Context: A dynamic postural-control task that has gained notoriety in the clinical and research settings is the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT). Researchers have suggested that, with appropriate instruction and practice by the individual and normalization of the reaching distances, the SEBT can be used to provide objective measures to differentiate deficits and improvements in dynamic postural-control related to lower extremity injury and induced fatigue, and it has the potential to predict lower extremity injury. However, no one has reviewed this body of literature to determine the usefulness of the SEBT in clinical applications.Objective: To provide a narrative review of the SEBT and its implementation and the known contributions to task performance and to systematically review the associated literature to address the SEBT's usefulness as a clinical tool for the quantification of dynamic postural-control deficits from lower extremity impairment.Data Sources: Databases used to locate peer-reviewed articles published from 1980 and 2010 included Derwent Innovations Index, BIOSIS Previews, Journal Citation Reports, and MEDLINE.Study Selection: The criteria for article selection were (1) The study was original research. (2) The study was written in English. (3) The SEBT was used as a measurement tool.Data Extraction: Specific data extracted from the articles included the ability of the SEBT to differentiate pathologic conditions of the lower extremity, the effects of external influences and interventions, and outcomes from exercise intervention and to predict lower extremity injury.Data Synthesis: More than a decade of research findings has established a comprehensive portfolio of validity for the SEBT, and it should be considered a highly representative, noninstrumented dynamic balance test for physically active individuals. The SEBT has been shown to be a reliable measure and has validity as a dynamic test to predict risk of lower extremity injury, to identify dynamic balance deficits in patients with a variety of lower extremity conditions, and to be responsive to training programs in both healthy people and people with injuries to the lower extremity. Clinicians and researchers should be confident in employing the SEBT as a lower extremity functional test.

No abstract

No abstract

Lateral ankle sprains (LASs) are the most prevalent musculoskeletal injury in physically active populations. They also have a high prevalence in the general population and pose a substantial healthcare burden. The recurrence rates of LASs are high, leading to a large percentage of patients with LAS developing chronic ankle instability. This chronicity is associated with decreased physical activity levels and quality of life and associates with increasing rates of post-traumatic ankle osteoarthritis, all of which generate financial costs that are larger than many have realised. The literature review that follows expands this paradigm and introduces emerging areas that should be prioritised for continued research, supporting a companion position statement paper that proposes recommendations for using this summary of information, and needs for specific future research.

Gender differences were observed during performance of the SEBT, with women demonstrating greater reach distances and knee flexion, and fatigue amplified these differences.

While research on chronic ankle instability (CAI) and awareness of its impact on society and health care systems has grown substantially in the last 2 decades, the inconsistency in participant or patient selection criteria across studies presents a potential obstacle to addressing the problem properly. This major gap within the literature limits the ability to generalize this evidence to the target patient population. Therefore, there is a need to provide standards for patient or participant selection criteria in research focused on CAI with justifications using the best available evidence. The International Ankle Consortium provides this position paper to present and discuss an endorsed set of selection criteria for patients with CAI based on the best available evidence to be used in future research and study designs. These recommendations will enhance the validity of research conducted in this clinical population with the end goal of bringing the research evidence to the clinician and patient.

The current literature does not provide substantial evidence to suggest that ACL-R is an adequate intervention to prevent knee osteoarthritis. With regard to osteoarthritis prevalence, the only patients benefiting from ACL-R were those undergoing concomitant meniscectomy with reconstruction.

No abstract