Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3) (remove)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (1)
- Confinements (1)
- Coronavirus (1)
- Inactivity (1)
- Public life restrictions (1)
- Sedentary behavior (1)
- adaptive technology (1)
- ankle sprain (1)
- biomechanics (1)
- injury (1)
Institute
Open Access
- Open Access (3)
- Hybrid (2)
- Gold (1)
Background:
Ankle braces aim to reduce lateral ankle sprains. Next to protection, factors influencing user compliance, such as sports performance, motion restriction, and users’ perceptions, are relevant for user compliance and thus injury prevention. Novel adaptive protection systems claim to change their mechanical behavior based on the intensity of motion (eg, the inversion velocity), unlike traditional passive concepts of ankle bracing.
Purpose:
To compare the performance of a novel adaptive brace with 2 passive ankle braces while considering protection, sports performance, freedom of motion, and subjective perception.
Study Design:
Controlled laboratory study.
Methods:
The authors analyzed 1 adaptive and 2 passive (one lace-up and one rigid brace) ankle braces, worn in a low-cut, indoor sports shoe, which was also the no-brace reference condition. We performed material testing using an artificial ankle joint system at high and low inversion velocities. Further, 20 male, young, healthy team sports athletes were analyzed using 3-dimensional motion analysis in sports-related movements to address protection, sports performance, and active range of motion dimensions. Participants rated subjective comfort, stability, and restriction experienced when using the products.
Results:
Subjective stability rating was not different between the adaptive and passive systems. The rigid brace was superior in restricting peak inversion during the biomechanical testing compared with the passive braces. However, in the material test, the adaptive brace increased its stiffness by approximately 400% during the fast compared with the slow inversion velocities, demonstrating its adaptive behavior and similar stiffness values to passive braces. We identified minor differences in sports performance tasks. The adaptive brace improved active ankle range of motion and subjective comfort and restriction ratings.
Conclusion:
The adaptive brace offered similar protective effects in high-velocity inversion situations to those of the passive braces while improving range of motion, comfort, and restriction rating during noninjurious motions.
Clinical Relevance:
Protection systems are only effective when used. Compared with traditional passive ankle brace technologies, the novel adaptive brace might increase user compliance by improving comfort and freedom of movement while offering similar protection in injurious situations.
Background: Running overuse injuries (ROIs) occur within a complex, partly injury-specific interplay between training loads and extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Biomechanical risk factors (BRFs) are related to the individual running style. While BRFs have been reviewed regarding general ROI risk, no systematic review has addressed BRFs for specific ROIs using a standardized methodology.
Objective: To identify and evaluate the evidence for the most relevant BRFs for ROIs determined during running and to
suggest future research directions.
Design: Systematic review considering prospective and retrospective studies. (PROSPERO_ID: 236,832).
Data Sources: PubMed. Connected Papers. The search was performed in February 2021.
Eligibility Criteria: English language. Studies on participants whose primary sport is running addressing the risk for the seven most common ROIs and at least one kinematic, kinetic (including pressure measurements), or electromyographic BRF. A BRF needed to be identified in at least one prospective or two independent retrospective studies. BRFs needed to be determined during running.
Results: Sixty-six articles fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Levels of evidence for specific ROIs ranged from conflicting to moderate evidence. Running populations and methods applied varied considerably between studies. While some BRFs appeared for several ROIs, most BRFs were specific for a particular ROI. Most BRFs derived from lower-extremity joint kinematics and kinetics were located in the frontal and transverse planes of motion. Further, plantar pressure, vertical ground reaction force loading rate and free moment-related parameters were identified as kinetic BRFs.
Conclusion: This study offers a comprehensive overview of BRFs for the most common ROIs, which might serve as a starting point to develop ROI-specific risk profiles of individual runners. We identified limited evidence for most ROI-specific risk factors, highlighting the need for performing further high-quality studies in the future. However, consensus on data collection standards (including the quantification of workload and stress tolerance variables and the reporting of injuries) is warranted.
Background: Many countries have restricted public life in order to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). As a side effect of related measures, physical activity (PA) levels may have decreased.
Objective: We aimed (1) to quantify changes in PA and (2) to identify variables potentially predicting PA reductions.
Methods: A systematic review with random-effects multilevel meta-analysis was performed, pooling the standardized mean differences in PA measures before and during public life restrictions.
Results: A total of 173 trials with moderate methodological quality (modified Downs and Black checklist) were identified. Compared to pre-pandemic, total PA (SMD − 0.65, 95% CI − 1.10 to − 0.21) and walking (SMD − 0.52, 95% CI − 0.29 to − 0.76) decreased while sedentary behavior increased (SMD 0.91, 95% CI: 0.17 to 1.65). Reductions in PA affected all intensities (light: SMD − 0.35, 95% CI − 0.09 to − 0.61, p = .013; moderate: SMD − 0.33, 95% CI − 0.02 to − 0.6; vigorous: SMD − 0.33, − 0.08 to − 0.58, 95% CI − 0.08 to − 0.58) to a similar degree. Moderator analyses revealed no influence of variables such as sex, age, body mass index, or health status. However, the only continent without a PA reduction was Australia and cross-sectional trials yielded higher effect sizes (p < .05).
Conclusion: Public life restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in moderate reductions in PA levels and large increases in sedentary behavior. Health professionals and policy makers should therefore join forces to develop strategies counteracting the adverse effects of inactivity.