TY - JOUR A1 - Müller, Steffen A1 - Müller, Juliane A1 - Stoll, Josefine A1 - Prieske, Olaf A1 - Cassel, Michael A1 - Mayer, Frank T1 - Incidence of back pain in adolescent athletes BT - a prospective study JF - BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation N2 - Background Recently, the incidence rate of back pain (BP) in adolescents has been reported at 21%. However, the development of BP in adolescent athletes is unclear. Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of BP in young elite athletes in relation to gender and type of sport practiced. Methods Subjective BP was assessed in 321 elite adolescent athletes (m/f 57%/43%; 13.2 ± 1.4 years; 163.4 ± 11.4 cm; 52.6 ± 12.6 kg; 5.0 ± 2.6 training yrs; 7.6 ± 5.3 training h/week). Initially, all athletes were free of pain. The main outcome criterion was the incidence of back pain [%] analyzed in terms of pain development from the first measurement day (M1) to the second measurement day (M2) after 2.0 ± 1.0 year. Participants were classified into athletes who developed back pain (BPD) and athletes who did not develop back pain (nBPD). BP (acute or within the last 7 days) was assessed with a 5-step face scale (face 1–2 = no pain; face 3–5 = pain). BPD included all athletes who reported faces 1 and 2 at M1 and faces 3 to 5 at M2. nBPD were all athletes who reported face 1 or 2 at both M1 and M2. Data was analyzed descriptively. Additionally, a Chi2 test was used to analyze gender- and sport-specific differences (p = 0.05). Results Thirty-two athletes were categorized as BPD (10%). The gender difference was 5% (m/f: 12%/7%) but did not show statistical significance (p = 0.15). The incidence of BP ranged between 6 and 15% for the different sport categories. Game sports (15%) showed the highest, and explosive strength sports (6%) the lowest incidence. Anthropometrics or training characteristics did not significantly influence BPD (p = 0.14 gender to p = 0.90 sports; r2 = 0.0825). Conclusions BP incidence was lower in adolescent athletes compared to young non-athletes and even to the general adult population. Consequently, it can be concluded that high-performance sports do not lead to an additional increase in back pain incidence during early adolescence. Nevertheless, back pain prevention programs should be implemented into daily training routines for sport categories identified as showing high incidence rates. KW - Pain occurrence KW - Young athletes KW - Injury KW - Training volume Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-016-0064-7 SN - 2052-1847 VL - 8 PB - BioMed Central CY - London ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Müller, Juliane A1 - Müller, Steffen A1 - Stoll, Josefine A1 - Rector, Michael V. A1 - Baur, Heiner A1 - Mayer, Frank T1 - Influence of Load on Three-Dimensional Segmental Trunk Kinematics in One-Handed Lifting: A Pilot Study JF - Journal of applied biomechanics N2 - Stability of the trunk is relevant in determining trunk response to different loading in everyday tasks initiated by the limbs. Descriptions of the trunk’s mechanical movement patterns in response to different loads while lifting objects are still under debate. Hence, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of weight on 3-dimensional segmental motion of the trunk during 1-handed lifting. Ten asymptomatic subjects were included (29 ± 3 y; 1.79 ± 0.09 m; 75 ± 14 kg). Subjects lifted 3× a light and heavy load from the ground up onto a table. Three-dimensional segmental trunk motion was measured (12 markers; 3 segments: upper thoracic area [UTA], lower thoracic area [LTA], lumbar area [LA]). Outcomes were total motion amplitudes (ROM;[°]) for anterior flexion, lateral flexion, and rotation of each segment. The highest ROM was observed in the LTA segment (anterior flexion), and the smallest ROM in the UTA segment (lateral flexion). ROM differed for all planes between the 3 segments for both tasks (P < .001). There were no differences in ROM between light and heavy loads (P > .05). No interaction effects (load × segment) were observed, as ROM did not reveal differences between loading tasks. Regardless of weight, the 3 segments did reflect differences, supporting the relevance of multisegmental analysis. KW - trunk motion KW - kinematic trunk model KW - everyday task KW - MiSpEx* Y1 - 2016 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.2015-0227 SN - 1065-8483 SN - 1543-2688 VL - 32 SP - 520 EP - 525 PB - Human Kinetics Publ. CY - Champaign ER -