Injury Prevention Exercises for Reduced Incidence of Injuries in Combat Soldiers

Abstract

Injury prevention exercises for reduced incidence of injuries in combat soldiers. J Strength Cond Res 35(11): 3128-3138, 2021-The aim of this study was to determine the influence of an "all-cause injury" prevention program, focused on static-to-dynamic transitions, on injury prevalence in a military commanders course. Two cohorts of male infantry commanders were recruited (intervention [INT group], n 5 196 and controls [CO group], n 5 169) and tracked by a physiotherapist, who recorded any injuries that occurred during the 14week course. Soldiers were tested precourse, midcourse, and postcourse for anthropometrics, proprioception ability, and dynamic postural balance (DPB). The INT group performed injury prevention exercises for 5 minutes, 3 times a week, and the CO group continued with their routine physical fitness sessions. The prevalence of injuries reported to the physiotherapist during the course was significantly lower for the INT group compared with the CO group (14.8 and 34.3%, respectively, p , 0.001). Similarly, rates of injury in the INT group were significantly lower than in the CO group (p , 0.001; hazard 5 2.53, 95% confidence interval 5 1.62-3.95). Precourse proprioception ability was significantly lower in those that became injured during the commanders course, irrespective of the group. Likewise, for DPB parameters, the injured subjects in both groups had significantly lower precourse scores than the noninjured subjects. From pretesting to midtesting, the injured soldiers in the INT group improved their ability up to the level of the noninjured subjects. A reduced prevalence of injuries was found for soldiers who completed the injury prevention program. Because the subjects soldiers injured on the course had reduced somatosensory abilities at the outset, and as these abilities can be improved by static-to-dynamic exercises, identifying at-risk soldiers and providing them with appropriate strategies for improvement beforehand is indicated.

Prevention of Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Injuries in Tactical and First Responder Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials From 1955 to 2020

“…All studies used electronic medical record (EMR) information, including a combination of self-report and clinical data. Ten studies (55.6%) included physician confirmation based on radiograph (24,55,76,86), ultrasonography (9), scintigraph (22,24,(55)(56)(57)86), or magnetic resonance imaging (55,85). Three physical training interventions (16.7%) (9,76,85) and all but 2 footwear modification studies (46,49) used medical imaging.…”

“…In the remainder of the studies, the observation period coincided with the duration of the intervention. Evaluation timing for all studies coincided with the beginning and end of interventions; a few studies performed evaluations at 2-week (22,56,57) or 3- week (58,86)increments, and a few studies evaluated LEMSI occurrence after intervention completion during follow-up periods that ranged from 12 (55) to 94 (40) weeks.…”

“…Eleven studies (61.1%) allocated individuals to intervention groups (22–24,46,49,55–58,85,86), whereas 7 (38.9%) allocated subjects by group (clusters) (9,11,12,35,40,75,80). Most studies reported completion rates greater than 80%, including 80–89% (46,49,58,63,75,76,85,86), 90–99% (9,35,55), and 100% (57,79). Three studies reported completion rates below 50% (12,22,56).…”

“…As summarized in Table 2, we used the RoB 2.0 tool to assess risk of bias for each included study. The overall risk of bias was rated as low for 2 investigations (11,12), moderate for 7 studies ( 9,24,49,55,56,76,79), and high for the remaining 9 studies (22,35,40,46,57,58,75,85,86). Seven reports had low risk attributes and one moderate risk item (9,11,12,49,55,79,80).…”

“…Seven reports had low risk attributes and one moderate risk item (9,11,12,49,55,79,80). Seven reports had multiple low and moderate risk attributes (24,46,56,58,63,75,76,86). One report displayed a moderate risk for all domains (23), another was rated as high risk for randomization allocation and deviation from intended interventions (22), and a third was considered high risk for reported outcome result and randomization (35).…”