Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (22)
- Postprint (9)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (35)
Keywords
- MiSpEx (4)
- Perturbation (4)
- back pain (4)
- sonography (4)
- trunk (4)
- young athletes (4)
- Aftercare (3)
- Exercise (3)
- Exercise therapy (3)
- Home-based (3)
Institute
Tendinopathies are frequently the cause of chronic, load-dependent complaints of the lower extremity. Commonly, the large tendons of the ankle and knee joints are affected, especially the Achilles and patellar tendons. Repeated overuse in sports and/or daily activities is assumed as the aetiology. Besides the clinical examination including a comprehensive anamnesis of pain and training/loading, sonographic imaging has a high training/loading relevance for the diagnosis of tendon pathologies of the lower extremity. Training concepts are considered in first line as the treatment of choice. A combination with physical therapy interventions can be useful. In cases of a more severe pathology and long-standing complaints multimodal therapeutic options should be employed. The use of surgical treatment procedures should only be taken into account in case of failed response to conservative treatment.
Background: Isokinetic measurements are widely used to assess strength capacity in a clinical or research context. Nevertheless, the validity of isokinetic measures for identifying strength deficits and the evaluation of therapeutic process regarding different pathologies is yet to be established. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to evaluate the validity of isokinetic measures in a specific case: that of muscular capacity in low back pain (LBP).
Methods: A literature search (PubMed; ISI Web of Knowledge; The Cochrane Library) covering the last 10 years was performed. Relevant papers regarding isokinetic trunk strength measures in healthy and patients with low back pain (PLBP) were searched. Peak torque values [Nm] and peak torque normalized to body weight [Nm/kg BW] were extracted for healthy and PLBP. Ranked mean values across studies were calculated for the concentric peak torque at 60 degrees/s as well as the flexion/extension (F/E) ratio.
Results: 34 publications (31 flexion/extension; 3 rotation) were suitable for reporting detailed isokinetic strength measures in healthy or LBP (untrained adults, adolescents, athletes). Adolescents and athletes were different compared to normal adults in terms of absolute trunk strength values and the F/E ratio. Furthermore, isokinetic measures evaluating therapeutic process and isokinetic rehabilitation training were infrequent in literature (8 studies).
Conclusion: Isokinetic measurements are valid for measuring trunk flexion/extension strength and F/E ratio in athletes, adolescents and (untrained) adults with/without LBP. The validity of trunk rotation is questionable due to a very small number of publications whereas no reliable source regarding lateral flexion could be traced. Therefore, isokinetic dynamometry may be utilized for identifying trunk strength deficits in healthy adults and PLBP.
Mueller, J, Mueller, S, Stoll, J, Baur, H, and Mayer, F. Trunk extensor and flexor strength capacity in healthy young elite athletes aged 11-15 years. J Strength Cond Res 28(5): 1328-1334, 2014-Differences in trunk strength capacity because of gender and sports are well documented in adults. In contrast, data concerning young athletes are sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess the maximum trunk strength of adolescent athletes and to investigate differences between genders and age groups. A total of 520 young athletes were recruited. Finally, 377 (n = 233/144 M/F; 13 +/- 1 years; 1.62 +/- 0.11 m height; 51 +/- 12 kg mass; training: 4.5 +/- 2.6 years; training sessions/week: 4.3 +/- 3.0; various sports) young athletes were included in the final data analysis. Furthermore, 5 age groups were differentiated (age groups: 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 years; n = 90, 150, 42, 43, and 52, respectively). Maximum strength of trunk flexors (Flex) and extensors (Ext) was assessed in all subjects during isokinetic concentric measurements (60 degrees center dot s(-1); 5 repetitions; range of motion: 55 degrees). Maximum strength was characterized by absolute peak torque (Flex(abs), Ext(abs); N center dot m), peak torque normalized to body weight (Flex(norm), Ext(norm); N center dot m center dot kg(-1) BW), and Flex(abs)/Ext(abs) ratio (RKquot). Descriptive data analysis (mean +/- SD) was completed, followed by analysis of variance (alpha = 0.05; post hoc test [Tukey-Kramer]). Mean maximum strength for all athletes was 97 +/- 34 N center dot m in Flex(abs) and 140 +/- 50 N center dot m in Ext(abs) (Flex(norm) = 1.9 +/- 0.3 N center dot m center dot kg(-1) BW, Ext(norm) = 2.8 +/- 0.6 N center dot m center dot kg(-1) BW). Males showed statistically significant higher absolute and normalized values compared with females (p < 0.001). Flex(abs) and Ext(abs) rose with increasing age almost 2-fold for males and females (Flex(abs), Ext(abs): p < 0.001). Flex(norm) and Ext(norm) increased with age for males (p < 0.001), however, not for females (Flex(norm): p = 0.26; Ext(norm): p = 0.20). RKquot (mean +/- SD: 0.71 +/- 0.16) did not reveal any differences regarding age (p = 0.87) or gender (p = 0.43). In adolescent athletes, maximum trunk strength must be discussed in a gender- and age-specific context. The Flex(abs)/Ext(abs) ratio revealed extensor dominance, which seems to be independent of age and gender. The values assessed may serve as a basis to evaluate and discuss trunk strength in athletes.
Introduction
Injury prevention programs (IPPs) are an inherent part of training in recreational and professional sports. Providing performance-enhancing benefits in addition to injury prevention may help adjust coaches and athletes’ attitudes towards implementation of injury prevention into daily routine. Conventional thinking by players and coaches alike seems to suggest that IPPs need to be specific to one’s sport to allow for performance enhancement. The systematic literature review aims to firstly determine the IPPs nature of exercises and whether they are specific to the sport or based on general conditioning. Secondly, can they demonstrate whether general, sports-specific or even mixed IPPs improve key performance indicators with the aim to better facilitate long-term implementation of these programs?
Methods
PubMed and Web of Science were electronically searched throughout March 2018. The inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, publication dates between Jan 2006 and Feb 2018, athletes (11–45 years), injury prevention programs and included predefined performance measures that could be categorized into balance, power, strength, speed/agility and endurance. The methodological quality of included articles was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration assessment tools.
Results
Of 6619 initial findings, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. In addition, reference lists unearthed a further 6 studies, making a total of 28. Nine studies used sports specific IPPs, eleven general and eight mixed prevention strategies. Overall, general programs ranged from 29–57% in their effectiveness across performance outcomes. Mixed IPPs improved in 80% balance outcomes but only 20–44% in others. Sports-specific programs led to larger scale improvements in balance (66%), power (83%), strength (75%), and speed/agility (62%).
Conclusion
Sports-specific IPPs have the strongest influence on most performance indices based on the significant improvement versus control groups. Other factors such as intensity, technical execution and compliance should be accounted for in future investigations in addition to exercise modality.
Introduction
Injury prevention programs (IPPs) are an inherent part of training in recreational and professional sports. Providing performance-enhancing benefits in addition to injury prevention may help adjust coaches and athletes’ attitudes towards implementation of injury prevention into daily routine. Conventional thinking by players and coaches alike seems to suggest that IPPs need to be specific to one’s sport to allow for performance enhancement. The systematic literature review aims to firstly determine the IPPs nature of exercises and whether they are specific to the sport or based on general conditioning. Secondly, can they demonstrate whether general, sports-specific or even mixed IPPs improve key performance indicators with the aim to better facilitate long-term implementation of these programs?
Methods
PubMed and Web of Science were electronically searched throughout March 2018. The inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, publication dates between Jan 2006 and Feb 2018, athletes (11–45 years), injury prevention programs and included predefined performance measures that could be categorized into balance, power, strength, speed/agility and endurance. The methodological quality of included articles was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration assessment tools.
Results
Of 6619 initial findings, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. In addition, reference lists unearthed a further 6 studies, making a total of 28. Nine studies used sports specific IPPs, eleven general and eight mixed prevention strategies. Overall, general programs ranged from 29–57% in their effectiveness across performance outcomes. Mixed IPPs improved in 80% balance outcomes but only 20–44% in others. Sports-specific programs led to larger scale improvements in balance (66%), power (83%), strength (75%), and speed/agility (62%).
Conclusion
Sports-specific IPPs have the strongest influence on most performance indices based on the significant improvement versus control groups. Other factors such as intensity, technical execution and compliance should be accounted for in future investigations in addition to exercise modality.
Background
Total hip or knee replacement is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Physical rehabilitation following total hip or knee replacement is an essential part of the therapy to improve functional outcomes and quality of life. After discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, a subsequent postoperative exercise therapy is needed to maintain functional mobility. Telerehabilitation may be a potential innovative treatment approach. We aim to investigate the superiority of an interactive telerehabilitation intervention for patients after total hip or knee replacement, in comparison to usual care, regarding physical performance, functional mobility, quality of life and pain.
Methods/design
This is an open, randomized controlled, multicenter superiority study with two prospective arms. One hundred and ten eligible and consenting participants with total knee or hip replacement will be recruited at admission to subsequent inpatient rehabilitation. After comprehensive, 3-week, inpatient rehabilitation, the intervention group performs a 3-month, interactive, home-based exercise training with a telerehabilitation system. For this purpose, the physiotherapist creates an individual training plan out of 38 different strength and balance exercises which were implemented in the system. Data about the quality and frequency of training are transmitted to the physiotherapist for further adjustment. Communication between patient and physiotherapist is possible with the system. The control group receives voluntary, usual aftercare programs. Baseline assessments are investigated after discharge from rehabilitation; final assessments 3 months later. The primary outcome is the difference in improvement between intervention and control group in 6-minute walk distance after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include differences in the Timed Up and Go Test, the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test, the Stair Ascend Test, the Short-Form 36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and postural control as well as gait and kinematic parameters of the lower limbs. Baseline-adjusted analysis of covariance models will be used to test for group differences in the primary and secondary endpoints.
Discussion
We expect the intervention group to benefit from the interactive, home-based exercise training in many respects represented by the study endpoints. If successful, this approach could be used to enhance the access to aftercare programs, especially in structurally weak areas.
Background
Total hip or knee replacement is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Physical rehabilitation following total hip or knee replacement is an essential part of the therapy to improve functional outcomes and quality of life. After discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, a subsequent postoperative exercise therapy is needed to maintain functional mobility. Telerehabilitation may be a potential innovative treatment approach. We aim to investigate the superiority of an interactive telerehabilitation intervention for patients after total hip or knee replacement, in comparison to usual care, regarding physical performance, functional mobility, quality of life and pain.
Methods/design
This is an open, randomized controlled, multicenter superiority study with two prospective arms. One hundred and ten eligible and consenting participants with total knee or hip replacement will be recruited at admission to subsequent inpatient rehabilitation. After comprehensive, 3-week, inpatient rehabilitation, the intervention group performs a 3-month, interactive, home-based exercise training with a telerehabilitation system. For this purpose, the physiotherapist creates an individual training plan out of 38 different strength and balance exercises which were implemented in the system. Data about the quality and frequency of training are transmitted to the physiotherapist for further adjustment. Communication between patient and physiotherapist is possible with the system. The control group receives voluntary, usual aftercare programs. Baseline assessments are investigated after discharge from rehabilitation; final assessments 3 months later. The primary outcome is the difference in improvement between intervention and control group in 6-minute walk distance after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include differences in the Timed Up and Go Test, the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test, the Stair Ascend Test, the Short-Form 36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and postural control as well as gait and kinematic parameters of the lower limbs. Baseline-adjusted analysis of covariance models will be used to test for group differences in the primary and secondary endpoints.
Discussion
We expect the intervention group to benefit from the interactive, home-based exercise training in many respects represented by the study endpoints. If successful, this approach could be used to enhance the access to aftercare programs, especially in structurally weak areas.