Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
7.5
4.4
Journals
Bioengineering
Special Issues
Sports Biomechanics and Injury Rehabilitation
share announcement

Sports Biomechanics and Injury Rehabilitation

A special issue of Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354). This special issue belongs to the section "Biomechanics and Sports Medicine".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 September 2026 | Viewed by 6370

Editor

Dr. Yifei Yao

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. School of Biomedical Engineering, Med-X Research Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1954 Huashan Road, Shanghai 200030, China
2. Engineering Research Center of Digital Medicine and Clinical Translation, Ministry of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1954 Huashan Road, Shanghai 200030, China
Interests: soft tissue biomechanics; cellular biomechanics; finite element analysis; rehabilitation engineering; multimodal ultrasound
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Sports biomechanics and injury rehabilitation are critical areas of biomechanics research and practice that can improve athletic performance, prevent injuries, and enhance recovery. In this Special Issue, we aim to explore the cutting-edge advances in sports biomechanics and rehabilitation, bringing together interdisciplinary perspectives from biomechanics, physiotherapy, sports science, and medical rehabilitation.

Sports biomechanics is the study of the mechanical aspects of movement in sports, with a focus on optimizing performance and reducing injury risk. Through an understanding of the forces acting on the body during physical activity, biomechanics enables the development of training techniques, sports equipment, and performance-enhancing strategies that are rooted in scientific principles. By analyzing movements such as running, jumping, and lifting, biomechanists can identify both optimal and inefficient patterns that contribute to success or injury.

On the other hand, injury rehabilitation focuses on the recovery process after an injury, aiming to restore function, prevent re-injury, and ensure that athletes return to their sports in top form. Modern rehabilitation techniques, often involving biomechanics-based assessments, utilize technology to design personalized recovery programs. These programs are based on an athlete’s specific needs, movement patterns, and the biomechanical demands of their sport.

This Special Issue brings together the latest research addressing both theoretical and practical applications. Topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Biomechanical analysis of sports movements: understanding how humans move to optimize performance and prevent injuries.
  • Injury prevention strategies: using biomechanics to develop training programs that reduce injury risk.
  • Rehabilitation techniques and innovations: integrating biomechanics into rehabilitation protocols for more effective recovery.
  • Technological advancements: the role of wearable devices, motion capture, and other technology in enhancing both biomechanics analysis and rehabilitation strategies.
  • Case studies: real-world examples of successful injury prevention and rehabilitation, illustrating the practical application of biomechanical principles.

The goal of this Special Issue is to provide a comprehensive and multidisciplinary platform for researchers, practitioners, and athletes alike. By promoting a deeper understanding of sports biomechanics and injury rehabilitation, we hope to pave the way for improved methods, tools, and treatments that can significantly enhance athletic performance while safeguarding against injury.

We invite contributors from diverse fields, including biomechanics, sports medicine, rehabilitation science, kinesiology, and physiotherapy, to explore how their work can inform, shape, and improve the future of sports performance and injury management.

Dr. Yifei Yao
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-anonymized peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Bioengineering is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • biomechanical analysis
  • injury prevention
  • rehabilitation techniques
  • sports performance
  • movement optimization

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (5 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

10 pages, 3757 KB  
Article
Influence of Carving Ski Base Preparation on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Recreational Skiers with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Study
by Bianca Valentina Schlesier, Christian Soost, Jan Adriaan Graw, Rene Burchard and Artur Barsumyan
Bioengineering 2026, 13(7), 772; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13070772 - 1 Jul 2026
Viewed by 615
Abstract
Introduction: For many people with knee osteoarthritis, alpine skiing is an important form of physical activity that improves their quality of life. However, pain and perceived instability can limit participation. While it is recognized that ski preparation affects performance, the impact of specific [...] Read more.
Introduction: For many people with knee osteoarthritis, alpine skiing is an important form of physical activity that improves their quality of life. However, pain and perceived instability can limit participation. While it is recognized that ski preparation affects performance, the impact of specific gliding surface preparation on pain and functional stability in patients with knee osteoarthritis has not yet been scientifically examined. This pilot study examined whether preparing the base of carving skis professionally could alleviate subjective symptoms and improve knee function while skiing. Methods: Six patients (n = 6) with clinically diagnosed gonarthrosis were included in the uncontrolled pilot study. Before and after the targeted ski preparation intervention, the participants completed standardized patient-reported outcome measures, using the International Knee Documentation Committee score. The intervention involved optimizing the preparation of the ski gliding surfaces and edges. Pre- and post-intervention scores were statistically compared to assess changes in pain, function, and perceived stability. Results: Targeted ski base preparation was associated with improved patient-reported pain and subjective stability while skiing. Functional outcome measures also improved after the intervention. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score increased from 58.54 ± 17.66% pre-intervention to 85.37 ± 14.95% post-intervention (p = 0.043). The estimated median paired difference was 31.7% (95% CI, 7.3% to 45.1%), indicating enhanced knee function after the intervention. This corresponded to a large effect size (rank-biserial r = 0.86) and exceeded the minimal clinically important difference for the IKDC, with five of six participants improving and none deteriorating. Conclusions: The professional and targeted preparation of carving ski gliding surfaces was associated with improvements in patient-reported pain and functional stability in this exploratory pilot study. Given the uncontrolled design and small sample, these observations should be regarded as hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in adequately powered, controlled trials. These findings highlight the potential value of sport-specific equipment adaptations as a complementary approach to conventional therapies. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these results and evaluate the long-term effects. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports Biomechanics and Injury Rehabilitation)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 5025 KB  
Article
Trunk Impact Conditions in Mountain Biking: Biomechanical Insights for Back Protector Evaluation
by Sophie Bonte, Arsène Thouzé, Wei Wei, Pierre-Jean Arnoux, Lionel Thollon and Nicolas Bailly
Bioengineering 2026, 13(6), 636; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13060636 - 29 May 2026
Viewed by 604
Abstract
Background: Mountain biking is increasingly popular but carries a large risk of severe trunk and spinal injuries. However, realistic crash scenarios for back protector design remain poorly characterized. This study aimed to define trunk impact conditions during mountain biking crashes. Methods: A multi-body [...] Read more.
Background: Mountain biking is increasingly popular but carries a large risk of severe trunk and spinal injuries. However, realistic crash scenarios for back protector design remain poorly characterized. This study aimed to define trunk impact conditions during mountain biking crashes. Methods: A multi-body model for mountain bike accident reconstruction was developed, and its kinematics were validated against real-world crash video footage. The model was then used to assess the influence of initial conditions (speed, slope, crash cause, etc.) on trunk impact kinematics (velocities, forces, pseudo-energy) and spinal loading indicators during forward crashes. Results: Across 288 simulated crashes, the median normal trunk impact velocity (4.61 m/s) and pseudo-energy (48 J) aligned with current test standards, while substantial tangential (5.97 m/s) and rotational (4.90 rad/s) components were also observed. Three main impact types emerged: head–thorax impacts (43.5%), involving a head impact followed by chest impact (Vn: 5.42 m/s, Emax: 59 J); tumbling (25.1%), featuring a head impact followed by back impact (Vn: 3.98 m/s, Emax: 57 J); and overflip–back impacts (20.7%), involving direct back contact (Vn: 3.35 m/s, Emax: 47 J). Conclusion: This study’s results define trunk impact conditions during MTB crashes, informing on realistic boundary conditions for testing and designing back protectors. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports Biomechanics and Injury Rehabilitation)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 3041 KB  
Article
The Role of the Individual Bundles of the Deltoid Ligament in Multidirectional Stability and Articular Contact Pressure of the Ankle Joint: A Finite Element Analysis
by Yuandong Li, Xiaoxi Ji, Qingqing Yang, Huizhi Wang and Cheng-Kung Cheng
Bioengineering 2026, 13(2), 145; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering13020145 - 27 Jan 2026
Viewed by 1732
Abstract
The deltoid ligament (DL) is the primary stabilizer of the medial ankle; however, a limited understanding of the functional roles of its various bundles hinders rational surgical decision-making. This study aims to investigate the roles of individual DL bundles in maintaining ankle stability [...] Read more.
The deltoid ligament (DL) is the primary stabilizer of the medial ankle; however, a limited understanding of the functional roles of its various bundles hinders rational surgical decision-making. This study aims to investigate the roles of individual DL bundles in maintaining ankle stability and articular contact pressure and thus seeks to guide decisions on whether reconstruction is required for specific injuries. A validated finite element foot model was used to simulate isolated and multiple deficiencies in the DL bundle. The articular displacements, rotations, and peak talar cartilage contact pressure were evaluated under anterior drawer force and under internal–external rotation, eversion, and plantarflexion–dorsiflexion moments. Compared with the intact model, anterior tibiotalar ligament (ATTL) deficiency resulted in the greatest anterior drawer displacement (increase: 29%). Talonavicular ligament (TNL) deficiency caused the largest internal–external rotation and plantarflexion (increases in external rotation: 69%; in internal rotation: 10%; in plantarflexion: 32%). Tibiocalcaneal ligament (TCL) deficiency caused the largest eversion (increase: 93%). Deep posterior tibiotalar ligament (dPTTL) deficiency caused the largest dorsiflexion (increase: 68%). The maximum talar cartilage contact pressure occurred in the TNL-deficient model under the plantarflexion condition. In conclusion, individual DL bundles exhibit specific functions in terms of controlling multidirectional ankle stability—the ATTL, TNL, TCL, and dPTTL are the primary stabilizers for anterior translation, rotation/plantarflexion, eversion, and dorsiflexion, respectively. These findings provide a biomechanical rationale for personalized surgical strategies. When comprehensive DL reconstruction is not feasible, clinicians can prioritize the reconstruction of specific bundles according to the patient’s instability severity and functional demands across degrees of freedom. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports Biomechanics and Injury Rehabilitation)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 6901 KB  
Article
The Stress–Strain State in the Pelvis During Sit-to-Stand Transfer
by Urban Žnidaršič, Andrej Žerovnik, Matevž Tomaževič and Robert Kunc
Bioengineering 2025, 12(12), 1328; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12121328 - 5 Dec 2025
Viewed by 837
Abstract
To achieve early mobilization of patients with unstable pelvic fractures, the osteosynthesis methods used must withstand the loads in the pelvis during everyday movements. There is currently no predictive tool to assess how suitable these methods are for this purpose. The development of [...] Read more.
To achieve early mobilization of patients with unstable pelvic fractures, the osteosynthesis methods used must withstand the loads in the pelvis during everyday movements. There is currently no predictive tool to assess how suitable these methods are for this purpose. The development of such a tool requires an understanding of the effects of joint and muscle loads on the structural behavior of the pelvis during movement. To further this cause, the stress–strain state of the pelvis during a sit-to-stand transfer of a healthy adult male was analyzed. Muscle and joint reaction forces during the motion were predicted using a rigid-body musculoskeletal model. These loads were then utilized in the first-ever dynamic structural analysis of the pelvis during a sit-to-stand transfer using the finite element method. Several similarities in stress distributions during sit-to-stand transfer, gait, and standing were identified by comparing the finite element analysis results with literature. The common areas of increased stress between the three motions are the acetabular notch, the superior edge of the obturator foramen, the attachments of the gluteus maximus on the ilium, and the lesser sciatic notch. The results also provide important insights into global behavior of the pelvic ring and indicate the locations of concentrated stress during sit-to-stand transfer. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports Biomechanics and Injury Rehabilitation)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 832 KB  
Article
Adequate Segmentation in Marker-Based Motion Capture Studies for Hyperflexion and Hyperextension Lumbar Exercises
by Claudia F. Romero-Flores, Rogelio Bustamante-Bello, Marcos Moya Bencomo and Iñaki Zenteno Aguirrezabal
Bioengineering 2025, 12(10), 1087; https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12101087 - 7 Oct 2025
Viewed by 1328
Abstract
The recent literature has debated the appropriate level of complexity for spine kinematic models. Multi-segmental analyses have been suggested to be more suitable for activities such as walking and running; however, studies focusing on sport-specific movements remain limited. This study compared four spine [...] Read more.
The recent literature has debated the appropriate level of complexity for spine kinematic models. Multi-segmental analyses have been suggested to be more suitable for activities such as walking and running; however, studies focusing on sport-specific movements remain limited. This study compared four spine segmentation strategies for analyzing exercises simulating flexion and extension in acrobatic elements. Seventeen competitive university-level cheerleaders (male and female) participated in a motion capture study. Each athlete performed six exercises in the same order. Reflective markers were placed on the spinous processes of C7, T10, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and S1. From these, four models were constructed: (1) L1 and L5, (2) T10 and S1, (3) L1, L3, and L5, and (4) all lumbar vertebrae. Each model was fitted in the sagittal plane using a polynomial function and compared with the others via Pearson correlation. Model 3 (L1, L3, and L5) and Model 4 (all lumbar vertebrae) showed strong correlations across all trials, with Pearson coefficients approaching 1. These findings support the use of a two-segment representation of the lumbar spine (Model 3: L1–L3 and L3–L5) as a suitable approach for kinematic analysis of flexion–extension in acrobatic athletes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sports Biomechanics and Injury Rehabilitation)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-5
Back to TopTop