Univ. Polytechnique Hauts-de-France, LAMIH, CNRS, UMR 8201, F-59313 Valenciennes, France.
Gait Posture. 2022 Feb;92:249-257. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.11.009. Epub 2021 Nov 21.
The equivalency of treadmill and overground walking has been investigated in a large number of studies. However, no systematic review has been performed on this topic.
The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical, electromyographical and energy consumption outcomes of motorized treadmill and overground walking.
Five databases, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus, were searched until January 13, 2021. Studies written in English comparing lower limb biomechanics, electromyography and energy consumption during treadmill and overground walking in healthy young adults (20-40 years) were included.
Twenty-two studies (n = 409 participants) were included and evaluated via the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. These 22 studies showed that some kinematic (reduced pelvic ROM, maximum hip flexion angle for females, maximum knee flexion angle for males and cautious gait pattern), kinetic (sagittal plane joint moments: dorsiflexor moments, knee extensor moments and hip extensor moments and sagittal plane joint powers at the knee and hip joints, peak backwards, lateral and medial COP velocities and propulsive forces during late stance) and electromyographic (lower limbs muscles activities) outcome measures were significantly different for motorized treadmill and overground walking.
Spatiotemporal, kinematic, kinetic, electromyographic and energy consumption outcome measures were largely comparable for motorized treadmill and overground walking. However, the differences in kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic parameters should be taken into consideration by clinicians, trainers, and researchers when working on new protocols related to patient rehabilitation, fitness rooms or research as to be as close as possible to the outcome measures of overground walking. The protocol registration number is CRD42021236335 (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).
大量研究已经调查了跑步机和地面行走的等效性。然而，尚未对此主题进行系统评价。
本研究的目的是比较电动跑步机和地面行走的生物力学、肌电图和能量消耗结果。
直到 2021 年 1 月 13 日，在五个数据库（ScienceDirect、SpringerLink、Web of Science、PubMed 和 Scopus）中进行了搜索。纳入了使用英语比较健康年轻成年人（20-40 岁）在跑步机和地面行走时下肢生物力学、肌电图和能量消耗的研究。
纳入并通过 Cochrane 协作工具评估了 22 项研究（n=409 名参与者）。这 22 项研究表明，一些运动学（骨盆 ROM 减少、女性最大髋关节屈曲角度、男性最大膝关节屈曲角度和谨慎的步态模式）、动力学（矢状面关节力矩：背屈力矩、膝关节伸肌力矩和髋关节伸肌力矩以及膝关节和髋关节矢状面关节功率、峰值向后、侧向和内侧 COP 速度和推进力在后期站立）和肌电图（下肢肌肉活动）测量结果在电动跑步机和地面行走时差异显著。
跑步机和地面行走的时空、运动学、动力学、肌电图和能量消耗测量结果基本一致。然而，临床医生、教练和研究人员在制定与患者康复、健身室或研究相关的新方案时，应考虑到运动学、动力学和肌电图参数的差异，以使尽可能接近地面行走的结果测量。方案注册号为 CRD42021236335（PROSPERO 国际前瞻性系统评价注册中心）。
