Back Pain in Adolescent Athletes: Results of a Biomechanical Screening

Mueller, Steffen; Mueller, Juergen; Stoll, Josefine; Cassel, Michael; Hirschmüller, Anja; Mayer, Frank

doi:10.1055/s-0042-122713

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 60 articles, most were surveyed in athletes in Germany [14,18,49,[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62], in Sweden [3,[63][64][65][66], and in Iran [36,37,[67][68][69]. Moreover, also in Norway [11,70,71], Poland [72][73][74], United States [50,51,75], the Netherlands [76,77], Belgium [78], Switzerland [12,79], Finland [80,81], Australia [82,83], Spain [84,85], Saudi Arabia [86,87], Estonia [88], Serbia [89], New Zealand [90], Ukraine [91], China…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review

Azevedo,

Ferreira Silva,

de Carvalho Borges

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Back pain in athletes varies with sport, age, and sex, which can impair athletic performance, thereby contributing to retirement. Studies on back pain in this population use questionnaires to assess components, such as pain intensity and location and factors associated with pain, among others. This study aimed to review validated questionnaires that have assessed back pain in athletes. This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) by searching the databases Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus. The articles were selected regardless of language and date of publication. Titles and abstracts were independently selected by two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. All the steps were conducted using the software Rayyan. The methodological quality of the questionnaire validation articles was assessed using a critical appraisal tool checklist proposed by Brink and Louw. The search returned 4748 articles, of which 60 were selected for this review, including 5 questionnaire validation studies. These articles were published between 2004 and 2022, which were performed in more than 20 countries, particularly Germany (14) and Sweden (5). Thirteen different instruments were identified, of which 46.1% were developed in Europe. The most commonly used questionnaires were the Oswestry Disability Index and Nordic Standardized Questionnaire. In addition, five questionnaire validation studies were selected for methodological quality assessment, with only two studies demonstrating high methodological quality. The following three instruments were identified for assessing back pain specifically in athletes: Micheli Functional Scale, Persian Functional Rating Index, and Athlete Disability Index. This review confirmed that all three instruments were specifically designed to assess this condition.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review

Azevedo,

Ferreira Silva,

de Carvalho Borges

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the following assessments are performed at baseline and at follow-up 3 months later: functional assessments such as the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) [ 20 ] for physical capacity, the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) [ 21 ], the Stair Ascend Test [ 22 ], the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test [ 23 ] for balance, strength and mobility, the questionnaires Short Form 36 (SF-36) [ 24 ] for health-related quality of life, International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) [ 25 ] for the level of physical activity and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) [ 26 ] for pain and stiffness. Measures of function include the assessment of the postural control during double-footed and one-leg stance [ 27 ] for left and right leg (barefoot, hands to the hip, view straight forward) for 30 s on a force plate (Amti OR6-6, Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc. Watertown, MA, USA) as well as gait analysis during over-ground walking (10 trials) with self-selected velocity using a 3D-motion analysis system (12 cameras, Vicon MX; 200 Hz; Vicon Ltd., Oxford, UK) and a kinematic Plug-in Gait lower body model (Vicon Nexus) [ 28 ] (see Fig. 2 for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Figure that the trial follows).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of an interactive telerehabilitation system with home-based exercise training in patients after total hip or knee replacement: study protocol for a multicenter, superiority, no-blinded randomized controlled trial

Eichler

Rabe

Salzwedel

et al. 2017

Trials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTotal hip or knee replacement is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Physical rehabilitation following total hip or knee replacement is an essential part of the therapy to improve functional outcomes and quality of life. After discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, a subsequent postoperative exercise therapy is needed to maintain functional mobility. Telerehabilitation may be a potential innovative treatment approach. We aim to investigate the superiority of an interactive telerehabilitation intervention for patients after total hip or knee replacement, in comparison to usual care, regarding physical performance, functional mobility, quality of life and pain.Methods/designThis is an open, randomized controlled, multicenter superiority study with two prospective arms. One hundred and ten eligible and consenting participants with total knee or hip replacement will be recruited at admission to subsequent inpatient rehabilitation. After comprehensive, 3-week, inpatient rehabilitation, the intervention group performs a 3-month, interactive, home-based exercise training with a telerehabilitation system. For this purpose, the physiotherapist creates an individual training plan out of 38 different strength and balance exercises which were implemented in the system. Data about the quality and frequency of training are transmitted to the physiotherapist for further adjustment. Communication between patient and physiotherapist is possible with the system. The control group receives voluntary, usual aftercare programs. Baseline assessments are investigated after discharge from rehabilitation; final assessments 3 months later. The primary outcome is the difference in improvement between intervention and control group in 6-minute walk distance after 3 months. Secondary outcomes include differences in the Timed Up and Go Test, the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test, the Stair Ascend Test, the Short-Form 36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and postural control as well as gait and kinematic parameters of the lower limbs. Baseline-adjusted analysis of covariance models will be used to test for group differences in the primary and secondary endpoints.DiscussionWe expect the intervention group to benefit from the interactive, home-based exercise training in many respects represented by the study endpoints. If successful, this approach could be used to enhance the access to aftercare programs, especially in structurally weak areas.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), ID: DRKS00010009. Registered on 11 May 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2173-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…In addition, during a single-leg squat exercise, Borujeni and Yalfani 35 reported poor postural control in athletes with CLBP, which in turn, was improved after an 8-week program of respiratory muscle training combined with weightlifting and powerlifting exercises. 35 Contrarily, Mueller et al, 36 evaluating COP parameters during the one-legged stance task, reported no differences between athletes with and without back pain.…”

Section: Comparison Between Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Back Pain and Knee Position–Related Differences on Postural Control Measures During a One-Legged Stance in Athletes

Nowotny¹,

Calderon²,

Alves³

et al. 2021

Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) may be associated with changes in postural balance in athletes as poor postural control during sports practice. Objective: To compare the postural control of athletes with and without CLBP during 2 one-legged stance tasks and identify the center of pressure (COP) cutoff values to determine the main differences. Designed: A cross-sectional study. Setting: Laboratory of functional evaluation and human motor performance. Participants: A total of 56 male athletes, 28 with and 28 without CLBP (mean age = 26 y). Intervention: The one-legged stance with knee extension and with the knee at 30° flexion tasks were measured and analyzed on a force platform. The participants completed three 30-second trials (30 s of rest between each trial). Main Outcome Measures: The COP parameters: the area of COP, mean COP sway velocity in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions, and total COP displacement were computed, and a receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was applied to determine the group differences. Results: Athletes with CLBP had poorer postural control (P < .01) in both tasks. The 30° knee flexion reported more postural instability than the knee extension for all COP parameters (a large effect size d = 0.80).The knee extension cutoffs identified were >7.1 cm2 for the COP area, >2.6 cm/s for the COP sway velocity in the anterior-posterior direction, and >3.2 cm/s for the mediolateral direction. Whereas, the 30° knee flexion cutoffs were >10.9 cm2 for the COP area, >2.9 cm/s for the COP sway velocity in the anterior-posterior direction, and >4.1 cm/s for the mediolateral direction. Both measures showed enough sensitivity and specificity (ie, area under the curve = 0.88 in and 0.80, respectively) to discriminate both groups. Conclusions: The athletes with CLBP had poorer postural control than the healthy athletes and obtained specific cutoff scores from the COP values.

show abstract

Back Pain in Adolescent Athletes: Results of a Biomechanical Screening

Cited by 9 publications

References 41 publications

Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review

Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review

Effectiveness of an interactive telerehabilitation system with home-based exercise training in patients after total hip or knee replacement: study protocol for a multicenter, superiority, no-blinded randomized controlled trial

Low-Back Pain and Knee Position–Related Differences on Postural Control Measures During a One-Legged Stance in Athletes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About