Background: Deficits in neuromuscular control are widely reported after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). These deficits are speculated to contribute to the increased rate of musculoskeletal injuries after mTBI. However, a concrete mechanistic connection between post-mTBI deficits and musculoskeletal injuries has yet to be established. While impairments in some domains of balance control have been linked to musculoskeletal injuries, reactive balance control has received little attention in the mTBI literature, despite the inherent demand of balance recovery in athletics. Our central hypothesis is that the high rate of musculoskeletal injuries after mTBI is in part due to impaired reactive balance control necessary for balance recovery. The purpose of this study is to (1) characterize reactive postural responses to recover balance in athletes with recent mTBI compared to healthy control subjects, (2) determine the extent to which reactive postural responses remain impaired in athletes with recent mTBI who have been cleared to return to play, and (3) determine the relationship between reactive postural responses and acute lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries in a general sample of healthy collegiate athletes. Methods: This two-phase study will take place at the University of Utah in coordination with the University of Utah Athletics Department. Phase 1 will evaluate student-athletes who have sustained mTBI and teammate-matched controls who meet all the inclusion criteria. The participants will be assessed at multiple time points along the return-to-play progress of the athlete with mTBI. The primary outcome will be measures of reactive postural response derived from wearable sensors during the Push and Release (P&R) test. In phase 2, student-athletes will undergo a baseline assessment of postural responses. Acute lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries for each participant will be prospectively tracked for 1 year from the date of first team activity. The primary outcomes will be the measures of reactive postural responses and the time from first team activity to lower extremity injury. Discussion: Results from this study will further our understanding of changes in balance control, across all domains, after mTBI and identify the extent to which postural responses can be used to assess injury risk in collegiate athletes.

Context: Traditional assessments of reactive balance require sophisticated instrumentation to ensure objective, highly repeatable paradigms. This instrumentation is clinically impractical. The Push and Release test (P&R) is a well-validated clinical test that examines reactive balance, and the application of wearable inertial measurement units (IMU) enables sensitive and objective assessment of this clinically feasible test. The P&R relies on administrator experience and may be susceptible to interadministration reliability concerns. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interadministrator reliability of objective outcomes from an instrumented, modified version of the P&R test. Design: Crossover interadministrator design. Methods: Twenty healthy adults (20–35 y) completed the P&R in 4 directions with 2 different administrators. Measures quantified using IMUs included step latency, step length, and time to stability. Lean angle (LA) at release was used as a measure of administration consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimate was used to assess interadministrator reliability in each direction. To determine consistency of LA within and across administrators, we calculated the SDs for each rater by direction and the interadministrator reliability of LA using ICC. Results: Across individual directions, the ICC for agreement between raters ranged from .16 to .39 for step latency, from .52 to .62 for time to stability, and from .48 to .84 for step length. Summary metrics across all 4 directions produced higher ICC values. There was poor to moderate consistency in administration based on LA, but LA did not significantly affect any of the outcomes. Conclusion: The modified P&R yields moderate interadministrator reliability and high validity. Summary metrics over all 4 directions (the maximum step latency, the median time to stability, and the median step length) are likely more reliable than direction-specific scores. Variations in body size should also be considered when comparing populations.

Balance testing after concussion or mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) can be useful in determining acute and chronic neuromuscular deficits that are unapparent from symptom scores or cognitive testing alone. Current assessments of balance do not comprehensively evaluate all 3 classes of balance: maintaining a posture; voluntary movement; and reactive postural response. Despite the utility of reactive postural responses in predicting fall risk in other balance-impaired populations, the effect of mTBI on reactive postural responses remains unclear. This review sought to (1) examine the extent and range of available research on reactive postural responses in people post-mTBI and (2) determine whether reactive postural responses (balance recovery) are affected by mTBI. Design: Scoping review. Methods: Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Dissertations and Theses Global, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were injury classified as mTBI with no confounding central or peripheral nervous system dysfunction beyond those stemming from the mTBI, quantitative measure of reactive postural response, and a discrete, externally driven perturbation was used to test reactive postural response. Results: A total of 4747 publications were identified, and a total of 3 studies (5 publications) were included in the review. Conclusion: The limited number of studies available on this topic highlights the lack of investigation on reactive postural responses after mTBI. This review provides a new direction for balance assessments after mTBI and recommends incorporating all 3 classes of postural control in future research.

Context: Current clinical concussion evaluations assess balance deficits using static or dynamic balance tasks while largely ignoring reactive balance. Including a reactive balance assessment in current evaluations might provide a more comprehensive concussion evaluation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine if redundancy exists within current clinical baseline assessments of concussion and whether reactive balance adds unique information to these evaluations. Design: Cross Sectional Study Setting: Clinical Assessment Patients or Other Participants: Two cohorts of data were collected at the beginning of the athletic season from healthy NCAA Division I athletes. Within the first cohort (n = 191), correlation analyses with clinical scores and inertial measurements were run between the ImPACT (Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Tool), the BESS (Balance Error Scoring System), the modified Push and Release (mP&R), and instrumented mP&R (I-mP&R) to determine the strength of a relationship between these concussion tests. Within the second cohort (n = 88), correlation analyses were run between the BESS, the mP&R, Timed Tandem Gait, Walking with eyes closed, and clinical reaction time to determine the strength of the relationship between these concussion evaluation tests. Main Outcome Measures: ImPACT cognitive indices, BESS and mP&R clinical score and instrumented measures (BESS sway; I-mP&R time to stability, latency, and step length), TTG and Walking time to completion, and clinical reaction time. Results: The strongest inter-instrument correlation value was r= 0.347, which was considered a weak correlation, between clinical reaction time and single task time to stability from the I-mP&R. The I-mP&R and mP&R clinical scores were weakly associated with the other assessments. Conclusion: The weak correlations between inter-assessment variables indicates that there is little redundancy within the current clinical evaluations. Furthermore, reactive balance represents a unique domain of function that may improve the comprehensiveness of clinical assessments.