
==== Front
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol
jfmk
Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology
2411-5142
MDPI

10.3390/jfmk9030160
jfmk-09-00160
Article
The Influence of Ankle Mobility and Foot Stability on Jumping Ability and Landing Mechanics: A Cross-Sectional Study
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3753-5191
Patti Antonino Conceptualization Formal analysis Writing – original draft 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7112-1780
Gervasi Marco Supervision 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4575-8021
Giustino Valerio Methodology Writing – review & editing 1*
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6676-2778
Figlioli Flavia Data curation 1
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9198-9669
Canzone Alberto Data curation 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2075-6038
Drid Patrik Supervision 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5991-8316
Thomas Ewan Formal analysis 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2774-4950
Messina Giuseppe Supervision 4
Vicari Domenico Savio Salvatore Data curation Writing – review & editing 15
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5387-468X
Palma Antonio Methodology Formal analysis 16
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8334-6581
Bianco Antonino Conceptualization Methodology 1
Hue Olivier Academic Editor
1 Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Unit, Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Via Giovanni Pascoli 6, 90144 Palermo, Italy; antonino.patti01@unipa.it (A.P.); flavia.figlioli@unipa.it (F.F.); alberto.canzone98@gmail.com (A.C.); ewan.thomas@unipa.it (E.T.); domenicosaviosalvatore.vicari@univr.it (D.S.S.V.); antonio.palma@unipa.it (A.P.); antonino.bianco@unipa.it (A.B.)
2 Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Division of Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, 61029 Urbino, Italy; marco.gervasi@uniurb.it
3 Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; patrikdrid@gmail.com
4 Department of Human Sciences and Promotion of the Quality of Life, San Raffaele University, 20132 Rome, Italy; giuseppe.messina@uniroma5.it
5 Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy
6 Regional Sports School of CONI Sicilia, 90141 Palermo, Italy
* Correspondence: valerio.giustino@unipa.it
08 9 2024
9 2024
9 3 16019 7 2024
05 9 2024
06 9 2024
© 2024 by the authors.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Practicing physical activities or sports that involve frequent jumping and landing can strain the muscles and joints of the lower limbs, especially in those who do not have adequate physical preparation. The objective of this study was to (a) determine the correlation between ankle range of motion (ROM) and landing stability following jumps; (b) assess the association between the jump height in a counter-movement jump (CMJ) test and ankle ROM; and (c) examine the connection between stabilometry during specific jumps movements present in many sports and in ankle stabilization. Sixty-two healthy amateur volleyball players participated in the study (age: thirty-seven females and twenty-five males; age (years): 16.5 ± 4.25; height (cm): 166 ± 11.4; weight (Kg): 61.6 ± 13.7). Participants were recruited for the study in collaboration with student sports associations. The evaluations encompassed the measurement of ankle joint mobility for both lower limbs using an inertial sensor, a static baropodometric and stabilometric analysis using a pressure platform, and the CMJ test using the Microgate system. After the assessments, participants performed a “specific jump landing task”. Significant correlations were found between foot range of motion (ROM) and counter-movement jump (CMJ) performance. Specifically, the ROM of the right foot had a strong correlation with the CMJ (r = 0.81, p < 0.001), while the left foot ROM showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.46, p < 0.001). The specific jump task revealed substantial changes in stabilometry parameters, particularly during forward hops compared to lateral jumps. Dorsiflexion ROM significantly impacts jumping ability. Evaluating landing patterns and stabilometry during targeted activities can help optimize training, improve dynamic balance, and reduce ankle injury risk.

ankle injury
postural control
range of motion
balance
European Union—FESR o FSE, PON Research and Innovation2014-2020—DM 1062/2021 I declare that we have no conflicts of interest in the authorship or publication of this contribution. The publication was made with the co-financing of the European Union—FESR o FSE, PON Research and Innovation 2014-2020—DM 1062/2021.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

In many sports and sports activities, repeated jumps and landings place significant stress on the lower limb muscles and joints, increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries [1]. In a study, Bahr et al. reported that in 78% of the cases, team players had a history of at least one prior ankle injury [2,3]. In a population of volleyball players, the authors showed that ankle injuries primarily happened during the act of landing after blocking, whereas most other injuries were linked to take-off, landing, or the spiking motion during an attack [3]. However, noteworthy relationships are also present in other sports gestures. Akbari H, et al. (2023) investigated the relationship between the ROM of ankle landing positions during a soccer-specific task [4]. The results showed that a reduced ROM of ankle dorsiflexion was associated with greater landing errors in a soccer-specific situation. For this reason, it could be possible to state that the assessment of ankle mobility is an important process to prevent faulty movements and potentially related injuries [4]. Similar athletic gestures are observed in other sports as well. Ungureanu AN, Beratto L. et al. demonstrated that rugby players also exhibit comparable kinematics. Their study revealed performance improvements, particularly in jumping, sprinting, and high-intensity running [5].

These risks are heightened in amateur sports and student leagues, where participants are at a greater risk of sustaining non-contact injuries [6]. Asperti AM et al. demonstrated that injury rates are significantly higher in amateur sports, particularly those focused on fitness improvement or student activities [6]. This can lead to prolonged interruptions or even withdrawal from physical activity. Adolescent sports injuries present a significant issue that can lead to withdrawal from physical activity. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of risk factors and improve prevention efforts [7].

The literature suggests the need for preventive strategies and training programs, but further research into the etiology of injuries is essential to develop effective measures. Injuries to the ankle and knee joints, particularly those to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), have been linked to ankle joint kinematics, such as dorsiflexion angles during landings [8,9,10].

In 2021, Cejudo A. presented evidence indicating potential disparities in range of motion (ROM) between genders. This study provides gender-specific scores for lower extremity flexibility profiles in basketball players. This study suggests that athletic trainers and conditioning coaches identify players who may be at high risk of injury due to abnormal ROM scores [11]. The study of Boden et al. (2009) evaluated the foot position and hip, knee, and ankle joint angles of athletes at the time of an ACL injury and compared these values with a control group of athletes who experienced no injuries [8]. The results of this study showed that athletes of the control group first contacted the ground with the forefoot while athletes of the experimental group had first ground contact with the hindfoot or entirely flatfooted.

Another study by Malloy et al. (2016) analyzed the association between ankle dorsiflexion flexibility and landing kinematics in female soccer players during a drop vertical jump [12]. The results showed that females with less ankle dorsiflexion flexibility exhibited greater peak knee abduction moments and angles as well as less peak knee flexion angles during landing, suggesting that ankle dorsiflexion may influence landing posture kinematics and kinetics, making its evaluation important for injury prevention [12]. A limitation of this study declared by the authors is that the ankle dorsiflexion was evaluated with the knee in the full extended position, and in this way, it was not possible to measure the soleus muscle, which can influence the dorsiflexion flexibility [12]. Another limitation of this study is the height of the box that was normalized and not weighted to the height of the subject. We hypothesize that the landing height concerning the anthropometric measurements of the tested subject are variable and should not be overlooked and indefinitely personalizing the evaluation task as much as possible is necessary. Other studies have also noted limitations such as not simulating sport-specific tasks or standardizing drop jump box heights [13,14]. The lateral cutting movements are very frequent in team sports like volleyball [15]. Over time, these pressures might result in persistent ankle instability caused by harm to the lateral ankle ligaments [16]. However, there are limited studies on stability strategies during unilateral jump-landing tasks [17].

Another interesting study showed that increasing the ROM of the ankle, particularly dorsiflexion, in addition to preventing injuries, showed an increase in performance on the single-leg vertical jump height of fifty-two recreational athletes of both genders [18]. Rabin, A. et al. also confirmed this relationship in their study, highlighting the importance of evaluating ankle dorsiflexion [19].

The objective of this study was to examine the connection between ankle range of motion (ROM) and landing stability following jumps, evaluate the correlation between ankle ROM and jump height in the counter-movement jump (CMJ) test, and analyze stabilometry during specific jumping movements and landing by introducing a customizable task tailored to the subject’s characteristics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This is a cross-sectional study. Given the study’s purpose, a cross-sectional design was deemed more appropriate, as it is useful for assessing the prevalence of conditions, behaviors, or outcomes and is well suited for evaluating associations between variables by analyzing multiple outcomes.

2.2. Subjects

This study recruited a total of seventy-two students who play volleyball at an amateur level. However, only sixty-two individuals (thirty-seven females and twenty-five males; age (years): 16.5 ± 4.25; height (cm): 166 ± 11.4; weight (Kg): 61.6 ± 13.7; dominant foot (n): right 55 subjects and left 7 subjects) fulfilled the inclusion requirements. The remaining 10 were excluded due to not having played or exercised regularly for at least six months (Table 1). An a priori sample size power analysis with an α error of 0.05 and an effect size of 0.5 revealed that sixty-two participants would be sufficient to reach a power of 99% [20]. The STROBE guidelines were used to ensure a high-quality presentation of the conducted observational study (Figure 1) [21]. Consistent with the recommendations of the literature and comparable research [10,22,23,24], we included in the study those who met the following inclusion criteria:(a) Participants had no leg injuries in the past six months.

(b) All participants had been playing and exercising regularly for at least six months.

(c) There were no post-surgical subjects.

Researchers collected demographics and sports injury history, and participants signed written informed consent forms. Parental consent was also obtained for minors (<18 years). The subjects were invited to the gymnasium, where they were briefed on the research and evaluations without disclosing the study’s objectives to avoid influencing performance. Anthropometric data were collected from the same research unit between September 2022 and December 2022. We also obtained written informed consent from parents of minors (<18 years). The study was carried out in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Palermo (n. 94/2022-Prot. 70310; 4 July 2022).

2.3. Procedures

Prior to the evaluations, participants engaged in a standardized warm-up regimen consisting of gentle jogging and a combination of static and dynamic stretching exercises to prime the muscles and joints. The evaluations were carried out in the team gymnasium on a conventional wooden floor from 5:00 to 8:00 PM. All participants were required to have a minimum recovery interval of 72 h since their last game to ensure they were not fatigued. The initial evaluation focused on assessing ankle joint mobility by measuring both the range and quality of movement in each ankle. Participants then performed a counter-movement jump (CMJ). Following 30 min of rest, participants had stabilometric analysis, which was especially conducted during the jump-landing phase to evaluate their balance and postural control in dynamic situations. This analysis offered valuable perspectives on the post-landing stability management strategies.

2.3.1. The Measure of the Ankle Range of Motion

One small Bluetooth sensor was used to measure the joint mobility of the ankle (internal sampling up to 1000 Hz; Bluetooth 4.0 and 2.0—USB connection 2.0; weight: 28 gr; dimensions: 65 × 45 × 18 mm; resolution: accelerometer = ±2 G to ±16 G gyroscope = ±200°/s to ±2000°/s magnetometer = ±4000 μT). BEYOND Inertial used the Beyond framework software (Motustech SRL, Guidonia Montecelio, Roma, Italy). BEYOND Inertial was attached to the foot’s dorsum of each participant using ad hoc straps [25] to limit their oscillations relative to the underlying segment [26] (Figure 2). Once the accelerometer was set, the subject, who was in a sitting position with flexed knee, was asked to actively perform a maximum plantar flexion movement and a maximum back flexion movement. In line with similar studies, we recorded ankle ROM after a single evaluation, following familiarization sessions in previous days. This approach aimed to replicate the natural ankle adaptation during game phases, where multiple flexions typically do not occur before a jump [27].

Data acquired by the BEYOND Inertial were transmitted via Bluetooth to a laptop. The parameters considered for the statistical analysis were as follows:- Range of motion (ROM°): It represents the angular excursion carried out by the segment that rotates from its starting point to its arrival point.

- Angular speed (°/s): It represents the average angular velocity over the entire range of motion.

- Fluency Index: An index ranging from 0 to 1 indicates the movement’s quality. The closer it is to 1, the smoother the movement. The dorsiflexion, plantar flexion, eversion, and inversion of both feet of all the subjects analyzed were evaluated on these three parameters (Figure 2).

2.3.2. Counter-Movement Jump (CMJ)

The Microgate system (Bolzano, Italy) was used to manage this test. The system allows for the quantity of flight and contact times during the execution of a series of jumps, with a precision of 1/1000 of a second. It is an optical detection system constituted of a transmitting and a receiving bar starting from these fundamental basic data; the dedicated software allows for obtaining a series of parameters related to performance with maximum precision and in real time [28]. After fully explaining experimental procedures, subjects completed a warm-up consisting of running (5 min), stretching of lower extremity muscles, and submaximal vertical jumping for the familiarization (3 min) [29]. For the test, athletes began from the upright standing position with their hands on the hips; they flexed their knees (about 90°) as fast as possible and then leaped as high as possible in the next maximum extensory phase [29]. Subjects were to leave the floor with knees and ankles extended and land in an extended position. Three measurements were administered per subject, 2 min were allowed between jump repetitions, and the best performance was considered for the study analysis [30].

2.3.3. Specific Jump-Landing Task

The study published by Butler, R. J. et al. inspired the method for performing this test [31]. However, it was adapted to suit the specific requirements of subjects engaged in sporting activities. In this modified test, athletes jumped from the ground to a stabilometric platform positioned at a distance equal to half their height. An obstacle set at 70% of their previously recorded CMJ performance was placed between the take-off point and the platform. This adaptable modification was designed to individualize testing based on each athlete’s performance level, more closely replicating sporting situations. The subjects landed on the platform with only one leg seeking the best stabilization in the shortest possible time. Participants performed single-leg landings on the platform and were instructed to stabilize for 20 s post-landing, during which stabilometric data were recorded [32]. The tests included one-legged landings after forward jumps for both legs and lateral jumps (side-step cutting) for both legs. Participants were required to adhere to predefined conditions regarding platform distance and obstacle height for all jumps. A 120 s rest period was provided between trials, and each trial was repeated three times, with the best performance on single-leg landings selected for analysis. Throughout the tests, participants’ hands remained free. A trial was considered a failure if the athlete did not maintain balance for the required 20 s, jumped or moved the affected foot on the platform, dismounted with the opposite limb, or landed with the affected foot not fully on the platform [32]. The 20 s duration was chosen based on the study by Fransz, D. P. et al., which identified a stabilization period of 3–5 s following a single-leg jump. However, we adopted the maximum duration analyzed by the authors [33]. These tests were administered using the FreeMed system (FreeStep v.1.0.3 software, Sensor Medica, Guidonia Montecelio, Roma, Italy). The following parameters of the statokinesigram were considered: sway path length of the center of pressure (CoP) (mm); ellipse surface area (mm2); coordinates of the CoP along the frontal (X; right–left; x-mean) and sagittal (Y; forward–backward; y-mean) planes; and maximum oscillation and average speed of movement (mm/s) [34]. The platform’s sensors are 24 K gold, allowing for high reliability.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All data were recorded in an Excel file. Statistical analysis was performed with Jamovi (2.3.21.0).

The distribution of quantitative data was assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test (p > 0.05). For the objectives of the study, the Pearson correlation test (r) was used to analyze the relationship among the dorsiflexion, the plantarflexion, and the eversion and inversion of the right and left feet with the entire battery of tests used. The r values are distributed as follows: r = 0.10–0.29, small or low correlation; r = 0.30–0.49, medium or moderate correlation; r = 0.50–1.0, large or high or strong correlation [35]. The independent samples t-test was used to compare and evaluate performance differences between female and male subjects. Paired samples t-test was used to evaluate if there are differences between the performance of the left leg and the right leg and between the landing after a forward jump right vs. left on jump-landing task. A multiple linear regression was used with the vertical jump height as dependent variables and the right and left dorsiflexion ROM, the right and left plantarflexion ROM foot size, right and left sway path length, and average speed of movement of both feet as independent variables that could be predictors. Statistical significance was set a priori at p < 0.05.

3. Results

Table 1 presents the demographic description. Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 describe the correlation between the ankle valuation (right and left) and other parameters. A correlation was present between the right foot ROM° vs. vertical jump height (r = 0.81, p < 0.001) and the left foot ROM° vs. vertical jump height (r = 0.46, p < 0.001; Table 2). The analysis of dates showed interesting results, particularly with the foot’s dorsiflexion. Table 6 is a comparison of parameters between males and females using the independent samples t-test. Data analysis showed differences in jumping performance.

Furthermore, the multiple linear regression showed a significant regression with the dependent variable vertical jump height (cm) and the independent variables’ Right Dorsiflexion Range of Mov. °, foot size, right sway path length, right average speed of movement, and Right Plantarflexion Range of Mov.° (regression p-value < 0.001; adjusted R2 = 0.078; Table 7). A similar tendency was found on the left foot with a significant regression with the dependent variable vertical jump height (Cm) and the independent variable: foot size, left sway path length, left average speed of movement, and Left Plantarflexion Range of Mov. ° (regression p-value < 0.001; adjusted R2 = 0.33 (Table 8)). In addition, we analyzed the differences between the subjects who claimed to be with the right dominant foot (55 subjects) vs. left dominant foot (7 subjects), but no significant differences in dominant foot interaction were present. The specific task volley test showed significant differences between the left ellipse surface area after a forward jump vs. the left ellipse surface area after a lateral jump (884.86 ± 304.7 mm2 vs. 1056.91 ± 386.1 mm2; p < 0.001); between the left average speed of movement after a forward jump vs. the left average speed of movement after a lateral jump (44.82 ± 16 mm/s vs. 54.25 ± 20.9 mm/s; p < 0.001); and between the left y-mean after a forward jump vs. left y-mean after a lateral jump (12.13 ± 16.6 mm vs. 7.19 ± 16; p < 0.05). The test did not show significant differences on the right foot (Table 9).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to identify predictive indicators of future instability using a specific task-test jump. Correlations between ankle range of motion (ROM) and the specific jump-landing task (SJLT) yielded interesting findings. Dorsiflexion parameters were particularly significant in predicting chronic ankle instability [36]. In line with the results of Donovan et al., a reduced range of motion correlates with decreased strength, impaired neuromuscular control, and altered functional movement patterns [36].

Our results showed that the Dorsiflexion Fluency Index of the right foot, which is an index ranging from 0 to 1 and which indicates the movement quality of the ankle, significant inverse correlation with stability parameters of the foot after a one-legged landing on a forward jump. Stability is represented by the size of the ellipse surface area [37]. In addition, this parameter showed a significative positive correlation with the x-mean parameter after a one-legged landing after a forward jump and on a lateral jump both on the right foot and left foot. The x-mean parameter represented the coordinates of the CoP along the frontal planes [38]. These findings are along the same lines as the conclusions showed by Brown et al. [39]. The authors demonstrated that the mechanically unstable subjects displayed differences in frontal plane ankle motion [39]. In 2023, Han et al. provided insights into ankle dorsiflexion ranges, distinguishing between Hypo-DFROM (below 40 degrees), Normal-DFROM, and Hyper-DFROM [40]. Our results described a mean of ROM° below 40 degrees in the whole sample analyzed. None of the subjects enrolled in the study reported chronic ankle problems; this indicates the importance of regular and ongoing assessments of the ankle in athletes to prevent latent ankle impairments and future injuries. Furthermore, the data showed by Han et al. confirm our conclusions on how limited dorsiflexion negatively affects the landing/cutting task [40].

Regarding limb dominance, our study found no significant differences, though left-foot dominant subjects were underrepresented and warrant further investigation. However, significant differences were observed in performance after the specific jump-landing task, particularly in the left limb. After lateral jumps, the left foot showed a significantly greater sway path length, average speed of movement, and lower y-mean, indicating greater difficulty in stabilization compared to the right foot. Our results seem to indicate that the left foot is more difficult to stabilize on a one-legged landing task after a lateral jump than the right foot. These results are in line with the conclusions of the study by Simpson, J.D. et al. (2018) [17]. The authors demonstrated that individuals with chronic ankle instability showed dynamic postural stability deficits and reduced neuromuscular control during unilateral jump-landings [17].

Our results also highlighted reduced ankle sagittal plane displacement after lateral jumps compared to forward jumps (Table 9), a strategy observed in subjects with chronic ankle instability to reduce impact forces on the ankle complex [39,41]. As suggested by the literature, the reduction in ankle sagittal plane range is an ankle strategy during the post-landing period that decreases impact forces imposed on the ankle complex, but a greater reliance is transmitted to the proximal segments [42,43]. Furthermore, our data analysis demonstrated a significant correlation between dorsiflexion ROM and performance on the counter-movement jump (CMJ) test, particularly with the right leg (Table 2). In 2021, Panoutsakopoulos V. et al. found similar results, the authors hypothesized that individuals with a larger ankle dorsiflexion angle can more efficiently utilize the additional work provided by the arm swing in the vertical squat jump compared to individuals with a less flexible ankle joint [44].

Multiple linear regression analysis further confirmed dorsiflexion as a predictor of vertical jump height, with significant associations observed for variables such as right sway path length and average speed of movement (Table 7). Similar trends were observed for the left leg but to a lesser extent (Table 8).

The study is not without limitations. Some subjects were slightly older than eighteen, which may have introduced greater heterogeneity to the sample; the BEYOND Inertial has demonstrated reliability, and similar instruments of lower technical specifications have undergone extensive validation [25]. However, while its previous version is well-documented in the literature [45,46], the validation of the current version is still in progress. Moreover, the sample analyzed specifically consisted of students who played volleyball on an amatorial level. Nevertheless, we were unable to evaluate the impact of prior years of playing experience on the individuals. Insufficient control over the prior experience of each participant may have resulted in a certain level of variability in the findings. Thus, it is recommended that future studies give priority to selecting a more homogeneous sample with similar levels of experience in physical exercise to reduce the impact of this factor. To validate the reliability of the findings, it would be beneficial to expand the parameters for selecting participants or include a mandatory minimum number of years of expertise as a controlled factor.

5. Conclusions

This study is the first to propose a jump-landing task that tries to simulate real sports movement to be customized for specific anthropometric characteristics and performance. This may show altered adaptation strategies during a landing/cutting activity like in the play actions. Dorsiflexion ROM has a very high influence on jumping performance, and exercises to improve ankle joint mobility are essential not only to prevent injuries but also for the performance itself. Future studies should investigate the connections between lower limb movement patterns, neuromuscular control, and joint kinematics to gain a better understanding of the causes of recurring lateral ankle sprains in populations that frequently engage in repetitive jump-landings. These studies are particularly important in amateur and student settings, where injury rates are higher, and could help reduce post-injury dropout from physical activity.

Author Contributions

A.P. (Antonino Patti) and A.B.: Conceptualization; A.C. and F.F.: Data collection; A.P. (Antonino Patti) and D.S.S.V.: Data analysis; A.P. (Antonino Patti), E.T., V.G. and A.P. (Antonio Palma): Methodology; A.B. and A.P. (Antonio Palma): Supervision; G.M., P.D. and M.G.: Visualization; A.P. (Antonino Patti): Writing—original draft; V.G. and D.S.S.V.: Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was carried out in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Palermo (n. 94/2022—Prot. 70310).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figure 1 Experimental design: STROBE Flow diagram.

Figure 2 Measurement of joint mobility with accelerometer.

jfmk-09-00160-t001_Table 1 Table 1 Subject demographics.

	Subjects (n)	Age (y)	Height (cm)	Weight (kg)	
Mean	F (37)	16.0	161	55.9	
M (25)	17.2	174	69.9	
Standard deviation	F (37)	4.78	8.57	11.7	
M (25)	3.27	10.6	12.4	
M: Male; F: female; n: numbers; y: years; cm: centimeters; Kg: kilograms.

jfmk-09-00160-t002_Table 2 Table 2 Correlation between the dorsiflexion of the foot and all parameters.

			Dorsiflexion of Foot	
			Left Foot	Right Foot	
			Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	
Left foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index	0.400 **						
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.360 **		0.275 *		−0.281 *		
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index	0.540 ***		0.487 ***	0.356 **			
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.378 **		0.261 *	0.443 ***		0.293 *	
Range of motion (ROM°)						0.250 *	
Fluency Index			0.395 **	0.334 **			
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.449 ***			0.597 ***		0.287 *	
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index	0.422 ***						
Right foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)			0.334 **				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.538 ***					
Fluency Index			0.355 **	0.403 **			
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.308 *			0.585 ***		0.345 **	
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.452 ***					
Fluency Index	0.321 *		0.267 *	0.312 *	−0.287 *	0.262 *	
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.294 *		0.280 *	0.627 ***		0.494 ***	
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.274 *			0.322 *	0.355 **	
Fluency Index			0.339 **	0.309*		0.251 *	
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)				0.647 ***		0.337 **	
Range of motion (ROM°)				0.381 **			
Fluency Index			0.308 *	0.267 *		0.263 *	
Left foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)				−0.315 *		−0.406 **	
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)			0.363 **	0.308 *		0.530 ***	
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)						−0.310 *	
Maximum oscillation				0.254 *			
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)						0.305 *	
Y-mean (mm)							
Left foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)						−0.352 **	
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)			0.279 *				
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
		CMJ		0.464 ***			0.810 ***		
The threshold for significant differences between performances is defined as: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

jfmk-09-00160-t003_Table 3 Table 3 Correlation between the plantarflexion of the foot and all parameters.

			Plantarflexion of Foot	
			Left Foot	Right Foot	
			Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	
Left foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index	0.483 ***						
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.428 ***		0.382 **				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.399 **					
Fluency Index	0.355 **		0.403 **				
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.405 **		0.453 ***				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.499 ***					
Fluency Index			0.303 *				
Right foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.466 ***		0.436 ***				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.585 ***					
Fluency Index	0.478 ***		0.464 **	0.626 ***			
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.379 **	0.280 *	0.320 *	0.715 ***		0.380 **	
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.303 *			0.290 *		
Fluency Index			0.290*	0.378 **		0.359 **	
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.252 *		0.300*	0.656 **		0.497 ***	
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.377 **		0.270 *	0.309 *		
Fluency Index			0.369 **	0.298 *			
Left foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Left foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
		CMJ							
The threshold for significant differences between performances is defined as: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

jfmk-09-00160-t004_Table 4 Table 4 Correlation between the eversion of the foot and all parameters.

			Eversion of Foot	
			Left Foot	Right Foot	
			Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	
Left foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index	0.579 ***						
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.684 ***		0.352 **				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.307 *					
Fluency Index	0.298 *		0.255 *				
Right foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.671 ***		0.585 ***				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.314 *					
Fluency Index	0.489 ***		0.465 ***				
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.695 ***		0.380 **				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.629 ***					
Fluency Index	0.314 *		0.480 ***	0.464 ***			
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.673 ***		0.461 ***	0.637 ***		0.300 *	
Range of motion (ROM°)				0.347 **			
Fluency Index	0.462 ***		0.433 ***	0.288 *		0.459 ***	
Left foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Left foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
		CMJ							
The threshold for significant differences between performances is defined as: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

jfmk-09-00160-t005_Table 5 Table 5 Correlation between the inversion of the foot and all parameters.

			Inversion of Foot	
			Left Foot	Right Foot	
			Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	Angular Speed (°/s)	Range of Motion (ROM°)	Fluency Index	
Left foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index	0.382 **						
Right foot	Dorsiflexion	Angular speed (°/s)							
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Plantarflexion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.633 ***		0.265 *				
Range of motion (ROM°)		0.476 ***					
Fluency Index	0.413 ***						
Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.684 ***	0.290 *					
Range of motion (ROM°)							
Fluency Index							
Inversion	Angular speed (°/s)	0.757 ***						
Range of motion (ROM°)	0.298 *	0.657 ***		0.288 *			
Fluency Index				0.36 **			
Left foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Left foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
Right foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)							
Maximum oscillation							
Average speed of movement (mm/s)							
X-mean (mm)							
Y-mean (mm)							
		CMJ							
The threshold for significant differences between performances is defined as: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

jfmk-09-00160-t006_Table 6 Table 6 Comparison of parameters between males and females using the independent samples t-test.

Description	Gender	n	Mean	SD	p	Cohen’s d	
Age	F	37	16.027	4.775	ns		
M	25	17.240	3.270		
Height	F	37	160.730	8.568	<0.001	−1.47	
M	25	174.080	10.571	
Weight	F	37	55.946	11.723	<0.001	−1.16	
M	25	69.880	12.364	
Left foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	* Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)	F	37	67,044.45	36,620.1	ns		
M	25	82,007.7	66,993.9		
* Sway path length (mm)	F	37	845.427	281.710	ns		
M	25	943.225	333.231		
* Maximum oscillation	F	37	42.056	63.484	0.007	−0.61	
M	25	99.247	125.736	
* Average speed of movement (mm/s)	F	37	42.774	14.492	ns		
M	25	47.860	17.984		
* X-mean	F	37	−31.809	13.256	ns		
M	25	−30.845	18.738		
Y-mean	F	37	9.493	14.314	ns		
M	25	16.026	19.085		
Right foot	One-legged landing after a forward jump	* Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)	F	37	77,004.3	38,035.4	ns		
M	25	85,871.6	48,083.5		
* Sway path length (mm)	F	37	923.166	349.061	ns		
M	25	876.222	284.824		
* Maximum oscillation	F	37	95.330	152.405	ns		
M	25	72.798	132.586		
* Average speed of movement (mm/s)	F	37	46.846	17.650	ns		
M	25	45.978	18.437		
X-mean	F	37	−29.909	11.828	ns		
M	25	−28.670	12.373		
Y-mean	F	37	10.631	10.952	ns		
M	25	12.533	16.041		
Left foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	* Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)	F	37	72,284.882	38,690.435	ns		
M	25	74,317.066	32,100.34		
* Sway path length (mm)	F	37	1090.288	442.459	ns		
M	25	1007.506	284.450		
* Maximum oscillation	F	37	76.547	110.790	ns		
M	25	75.708	120.193		
* Average speed of movement (mm/s)	F	37	55.658	23.406	ns		
M	25	52.162	16.778		
* X-mean	F	37	−32.728	25.125	ns		
M	25	−35.727	15.995		
Y-mean	F	37	5.659	17.210	ns		
M	25	9.467	14.178		
Right foot	One-legged landing on a lateral jump	* Ellipse Surface Area (mm2)	F	37	69,621.044	37,242.685	ns		
M	25	79,571.328	77,463.133		
Sway path length (mm)	F	37	1034.607	331.264	0.027	0.58	
M	25	868.578	186.447	
* Maximum swing	F	37	101.488	144.359	ns		
M	25	51.333	60.789		
* Average speed of movement (mm/s)	F	37	52.636	175.341	ns		
M	25	43.969	9.822		
* X-mean	F	37	−27.628	17.750	ns		
M	25	−29.159	27.710		
* Y-mean	F	37	7.660	9.008	ns		
M	25	10.980	21.543		
Left foot	Dorsiflexion	* Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	44.838	34.791	ns		
M	25	42.800	23.272		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	29.754	5.913	ns		
M	25	30.896	6.269		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.86	0.156	ns		
M	25	0.88	0.116		
Left foot	Plantarflexion	* Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	46.703	36.325	ns		
M	25	47.520	45.710		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	44.935	9.012	ns		
M	25	46.088	11.211		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.83	0.142	ns		
M	25	0.82	0.145		
Left foot	Eversion	Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	47.730	25.941	ns		
M	25	40.040	21.255		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	32.205	9.936	ns		
M	25	32.824	7.925		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.866	0.141	ns		
M	25	0.858	0.134		
Left foot	Inversion	* Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	54.757	22.869	ns		
M	25	47.920	19.455		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	37.970	8.495	ns		
M	25	39.092	11.572		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.907	0.098	ns		
M	24	0.838	0.206		
Right foot	Dorsiflexion	* Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	45.973	27.046	ns		
M	25	45.640	20.512		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	29.827	6.193	ns		
M	25	31.520	6.754		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.860	0.120	ns		
M	25	0.917	0.107		
Right foot	Plantarflexion	* Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	50.351	25.588	ns		
M	25	41.840	20.134		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	43.543	8.861	ns		
M	25	42.776	9.620		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.843	0.116	ns		
M	25	0.824	0.101		
Right foot	Eversion	* Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	51.054	27.993	ns		
M	25	48.640	28.110		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	33.030	8.463	ns		
M	25	34.380	12.373		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.879	0.183	ns		
M	25	0.863	0.125		
Right foot	Inversion	* Angular speed (°/s)	F	37	53	25.970	ns		
M	25	48	22.856		
Range of motion (ROM°)	F	37	37.924	8.3194	ns		
M	25	42.056	13.204		
* Fluency Index	F	37	0.869	0.176	ns		
M	25	0.901	0.105		
CMJ	F	37	18.735	4.805	0.001	−0.89	
M	25	23.324	5.609	
*: U of Mann-Whitney analysis; ns: not significant, SD: Standard deviation.

jfmk-09-00160-t007_Table 7 Table 7 Multiple linear regression (dependent variable: Performance CMJ (Cm); independent variable: Right Dorsiflexion Range of Mov.°, foot size, right sway path length, right average speed of movement, and Right Plantarflexion Range of Mov.°). Regression p-value < 0.001; Adjusted R2 = 0.78.

Multiple Linear Regression—CMJ (cm)	
Predictor	Estimate	SE	t	p	
Intercept	−24.694	6.143	−4.019	<0.001	
Right Dorsiflexion Range of Mov. °	0.674	0.057	11.672	<0.001	
Foot size	0.605	0.127	4.767	<0.001	
Right sway path length (mm)	0.017	0.006	2.890	0.005	
Right average speed of movement (mm/s)	−0.322	0.107	−3.018	0.004	
Right Plantarflexion Range of Mov.°	−0.006	0.041	−0.145	0.885	

jfmk-09-00160-t008_Table 8 Table 8 Multiple linear regression (dependent variable: Performance CMJ (Cm); independent variable: Left Dorsiflexion Range of Mov.°, foot size, left sway path length, left average speed of movement and Left Plantarflexion Range of Mov.°). Regression p-value < 0.001; Adjusted R2 = 0.33.

Multiple Linear Regression—CMJ (cm)	
Predictor	Estimate	SE	t	p	
Intercept	−16.919	9.644	−1.754	0.085	
Left Dorsiflexion Range of Mov. °	0.489	0.108	4.545	<0.001	
Foot size	0.634	0.211	3.007	0.004	
Left sway path length (mm)	0.002	0.017	0.102	0.919	
Left average speed of movement (mm/s)	−0.066	0.327	−0.200	0.842	
Left Plantarflexion Range of Mov.°	−0.031	0.065	−0.471	0.639	

jfmk-09-00160-t009_Table 9 Table 9 Pair t-test between landing after a forward jump right vs. left and on a lateral jump (l).

Measurements	p	
Left ellipse surface area (mm2)	vs.	Right ellipse surface area (mm2)	0.147	
Left sway path length (mm)	vs.	Right sway path length (mm)	0.603	
Left maximum oscillation	vs.	Right maximum swing	0.363	
Left x-mean	vs.	Right x-mean	0.305	
Left y-mean	vs.	Right y-mean	0.655	
Left ellipse surface area (mm2)	vs.	(l)—Left ellipse surface area (mm2)	0.997	
Left sway path length (mm)	vs.	(l)—Left sway path length (mm)	<0.001	
Left maximum oscillation	vs.	(l)—Left maximum oscillation	0.589	
Left average speed of movement (mm/s)	vs.	(l)—Left average speed of movement (mm/s)	<0.001	
Left x-mean	vs.	(l)—Left x-mean	0.420	
Left y-mean	vs.	(l)—Left y-mean	0.014	
Right ellipse surface area (mm2)	vs.	(l)—Right ellipse surface area (mm2)	0.313	
Right sway path length (mm)	vs.	(l)—Right sway path length (mm)	0.154	
Right maximum swing	vs.	(l)—Right maximum oscillation	0.839	
Right average speed of movement (mm/s)	vs.	(l)—Right average speed of movement (mm/s)	0.288	
Right x-mean	vs.	(l)—Right x-mean	0.671	
Right y-mean	vs.	(l)—Right y-mean	0.146	

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
==== Refs
References

1. Bere T. Kruczynski J. Veintimilla N. Hamu Y. Bahr R. Injury risk is low among world-class volleyball players: 4-year data from the FIVB Injury Surveillance System Br. J. Sports Med. 2015 49 1132 1137 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094959 26194501
2. Bahr R. Karlsen R. Lian O. Ovrebo R.V. Incidence and mechanisms of acute ankle inversion injuries in volleyball. A retrospective cohort study Am. J. Sports Med. 1994 22 595 600 10.1177/036354659402200505 7810781
3. Bahr R. Bahr I.A. Incidence of acute volleyball injuries: A prospective cohort study of injury mechanisms and risk factors Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 1997 7 166 171 10.1111/j.1600-0838.1997.tb00134.x 9200321
4. Akbari H. Shimokochi Y. Sheikhi B. Ankle dorsiflexion range of motion and landing postures during a soccer-specific task PLoS ONE 2023 18 e0283150 10.1371/journal.pone.0283150 36928236
5. Ungureanu A.N. Beratto L. Daga F.A. Boccia G. Lupo C. Brustio P.R. Changes in anthropometric and fitness profile of Italian regional academy rugby union players Biol. Sport 2022 39 621 628 10.5114/biolsport.2022.106384 35959335
6. Asperti A.M. Fernandes T.L. Pedrinelli A. Hernandez A.J. Sports Injuries among Amateur Athletes at a Brazilian University Acta Ortop. Bras. 2017 25 93 98 10.1590/1413-785220172502165651 28642659
7. Indriethadottir M.H. Sveinsson T. Magnusson K. Arngrimsson S.A. Johannsson E. Prevalence of sport injuries, sport participation and drop out due to injury in young adults Laeknabladid 2015 101 451 456 10.17992/lbl.2015.10.45 26444230
8. Boden B.P. Torg J.S. Knowles S.B. Hewett T.E. Video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament injury: Abnormalities in hip and ankle kinematics Am. J. Sports Med. 2009 37 252 259 10.1177/0363546508328107 19182110
9. Carlson V.R. Sheehan F.T. Boden B.P. Video Analysis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Injuries: A Systematic Review JBJS Rev. 2016 4 e5 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.15.00116
10. Sahin N. Bianco A. Patti A. Paoli A. Palma A. Ersoz G. Evaluation of knee joint proprioception and balance of young female volleyball players: A pilot study J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2015 27 437 440 10.1589/jpts.27.437 25729185
11. Cejudo A. Lower Extremity Flexibility Profile in Basketball Players: Gender Differences and Injury Risk Identification Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 18 11956 10.3390/ijerph182211956 34831712
12. Malloy P. Morgan A. Meinerz C. Geiser C. Kipp K. The association of dorsiflexion flexibility on knee kinematics and kinetics during a drop vertical jump in healthy female athletes Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2015 23 3550 3555 10.1007/s00167-014-3222-z 25112598
13. Hagins M. Pappas E. Kremenic I. Orishimo K.F. Rundle A. The effect of an inclined landing surface on biomechanical variables during a jumping task Clin. Biomech. 2007 22 1030 1036 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.07.012 17826875
14. Taylor J.B. Wright E.S. Waxman J.P. Schmitz R.J. Groves J.D. Shultz S.J. Ankle Dorsiflexion Affects Hip and Knee Biomechanics During Landing Sports Health 2022 14 328 335 10.1177/19417381211019683 34096370
15. Stacoff A. Steger J. Stussi E. Reinschmidt C. Lateral stability in sideward cutting movements Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1996 28 350 358 10.1097/00005768-199603000-00010 8776223
16. Braun B.L. Effects of ankle sprain in a general clinic population 6 to 18 months after medical evaluation Arch. Fam. Med. 1999 8 143 148 10.1001/archfami.8.2.143 10101985
17. Simpson J.D. Stewart E.M. Macias D.M. Chander H. Knight A.C. Individuals with chronic ankle instability exhibit dynamic postural stability deficits and altered unilateral landing biomechanics: A systematic review Phys. Ther. Sport 2019 37 210 219 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.06.003 29914742
18. Driller M.W. Overmayer R.G. The effects of tissue flossing on ankle range of motion and jump performance Phys. Ther. Sport 2017 25 20 24 10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.12.004 28254581
19. Rabin A. Einstein O. Kozol Z. The association of visually-assessed quality of movement during jump-landing with ankle dorsiflexion range-of-motion and hip abductor muscle strength among healthy female athletes Phys. Ther. Sport 2018 31 35 41 10.1016/j.ptsp.2018.01.004 29525640
20. Grabow L. Young J.D. Byrne J.M. Granacher U. Behm D.G. Unilateral Rolling of the Foot did not Affect Non-Local Range of Motion or Balance J. Sports Sci. Med. 2017 16 209 218 28630574
21. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines Saudi J. Anaesth. 2019 13 S31 S34 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18 30930717
22. Bianco A. Patti A. Bellafiore M. Battaglia G. Sahin F.N. Paoli A. Cataldo M.C. Mammina C. Palma A. Group fitness activities for the elderly: An innovative approach to reduce falls and injuries Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2014 26 147 152 10.1007/s40520-013-0144-4 24057943
23. Kroger I. Mussig J. Brand A. Patzold R. Wackerle H. Klopfer-Kramer I. Augat P. Recovery of gait and function during the first six months after tibial shaft fractures Gait Posture 2022 91 66 72 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.09.199 34653876
24. Hespanhol Junior L.C. de Carvalho A.C. Costa L.O. Lopes A.D. Lower limb alignment characteristics are not associated with running injuries in runners: Prospective cohort study Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2016 16 1137 1144 10.1080/17461391.2016.1195878 27312709
25. Baldazzi A. Molinaro L. Taborri J. Margheritini F. Rossi S. Bergamini E. Reliability of wearable sensors-based parameters for the assessment of knee stability PLoS ONE 2022 17 e0274817 10.1371/journal.pone.0274817 36137143
26. Ahmadian N. Nazarahari M. Whittaker J.L. Rouhani H. Quantification of Triple Single-Leg Hop Test Temporospatial Parameters: A Validated Method using Body-Worn Sensors for Functional Evaluation after Knee Injury Sensors 2020 20 3464 10.3390/s20123464 32575452
27. Smith J.C. Washell B.R. Aini M.F. Brown S. Hall M.C. Effects of Static Stretching and Foam Rolling on Ankle Dorsiflexion Range of Motion Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019 51 1752 1758 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001964 30817716
28. Montalvo S. Gonzalez M.P. Dietze-Hermosa M.S. Eggleston J.D. Dorgo S. Common Vertical Jump and Reactive Strength Index Measuring Devices: A Validity and Reliability Analysis J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021 35 1234 1243 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003988 33629975
29. Glatthorn J.F. Gouge S. Nussbaumer S. Stauffacher S. Impellizzeri F.M. Maffiuletti N.A. Validity and reliability of Optojump photoelectric cells for estimating vertical jump height J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011 25 556 560 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ccb18d 20647944
30. Patti A. Giustino V. Hirose N. Messina G. Cataldi S. Grigoli G. Marchese A. Mule G. Drid P. Palma A. Effects of an experimental short-time high-intensity warm-up on explosive muscle strength performance in soccer players: A pilot study Front. Physiol. 2022 13 984305 10.3389/fphys.2022.984305 36091405
31. Butler R.J. Russell M.E. Queen R. Effect of soccer footwear on landing mechanics Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2014 24 129 135 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01468.x 22515407
32. Watabe T. Takabayashi T. Tokunaga Y. Kubo M. Copers adopt an altered dynamic postural control compared to individuals with chronic ankle instability and controls in unanticipated single-leg landing Gait Posture 2022 92 378 382 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2021.12.014 34923258
33. Fransz D.P. Huurnink A. de Boode V.A. Kingma I. van Dieen J.H. Time to stabilization in single leg drop jump landings: An examination of calculation methods and assessment of differences in sample rate, filter settings and trial length on outcome values Gait Posture 2015 41 63 69 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.08.018 25242295
34. Patti A. Bianco A. Messina G. Iovane A. Alesi M. Pepi A. Palma A. Evaluation of podalic support and monitoring of balance control in children with and without dyslexia: A pilot study Sustainability 2020 12 1191 10.3390/su12031191
35. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Taylor and Francis Hoboken, NJ, USA 2013
36. Donovan L. Hertel J. A new paradigm for rehabilitation of patients with chronic ankle instability Physician Sportsmed. 2012 40 41 51 10.3810/psm.2012.11.1987
37. Patti A. Bianco A. Sahin N. Sekulic D. Paoli A. Iovane A. Messina G. Gagey P.M. Palma A. Postural control and balance in a cohort of healthy people living in Europe: An observational study Medicine 2018 97 e13835 10.1097/MD.0000000000013835 30593180
38. Scoppa F. Capra R. Gallamini M. Shiffer R. Clinical stabilometry standardization: Basic definitions—acquisition interval—sampling frequency Gait Posture 2013 37 290 292 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.07.009 22889928
39. Brown C. Padua D. Marshall S.W. Guskiewicz K. Individuals with mechanical ankle instability exhibit different motion patterns than those with functional ankle instability and ankle sprain copers Clin. Biomech. 2008 23 822 831 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.02.013
40. Han S. Lee H. Son S.J. Hopkins J.T. Effect of varied dorsiflexion range of motion on landing biomechanics in chronic ankle instability Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2023 33 1125 1134 10.1111/sms.14339 36780246
41. Caulfield B.M. Garrett M. Functional instability of the ankle: Differences in patterns of ankle and knee movement prior to and post landing in a single leg jump Int. J. Sports Med. 2002 23 64 68 10.1055/s-2002-19272 11774069
42. Doherty C. Bleakley C. Hertel J. Caulfield B. Ryan J. Delahunt E. Single-leg drop landing movement strategies in participants with chronic ankle instability compared with lateral ankle sprain ‘copers’ Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2016 24 1049 1059 10.1007/s00167-015-3852-9 26572632
43. Monaghan K. Delahunt E. Caulfield B. Ankle function during gait in patients with chronic ankle instability compared to controls Clin. Biomech. 2006 21 168 174 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.09.004 16269208
44. Panoutsakopoulos V. Kotzamanidou M.C. Papaiakovou G. Kollias I.A. The Ankle Joint Range of Motion and Its Effect on Squat Jump Performance with and without Arm Swing in Adolescent Female Volleyball Players J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2021 6 14 10.3390/jfmk6010014 33546291
45. Taborri J. Molinaro L. Russo L. Palmerini V. Larion A. Rossi S. Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms Fed with Mobility-Related and Baropodometric Measurements to Identify Temporomandibular Disorders Sensors 2024 24 3646 10.3390/s24113646 38894437
46. Giustino V. Zangla D. Messina G. Pajaujiene S. Feka K. Battaglia G. Bianco A. Palma A. Patti A. Kinematics of Cervical Spine during Rowing Ergometer at Different Stroke Rates in Young Rowers: A Pilot Study Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 19 7690 10.3390/ijerph19137690 35805344
