Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences

The Effect of Changes in Bicycle Pedal Width on the Kinematics of Segments and Joints of Lower Extremity: Analysis of the Risk of Knee Overuse Injuries with Pedaling (A Cross-sectional Study)

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Injuries, School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student, Department of Biomechanics and Sports Injuries, School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Biomechanics and Sports Injuries, School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

4 PhD in Sports Physiology, Fatemiyeh Shiraz Institute of Higher Education, Shiraz AND Research Committee of Cycling Federation of the Islamic Republic of Iran

10.22122/jrrs.v15i6.3447

Abstract

Introduction: Pain and overuse injuries of the knee joint is prevalent among cyclists. The bicycle adjustment in accordance with the cyclist’s body mechanics is a common way to reduce the risk of overuse injuries. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of changes in bicycle pedal width on the kinematics of segments and joints of lower extremity and its association with the risk of knee overuse injuries during pedaling.Materials and Methods: 10 professional cyclists of Shiraz City, Iran, pedaled at 100% of maximum power output with four different pedal widths (Q0: conventional pedal width, Q1: Q0 + 1cm, Q2: Q0 + 2cm, and Q3: Q0 + 3cm). The angle of the lower extremity segments and joints was recorded three dimensionally for thirty seconds during pedaling in each pedal width by myoMotion system. The minimum, maximum, and mean angles and range of motion (ROM) variables of hip and ankle (sagittal plane), knee joint (sagittal and frontal planes), and thigh and shank angles in the frontal plane were calculated. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni post-hoc test were used to identify significant changes.Results: The statistical results showed that changes in the pedal width had a significant effect of on minimum (P = 0.035), maximum (P ≤ 0.042), and mean (P ≤ 0.020) of shank abduction/adduction and minimum (P = 0.015), mean (P ≤ 0.022), and ROM (P ≤ 0.018) of ankle dorsiflexion/plantar flexion, while changes in the pedal width had no significant effect on other kinematics parameters.Conclusion: The results indicate that pedal width of Q1 has the highest potential to lower the risk of knee injury and provide increased efficiency whilst cycling; Still, the standard pedal width of road bikes (Q0) seemed not appropriate for professional Iranian cyclists since it increases the risk of knee joint overuse injuries.

Keywords

  1. Fleming BC, Beynnon BD, Renstrom PA, Peura GD, Nichols CE, Johnson RJ. The strain behavior of the anterior cruciate ligament during bicycling. Am J Sports Med 1998; 26(1): 109-18.
  2. Wanich T, Hodgkins C, Columbier JA, Muraski E, Kennedy JG. Cycling injuries of the lower extremity. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15(12): 748-56.
  3. Dettori NJ, Norvell DC. Non-traumatic bicycle injuries: A review of the literature. Sports Med 2006; 36(1): 7-18.
  4. Dannenberg AL, Needle S, Mullady D, Kolodner KB. Predictors of injury among 1638 riders in a recreational long-distance bicycle tour: Cycle across Maryland. Am J Sports Med 1996; 24(6): 747-53.
  5. Weiss BD. Nontraumatic injuries in amateur long distance bicyclists. Am J Sports Med 1985; 13(3): 187-92.
  6. Bakkes ES, Hendry JA, Uys MS. The occurrence of cycling injuries in the Western Province: A descriptive study. South African Journal of Physiotherapy 1993; 49(4): 693.
  7. Bini RR, Flores Bini A. Potential factors associated with knee pain in cyclists: A systematic review. Open Access J Sports Med 2018; 9: 99-106.
  8. Ericson MO, Nisell R. Patellofemoral joint forces during ergometric cycling. Phys Ther 1987; 67(9): 1365-9.
  9. Bini R, Hume PA, Croft JL. Effects of bicycle saddle height on knee injury risk and cycling performance. Sports Med 2011; 41(6): 463-76.
  10. Bini R, Hume P. A comparison of static and dynamic measures of lower limb joint angles in cycling: Application to bicycle fitting. Hum Mov 2016; 17(1): 36-42.
  11. Encarnacion-Martinez A, Ferrer-Roca V, Garcia-Lopez J. Influence of sex on current methods of adjusting saddle height in indoor cycling. J Strength Cond Res 2018. [Epub Ahead of Print]
  12. Price D, Donne B. Effect of variation in seat tube angle at different seat heights on submaximal cycling performance in man. J Sports Sci 1997; 15(4): 395-402.
  13. Fonda B, Sarabon N, Li FX. Validity and reliability of different kinematics methods used for bike fitting. J Sports Sci 2014; 32(10): 940-6.
  14. Horton MG, Hall TL. Quadriceps femoris muscle angle: Normal values and relationships with gender and selected skeletal measures. Phys Ther 1989; 69(11): 897-901.
  15. Bailey MP, Maillardet FJ, Messenger N. Kinematics of cycling in relation to anterior knee pain and patellar tendinitis. J Sports Sci 2003; 21(8): 649-57.
  16. Fang Y, Fitzhugh E, Crouter S, Gardner J, Zhang S. Effects of workloads and cadences on frontal plane knee biomechanics in cycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015; 48(2): 260-6.
  17. Disley BX, Li FX. The effect of Q factor on gross mechanical efficiency and muscular activation in cycling. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24(1): 117-21.
  18. Disley BX, Li FX. Metabolic and kinematic effects of self-selected Q Factor during bike fit. Res Sports Med 2014; 22(1): 12-22.
  19. Priego Quesada JI, Jacques TC, Bini RR, Carpes FP. Importance of static adjustment of knee angle to determine saddle height in cycling. Journal of Science and Cycling 2016; 5(1): 26-31.
  20. Bieuzen F, Lepers R, Vercruyssen F, Hausswirth C, Brisswalter J. Muscle activation during cycling at different cadences: effect of maximal strength capacity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2007; 17(6): 731-8.
  21. Schmitz A, Ye M, Shapiro R, Yang R, Noehren B. Accuracy and repeatability of joint angles measured using a single camera markerless motion capture system. J Biomech 2014; 47(2): 587-91.
  22. Ercison MO, Nisell R, Ekholm J. Varus and valgus loads on the knee joint during ergometer cycling. Scand J Sports Sci 1984; 6(2): 39-45.
  23. Noehren B, Barrance PJ, Pohl MP, Davis IS. A comparison of tibiofemoral and patellofemoral alignment during a neutral and valgus single leg squat: An MRI study. Knee 2012; 19(4): 380-6.
  24. Quittmann OJ, Meskemper J, Abel T, Albracht K, Foitschik T, Rojas-Vega S, et al. Kinematics and kinetics of handcycling propulsion at increasing workloads in able-bodied subjects. Sports Engineering 2018; 21(4): 283-94.
  25. Holliday W, Theo R, Fisher J, Swart J. Cycling: Joint kinematics and muscle activity during differing intensities. Sports Biomech 2019; 1-15. [Epub ahead of print].
Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences
Volume 15, Issue 6 - Serial Number 6
February 2020
Pages 354-360