Refine
Document Type
- Article (18)
- Conference Proceeding (9)
- Postprint (6)
Language
- English (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (33)
Keywords
- Children (3)
- EMG (3)
- Young athletes (3)
- adolescents (3)
- prevalence (3)
- Gait (2)
- Injury (2)
- MiSpEx (2)
- MiSpEx* (2)
- Pain occurrence (2)
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.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a 6-week sensorimotor or resistance training on maximum trunk strength and response to sudden, high-intensity loading in athletes. Interventions showed no significant difference for maximum strength in concentric and eccentric testing (p>0.05). For perturbation compensation, higher peak torque response following SMT (Extension: +24Nm 95%CI +/- 19Nm; Rotation: + 19Nm 95%CI +/- 13Nm) and RT (Extension: +35Nm 95%CI +/- 16Nm; Rotation: +5Nm 95%CI +/- 4Nm) compared to CG (Extension: -4Nm 95%CI +/- 16Nm; Rotation: -2Nm 95%CI +/- 4Nm) was present (p<0.05).
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.
Introduction: Gait speed is one of the most commonly and frequently used parameters to evaluate gait development. It is characterized by high variability when comparing different steps in children. The objective of this study was to determine intra-individual gait speed variability in children.
Methods: Gait speed measurements (6-10 trials across a 3 m walkway) were performed and analyzed in 8263 children, aged 1-15 years. The coefficient of variation (CV) served as a measure for intra-individual gait speed variability measured in 6.6 +/- 1.0 trials per child. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the influence of age and body height on changes in variability. Additionally, a subgroup analysis for height within the group of 6-year-old children was applied.
Results: A successive reduction in gait speed variability (CV) was observed for age groups (age: 1-15 years) and body height groups (height: 0.70-1.90 m). The CV in the oldest subjects was only one third of the CV (CV 6.25 +/- 3.52%) in the youngest subjects (CV 16.58 +/- 10.01%). Up to the age of 8 years (or 1.40 m height) there was a significant reduction in CV over time, compared to a leveling off for the older (taller) children.
Discussion: The straightforward approach measuring gait speed variability in repeated trials might serve as a fundamental indicator for gait development in children. Walking velocity seems to increase to age 8. Enhanced gait speed consistency of repeated trials develops up to age 15.
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.