Refine
Document Type
- Article (14)
- Conference Proceeding (6)
- Postprint (4)
Language
- English (24)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (24)
Keywords
- Children (3)
- Young athletes (3)
- adolescents (3)
- prevalence (3)
- EMG (2)
- Gait (2)
- Injury (2)
- Pain occurrence (2)
- Training volume (2)
- body-mass index (2)
Institute
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (24) (remove)
Background: Core-specific sensorimotor exercises are proven to enhance neuromuscular activity of the trunk, improve athletic performance and prevent back pain. However, the dose-response relationship and, therefore, the dose required to improve trunk function is still under debate. The purpose of the present trial will be to compare four different intervention strategies of sensorimotor exercises that will result in improved trunk function. Discussion: The results of the study will be clinically relevant, not only for researchers but also for (sports) therapists, physicians, coaches, athletes and the general population who have the aim of improving trunk function.
The aim of this study was to acquire static and dynamic foot geometry and loading in childhood, and to establish data for age groups of a population of 1-13 year old infants and children.
A total of 10,382 children were recruited and 7788 children (48% males and 52% females) were finally included into the data analysis. For static foot geometry foot length and foot width were quantified in a standing position. Dynamic foot geometry and loading were assessed during walking on a walkway with self selected speed (Novel Emed X, 100 Hz, 4 sensors/cm(2)). Contact area (CA), peak pressure (PP), force time integral (FTI) and the arch index were calculated for the total, fore-, mid- and hindfoot.
Results show that most static and dynamic foot characteristics change continuously during growth and maturation. Static foot length and width increased with age from 13.1 +/- 0.8 cm (length) and 5.7 +/- 0.4 cm (width) in the youngest to 24.4 +/- 1.5 cm (length) and 8.9 +/- 0.6 cm (width) in the oldest. A mean walking velocity of 0.94 +/- 0.25 m/s was observed. Arch-index ranged from 0.32 +/- 0.04 [a.u.] in the one-year old to 0.21 +/- 0.13 [a.u.] in the 5-year olds and remains constant afterwards.
This study provides data for static and dynamic foot characteristics in children based on a cohort of 7788 subjects. Static and dynamic foot measures change differently during growth and maturation. Dynamic foot measurements provide additional information about the children's foot compared to static measures.
AIM To analyze neuromuscular activity patterns of the trunk in healthy controls (H) and back pain patients (BPP) during one-handed lifting of light to heavy loads. METHODS RESULTS Seven subjects (3m/4f; 32 +/- 7 years; 171 +/- 7 cm; 65 +/- 11 kg) were assigned to BPP (pain grade >= 2) and 36 (13m/23f; 28 +/- 8 years; 174 +/- 10 cm; 71 +/- 12 kg) to H (pain grade <= 1). H and BPP did not differ significantly in anthropometrics (P > 0.05). All subjects were able to lift the light and middle loads, but 57% of BPP and 22% of H were not able to lift the heavy load (all women) chi(2) analysis revealed statistically significant differences in task failure between H vs BPP (P = 0.03). EMG-RMS ranged from 33% +/- 10%/30% +/- 9% (DL, 1 kg) to 356% +/- 148%/283% +/- 80% (VR, 20 kg) in H/BPP with no statistical difference between groups regardless of load (P > 0.05). However, the EMG-RMS of the VR was greatest in all lifting tasks for both groups and increased with heavier loads. CONCLUSION Heavier loading leads to an increase (2-to 3-fold) in trunk muscle activity with comparable patterns. Heavy loading (20 kg) leads to task failure, especially in women with back pain.
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.
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.
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.
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.