OBJECTIVE: To determine whether student characteristics, lower-extremity kinematics, and strength are risk factors for sustaining lower-extremity injuries in preprofessional contemporary dancers.DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.SETTING: Codarts University of the Arts.PATIENTS: Forty-five first-year students of Bachelor Dance and Bachelor Dance Teacher.ASSESSMENT OF RISK FACTORS: At the beginning of the academic year, the injury history (only lower-extremity) and student characteristics (age, sex, educational program) were assessed using a questionnaire. Besides, lower-extremity kinematics [single-leg squat (SLS)], strength (countermovement jump) and height and weight (body mass index) were measured during a physical performance test.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Substantial lower-extremity injuries during the academic year were defined as any problems leading to moderate or severe reductions in training volume or in performance, or complete inability to participate in dance at least once during follow-up as measured with the Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center (OSTRC) Questionnaire on Health Problems. Injuries were recorded on a monthly basis using a questionnaire. Analyses on leg-level were performed using generalized estimating equations to test the associations between substantial lower-extremity injuries and potential risk factors.RESULTS: The 1-year incidence of lower-extremity injuries was 82.2%. Of these, 51.4% was a substantial lower-extremity injury. Multivariate analyses identified that ankle dorsiflexion during the SLS (OR 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.52) was a risk factor for a substantial lower-extremity injury.CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that contemporary dance students are at high risk for lower-extremity injuries. Therefore, the identified risk factor (ankle dorsiflexion) should be considered for prevention purposes.
DOCUMENT
Runners often sustain lower extremity injuries (19-79%) (van Gent et al, 2007). In a theoretical model it has been described that a disturbance in perceived stress and recovery can increase the risk of sustaining an injury (Williams & Andersen, 1998). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate changes in perceived stress and recovery preceding an injury of competitive runners.Methods: Twenty-four competitive runners were monitored over one full training season (46 weeks). Every week, the runners filled an on-line RESTQ-sport (Nederhof et al, 2008). Furthermore, runners and their coaches kept a log with injuries and physical complaints. A non-traumatic injury was defined as any pain, soreness or injury that was not caused by trauma and resulted from training and led to a decrease in training duration or training intensity for at least one week (Jacobsson et al, 2013). Because baseline levels of perception of stress and recovery vary largely between runners, the 19 scales of the RESTQ-Sport were normalized to Z-scores based on the runner’s individual average and standard deviation of the whole season (excl. injured periods). The normalized scores of 1, 2 and 3 weeks before the first sustained injury were compared to 0, which is the average normalized score, by repeated measures ANOVA’s.Results: Twenty-two runners sustained a non-traumatic lower extremity injury. Eight of these runners filled out the RESTQ-Sport all 3 weeks preceding the injury and their data was used for further analysis. The injuries sustained were non-traumatic injuries of the knee, Achilles tendon, ankle, foot and shin. It was shown that 1 week preceding the injury, runners scored lower than the average normalized score on “Success” (Z-score: -0.68±0.62) and 2 weeks preceding the injury runners scored higher than their average on “Fitness/Injuries” (Z-score: 1.04±1.12).Discussion: A decrease in perceived success may be a marker to predict a non-traumatic lower extremity injury. Also an increase in the perception of muscle ache, soreness, pain and vulnerability to injury (“Fitness/Injury”) preceded injuries. Thereby, monitoring changes in individual stress and recovery may help to prevent non-traumatic injuries.
DOCUMENT
Background: Impaired upper extremity function due to muscle paresis or paralysis has a major impact on independent living and quality of life (QoL). Assistive technology (AT) for upper extremity function (i.e. dynamic arm supports and robotic arms) can increase a client’s independence. Previous studies revealed that clients often use AT not to their full potential, due to suboptimal provision of these devices in usual care. Objective: To optimize the process of providing AT for impaired upper extremity function and to evaluate its (cost-)effectiveness compared with care as usual. Methods: Development of a protocol to guide the AT provision process in an optimized way according to generic Dutch guidelines; a quasi-experimental study with non-randomized, consecutive inclusion of a control group (n = 48) receiving care as usual and of an intervention group (optimized provision process) (n = 48); and a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from societal perspective will be performed. The primary outcome is clients’ satisfaction with the AT and related services, measured with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (Dutch version; D-QUEST). Secondary outcomes comprise complaints of the upper extremity, restrictions in activities, QoL, medical consumption and societal cost. Measurements are taken at baseline and at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up.
DOCUMENT
Implicit (IF) and explicit (EF) feedback are two motor learning strategies that have been demonstrated to alter biomechanical movement patterns. While both strategies have been utilized for injury prevention, it remains unclear which strategy may be more effective. PURPOSE: To examine the effects of reduced relative IF and EF feedback on lower extremity landing mechanics. METHODS: Seventeen participants (23.5±0.9 years, 1.72±0.1m, 67.7±11.5kg) were randomly assigned to three groups: IF (n=6), EF (n=5), and Control (CG) (n=6). A box-drop jump task was performed three times a week for six weeks. Testing occurred before and after 6 weeks of intervention. IF and EF were provided by ? video feedback with instructions, while CG received no feedback. IF were instructed to focus their attention outside their body, while EF were instructed to focus their attention to their lower extremities. Intervention sessions were partitioned into 100% feedback, 33% feedback, and 16.6% feedback frequency phases. Participants viewed video recordings of their task to analyze their jump-landing mechanics from both a sagittal and frontal plane cameras. Participants viewed 2 video recordings per camera, once in real-time and once in slow motion. Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to compare differences between groups and time for hip abduction angle (HA), knee abduction moment (KAM), and knee flexion angle (KF). RESULTS: No statistically significant difference (p>0.05) was found for: HA (CG:pre=-9.85±5.3, post=-7.36±8.65; IF:pre=-4.17±2.67, post=-7.52±5.27; EF:pre=-5.68±6.12, post=-5.98±5.43), KAM (CG:pre=-0.5±0.3, post=-0.34±0.13; IF:pre=-0.5±0.21, post=-0.48±0.13; EF:pre=-0.48±0.12, post=-0.46±0.26), and KF (CG:pre=-92.26±9.12, post=-100.33±15.2; IF:pre=-106.37±16.34, post=-103.45±19.97; EF:pre=-100.32±11.4, post=-112.4±18.22). CONCLUSION: We did not find statistically significant differences for any dependent measures between groups from pre to post-test. It should be noted that IF HA slightly decreased from pre to post-test whereas it increased for CG. For KAM, CG was lower on post-test comparing to IF and EF. EF and CG trended to decrease from pre to post-test, while IF slightly increased KF. Our preliminary findings partially support that implicit and explicit feedback alters lower body mechanics while jumping.
LINK
The aim of this study is to investigate the predictivevalue of landing stability and technique togain insight into risk factors for ankle and kneeinjuries in indoor team sport players. Seventyfivemale and female basketball, volleyball orkorfball players were screened by measuringlanding stability after a single-leg jump landingand landing technique during a repeated countermovement jump by detailed 3-dimensional kinematicsand kinetics. During the season 11 acuteankle injuries were reported along with 6 acuteand 7 overuse knee injuries by the teams’ physicaltherapist. Logistic regression analysis showedless landing stability in the forward and diagonaljump direction (OR 1.01–1.10, p ≤ 0.05) in playerswho sustained an acute ankle injury. Furthermorelanding technique with a greater ankle dorsiflexionmoment increased the risk for acuteankle injury (OR 2.16, p ≤ 0.05). A smaller kneeflexion moment and greater vertical groundreaction force increased the risk of an overuseknee injury (OR 0.29 and 1.13 respectively,p ≤ 0.05). Less one-legged landing stability andsuboptimal landing technique were shown inplayers sustaining an acute ankle and overuseknee injury compared to healthy players. Determiningboth landing stability and technique mayfurther guide injury prevention programs.
DOCUMENT
Background: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. Methods: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. Discussion: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the degree of ROM limitations of extremities, joints and planes of motion after burns and its prevalence over time.METHOD: The database of a longitudinal multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands (2011-2012) was used. From patients with acute burns involving the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee and ankle joints that had surgery, ROM of 17 planes of motion was assessed by goniometry at 3, 6 weeks, 3-6-9 and 12 months after burns and at discharge.RESULTS: At 12 months after injury, 12 out of 17 planes of motion demonstrated persistent joint limitations. The five unlimited planes of motion were all of the lower extremity. The most severely limited joints at 12 months were the neck, ankle, wrist and shoulder. The lower extremity was more severely limited in the early phase of recovery whereas at 12 months the upper extremity was more severely limited.CONCLUSION: The degree of ROM limitations and prevalence varied over time between extremities, joints and planes of motion. This study showed which joints and planes of motion should be watched specifically concerning the development of scar contracture.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVE: The association between groin pain and range of motion is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to develop a test to measure sport specific range of motion (SSROM) of the lower limb, to evaluate its reliability and describe findings in non-injured (NI) and injured football players.DESIGN: Case-controlled.SETTING: 6 Dutch elite clubs, 6 amateur clubs and a sports medicine practice.PARTICIPANTS: 103 NI elite and 83 NI amateurs and 57 football players with unilateral adductor-related groin pain.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sport specific hip extension, adduction, abduction, internal and external rotation of both legs were examined with inclinometers. Test-retest reliability (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) were calculated. Non-injured players were compared with the injured group.RESULTS: Intra and inter tester ICCs were acceptable and ranged from 0.90 to 0.98 and 0.50-0.88. SEM ranged from 1.3 to 9.2° and MDC from 3.7 to 25.6° for single directions and total SSROM. Both non-injured elite and amateur players had very similar total SSROM in non-dominant and dominant legs (188-190, SD ± 25). Injured players had significant (p < 0.05) total SSROM deficits with 187(SD ± 31)° on the healthy and 135(SD ± 29)° on the injured side.CONCLUSION: The SSROM test shows acceptable reliability. Loss of SSROM is found on the injured side in football players with unilateral adductor-related groin pain. Whether this is the cause or effect of groin pain cannot be stated due to the study design. Whether restoration of SSROM in injured players leads to improved outcomes should be investigated in new studies.
DOCUMENT
This study is part of the WHeelchair ExercisE and Lifestyle Study (WHEELS) project and aims to identify determinants of dietary behaviour in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury or lower limb amputation, from the perspectives of both wheelchair users and rehabilitation professionals. Results of focus groups with wheelchair users (n = 25) and rehabilitation professionals (n = 11) are presented using an integrated International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and Attitude, Social influence and self-Efficacy model as theoretical framework.
LINK
Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common rheumatic disease of the musculoskeletal system, with the knee as the most affected joint. The number of people with OA of the knee is likely to increase due to the ageing society and the obesity epidemic. The predominant clinical symptom of knee OA is pain, which is described as worsening by activity and relieving by rest. Knee instability has been recognized as an important clinical feature in persons with knee OA. Pain and knee instability are associated with limitations in performing daily activities. Non-pharmacological options in the management of knee OA consist of education, weight loss, exercise, braces and physical therapy. Knee bracing has been recommended by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). Valgus knee braces designed to decrease loads on the medial compartment of the knee for patients with varus alignment are the most common. It has been shown however, that valgus bracing may have little or no effect on pain and physical functioning, and adherence to this treatment in patients with knee OA is low.Because of ease of use and access, lack of complications and low cost, soft knee braces are commonly used in persons with knee OA. However, the evidence for efficacy of soft knee bracing on pain and activity limitations in knee OA is limited. Therefore, it is important to strengthen the evidence of using a soft brace to reduce pain and activity limitations as well as to evaluate the efficacy of soft knee bracing on knee instability in persons with knee OA. There is also debate about the effectiveness of soft braces in other affected joints of the lower extremity and in conditions other than OA such as rheumatoid arthritis.Objectives: The aim of the study will be to evaluate the effect of wearing a soft brace on dynamic knee instability in patients with OA of the knee.Methods: Persons with knee OA and self-reported knee instability from the Amsterdam Osteoarthritis cohort participated in a single-session lab-experimental study. A within-subject design was used, comparing no brace versus brace, and comparing a non-tight versus a tight brace (standard fit). The primary outcome measure was dynamic knee instability, expressed by the Perturbation Response (PR), i.e., a biomechanics based measure reflecting deviation in the mean knee varus-valgus angle after a controlled mechanical perturbation, standardized to the mean (SD) varus-valgus angle during level walking. Linear mixed-effect model analysis was used to evaluate the effect of a brace on dynamic knee instability.Results: The wearing of a soft brace reduced the knee instability significantly during perturbed walking. Results will also be presented from the literature search and from the lab-experimental study.Conclusion: Wearing a soft brace reduces dynamic knee instability in patients with knee OA. However, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the clinical implications of wearing a soft brace.
DOCUMENT
