A non-randomised experimental feasibility study into the immediate effect of three different spinal manipulative protocols on kicking speed performance in soccer players

Abstract

BackgroundThe most utilized soccer kicking method is the instep kicking technique. Decreased motion in spinal joint segments results in adverse biomechanical changes within in the kinematic chain. These changes may be linked to a negative impact on soccer performance. This study tested the immediate effect of lumbar spine and sacroiliac manipulation alone and in combination on the kicking speed of uninjured soccer players.MethodsThis 2010 prospective, pre-post experimental, single-blinded (subject) required forty asymptomatic soccer players, from regional premier league teams, who were purposively allocated to one of four groups (based on the evaluation of the players by two blinded motion palpators). Segment dysfunction was either localized to the lumbar spine (Group 1), sacroiliac joint (Group 2), the lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint (Group 3) or not present in the sham laser group (Group 4). All players underwent a standardized warm-up before the pre-measurements. Manipulative intervention followed after which post-measurements were completed. Measurement outcomes included range of motion changes (digital inclinometer); kicking speed (Speed Trac™ Speed Sport Radar) and the subjects’ perception of a change in kicking speed. SPSS version 15.0 was used to analyse the data, with repeated measures ANOVA and a p-value <0.05 (CI 95%).ResultsLumbar spine manipulation resulted in significant range of motion increases in left and right rotation. Sacroiliac manipulation resulted in no significant changes in the lumbar range of motion. Combination manipulative interventions resulted in significant range of motion increases in lumbar extension, right rotation and right SI joint flexion. There was a significant increase in kicking speed post intervention for all three manipulative intervention groups (when compared to sham). A significant correlation was seen between Likert based-scale subjects’ perception of change in kicking speed post intervention and the objective results obtained.ConclusionsThis pilot study showed that lumbar spine manipulation combined with SI joint manipulation, resulted in an effective intervention for short-term increases in kicking speed/performance. However, the lack of an a priori analysis, a larger sample size and an unblinded outcome measures assessor requires that this study be repeated, addressing these concerns and for these outcomes to be validated.

Collegiate Male Soccer Players Exhibit Between-Limb Symmetry in Body Composition, Muscle Strength, and Range of Motion

“…[40][41] The spine, ever active in the weight-bearing lower limb, has even been acknowledged in a recent pilot study with kicking performance in soccer, demonstrating lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint manipulation provided short-term benefit for increased kicking speed. 40 The asymmetric force distribution created by soccer kicking may not be directly visible within the lower limb; rather, may be referred proximally up the kinetic chain, with the spine receiving the majority of the stress and strain. Functional spinal compensation for unilateral force production during soccer kicking may be a possible explanation for lower limb symmetry in soccer players.…”

“…While most literature on soccer kicking focuses on the lower limb, even noting hip flexion as the initiating motion, the entire kinetic chain is involved, including the spine and pelvis before moving the distal lower limb. 16,40 The backswing phase requires lumbar spine rotation and extension to facilitate trunk rotation to the kicking leg; furthermore, the spine's functional mechanism both stabilizes and balances the body during upright activity while also transmitting forces to the pelvis and then throughout the lower extremities. [40][41] The spine, ever active in the weight-bearing lower limb, has even been acknowledged in a recent pilot study with kicking performance in soccer, demonstrating lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint manipulation provided short-term benefit for increased kicking speed.…”

“…16,40 The backswing phase requires lumbar spine rotation and extension to facilitate trunk rotation to the kicking leg; furthermore, the spine's functional mechanism both stabilizes and balances the body during upright activity while also transmitting forces to the pelvis and then throughout the lower extremities. [40][41] The spine, ever active in the weight-bearing lower limb, has even been acknowledged in a recent pilot study with kicking performance in soccer, demonstrating lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint manipulation provided short-term benefit for increased kicking speed. 40 The asymmetric force distribution created by soccer kicking may not be directly visible within the lower limb; rather, may be referred proximally up the kinetic chain, with the spine receiving the majority of the stress and strain.…”

The authors have requested that this preprint be removed from Research Square

“…The one previous study that analyzed the effects of SMT on soccer players was a non-randomized study performed by Deutschmann et al (2015). [41] They found an increased ball-kicking speed after lumbar or sacroiliac SMT or a combination of both (average increase of 3.52 to 6.57 km/h, depending on group allocation, P < 0.05). Data was acquired immediately before and after the interventions (SMT or sham).…”

The effects of spinal manipulation on performance-related outcomes in healthy asymptomatic adult population: a systematic review of best evidence

“…Botelho et al [12] conducted a similar systematic review and included seven relevant studies [12], four of which overlapped with Cerquira et al [11] and four included in our systematic review. The three studies not included in our review were deemed to have a high risk of bias [50–52]. Both these recent reviews concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to determine if SMT should be used to improve athletic performance and future high quality research is required [11, 12].…”