameras at a sampling rate of 200 Hz. Seven rowing cycles were selected from each stroke rate and the kinematic data were compared between different rowing stroke rates using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) method.Results: Increase in rowing rate resulted in significant increase in foot plantarflexion (P = 0.048) and knee (P = 0.018) and hip (P = 0.036) extension during late drive phase. Moreover, hip and knee flexion range of motion (ROM) (P = 0.001) in all recovery phase, and foot dorsiflexion ROM (P = 0.001) in first 70% of recovery phase significantly increased with increase in rowing stroke rate.Conclusion: Increasing rowing rate may increase knee flexion in late recovery phase and increase knee, hip, and ankle extension in late drive phase that may put the knee at the risk of injury.
Keywords
Rowing
Joint kinematics
Rowing stroke rate
Overuse injury
  1. Smith TB, Hopkins WG. Variability and predictability of finals times of elite rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43(11): 2155-60.
  2. Buckeridge EM, Bull AM, McGregor AH. Foot force production and asymmetries in elite rowers. Sports Biomech 2014; 13(1): 47-61.
  3. Fleming N, Donne B, Mahony N. A comparison of electromyography and stroke kinematics during ergometer and on-water rowing. J Sports Sci 2014; 32(12): 1127-38.
  4. Millar SK, Reid D, McDonnel, L. the differences in spinal kinematics and loading in high performance female rowers during ergometer and on water rowing. ISBS Proceedings 2018; 36 (1): 103.
  5. Trompeter K, Weerts J, Fett D, Firouzabadi A, Heinrich K, Schmidt H, et al. Spinal and pelvic kinematics during prolonged rowing on an ergometer vs. indoor tank rowing. J Strength Cond Res 2021; 35(9): 2622-8.
  6. Rachnavy P. Rowing biomechanics and injury prevention. J Sci Med Sport 2012; 15(Suppl 1): S132.
  7. Caplan N, Coppel A, Gardner T. A review of propulsive mechanisms in rowing. Proc Inst Mech Eng Pt P J Sports Eng Tech 2009; 224(1): 1-8.
  8. Buckeridge E, Hislop S, Bull A, McGregor A. Kinematic asymmetries of the lower limbs during ergometer rowing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44(11): 2147-53.
  9. Bernardes F, Mendes-Castro A, Ramos J, Costa O. Musculoskeletal Injuries in Competitive Rowers. Acta Med Port 2015; 28(4): 427-34.
  10. Hickey GJ, Fricker PA, McDonald WA. Injuries to elite rowers over a 10-yr period. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29(12): 1567-72.
  11. Hosea TM, Hannafin JA. Rowing injuries. Sports Health 2012; 4(3): 236-45.
  12. Bull AM, McGregor AH. Measuring spinal motion in rowers: the use of an electromagnetic device. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2000; 15(10): 772-6.
  13. Holt PJ, Bull AM, Cashman PM, McGregor AH. Kinematics of spinal motion during prolonged rowing. Int J Sports Med 2003; 24(8): 597-602.
  14. McGregor AH, Bull AM, Byng-Maddick R. A comparison of rowing technique at different stroke rates: a description of sequencing, force production and kinematics. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25(6): 465-70.
  15. Alijanpour E, Abbasi A, Needham RA, Naemi R. Spine and pelvis coordination variability in rowers with and without chronic low back pain during rowing. J Biomech 2021; 120: 110356.
  16. McGregor AH, Patankar ZS, Bull AM. Longitudinal changes in the spinal kinematics of oarswomen during step testing. J Sports Sci Med 2007; 6(1): 29-35.
  17. Thornton JS, Vinther A, Wilson F, Lebrun CM, Wilkinson M, Di Ciacca SR, et al. Rowing injuries: An updated review. Sports Med 2017; 47(4): 641-61.
  18. Buckeridge EM, Bull AM, McGregor AH. Incremental training intensities increases loads on the lower back of elite female rowers. J Sports Sci 2016; 34(4): 369-78.
  19. Caldwell JS, McNair PJ, Williams M. The effects of repetitive motion on lumbar flexion and erector spinae muscle activity in rowers. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2003; 18(8): 704-11.
  20. Koopmann T, Dill S, Br++ggemann GP, Willwacher S. Back muscle fatigue might lead to alternated spine loading in recreational ergometer rowing. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Biomechanics in Sports; 2018 Nov; Auckland, New Zealand. p. 526-9.
  21. Minnock MR. Kinematic analysis of trunk coordination throughout the rowing stroke sequence [MSc Thesis]. Knoxville, Tennessee; 2017.
  22. Pollock CL, Jones IC, Jenkyn TR, Ivanova TD, Garland SJ. Changes in kinematics and trunk electromyography during a 2000 m race simulation in elite female rowers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2012; 22(4): 478-87.
  23. Cuijpers LS, Zaal FT, de Poel HJ. Rowing crew coordination dynamics at increasing stroke rates. PLoS One 2015; 10(7): e0133527.
  24. Elliott B, Lyttle A, Birkett O. The RowPerfect ergometer: A training aid for on-water single scull rowing. Sports Biomech 2002; 1(2): 123-34.
  25. Holsgaard-Larsen A, Jensen K. Ergometer rowing with and without slides. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31(12): 870-4.

Article View 42,618
PDF Download 35,002