Reduced severity of lumbo-pelvic-hip injuries in professional Rugby Union players following tailored preventative programmes

Evans, Kate; Hughes, Jonathan; Williams, Morgan

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2017.07.004

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…'Maintenance' of protective equipment use was not reported in any paper. Studies investigating NMT training programmes [58][59][60][61][62][63][64] had the highest median DB score but all failed to report programme 'maintenance'.…”

Section: Intervention Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Implementation of Injury Prevention Strategies in Rugby Union and League: A Systematic Review using the RE-AIM Framework

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rugby (union and league) has come under intense scrutiny due to its injury risk. Various interventions have been introduced to protect players from injury, with many deemed efficacious and advocated for use across various worldwide contexts. However, their implementation is less clear. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether injury prevention interventions in rugby have evaluated their ‘reach’, ‘effectiveness’, ‘adoption’, ‘implementation’ and ‘maintenance’ as per the RE-AIM Multi-Dimension Item Checklist. Six electronic databases were searched in November 2019. Inclusion criteria included: English language, peer-reviewed journal article, original research, field-based rugby code, prospective intervention. Of the 4253 studies identified, 74 met the full inclusion criteria. Protective equipment, predominately mouthguards, was the intervention of interest in 44 studies. Other interventions included multimodal national injury prevention programmes, law changes and neuromuscular training programmes. ‘Effectiveness’ was the highest scoring RE-AIM dimension (55%), followed by ‘reach’ (26%). All other RE-AIM dimensions scored below 20%. Research currently focuses on determining intervention ‘effectiveness’. For injury prevention strategies to have their desired impact, there must be a shift to address all determinants associated with implementation. Consideration should be given to how this can be achieved by adopting specific reporting checklists, research frameworks and study designs.

show abstract

Section: Intervention Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Implementation of Injury Prevention Strategies in Rugby Union and League: A Systematic Review using the RE-AIM Framework

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research conducted on the hip abductors for LBP has been extensive, with most concluding that strengthening exercises for the hip abductors is beneficial for treating those with LBP. [2][3][4]8,9,12,15,16,25,41,64,67 It is important for clinicians and researchers to be able to determine this strength ratio measurements of the hip abductors to the hip adductors to use as a rehabilitation tool in strengthening the hip musculature in patients with LBP. Knowing strengthening of the hip abductors is essential in treatment of LBP, the hip abductor to hip adductor strength ratio measurement calculated in this study may provide a clinical goal to reach in hip abductor strength for each patient.…”

Section: Chapter V: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Previous research has identified treatment options for reducing LBP in different populations, such as utilizing strengthening exercises for hip and trunk musculature. [3][4][5][6] Specifically, a need for increased strength in the hip abductors and abdominals has been shown, [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] as well as the effects opposing musculature of the hips and trunk have on LBP when not balanced, including the hamstrings, iliopsoas, quadriceps, and back extensor musculature. 8,12,[16][17][18][19] The muscles of the hips and trunk, if overactive or tight, can cause biomechanical changes in the body such as lordosis, kyphosis, and other postural abnormalities.…”

Section: Tablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although research on the causes of non-specific LBP have ended generally inconclusive, [20][21][22][23] researchers and clinicians have found that strengthening the hip and trunk musculature to be beneficial in treating those with LBP. 3,9,24,25 Muscular strength ratios for patients with LBP have been measured in opposing musculature such as the back extensors and abdominals. 26,27 The trunk extension/flexion ratio of the low back pain group (men, 0.96 + 0.27; women, 0.77 + 0.…”

Section: Tablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research conducted on the hip abductors for LBP has been extensive, with most concluding that strengthening exercises for the hip abductors is beneficial for treating those with LBP. [2][3][4]8,9,12,15,16,25,28,41,64,67 The hip adductors are crucial during gait. These muscles fire continuously during the midstance transition of walking to stabilize the femur.…”

Section: Non-specific Low Back Pain: Muscularmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hip Abductor To Hip Adductor Strength Ratio Measurements In Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain

Hugg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The hip musculature is globally known to support the pelvis, which aids in reducing the occurrence of low back pain (LBP). The hip abductors have an important role in stabilizing the pelvis while walking, but previous research has shown a decrease in strength of the hip abductors in patients with LBP. Due to the ability to activate and assist with hip and leg motions, the adductor muscles may have an effect on controlling hip motion to reduce LBP and sacroiliac dysfunction to compensate for weak hip abductors. The hip adductors stabilize the femur during low extremity injuries. However, it is unknown if the hip adductors respond in a similar fashion when pertaining to those with LBP. Objective: To calculate the hip abductor to hip adductor strength ratio in people with and without LBP. Participants: Participants were allocated into either control (n=15, 179.9cm + 8.3, 75.6kg + 16.0, age 21.9 + 1.8) or LBP (n=15, 169.3cm + 9.3, 76.2kg + 18.5, age 21.9 + 4.3) groups based on the inclusion criteria. The participants in the control group could not have LBP pain as determined with a 0% on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and 0 on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and were between the age of 18-40. Participants included in the LBP group rated pain as > 3cm on the VAS, 20-40% on the ODI, met 3 out of 4 of the clinical predictor rules for LBP, and be between the age of 18-40. Those with previous surgeries from the low back and/or lower extremity, a specific diagnosis for LBP (e.g., herniated disc, spondylolysis), or current pregnancy, were excluded from the study. Methods: Participants performed a side lying straight leg raise (SLR) for hip adduction and hip abduction of both legs. Participants isometrically contracted at maximal force into a mobilization belt for 5 seconds. The desired range of motion for the SLR was, 10° of hip adduction and 30° of hip abduction. A mobilization belt was properly tightened to each participant's degree of motion. Data was recorded using a hand-held dynamometer connected to the mobilization belt to enforce an immoveable object. The highest value of 3 trails was recorded and used in the data analysis. A strength ratio was calculated by dividing hip adductor strength from hip abductor strength for each leg. A ratio greater than 1 indicated stronger hip abductors.A one-way ANOVA was used to assess hip strength ratio differences for each leg between groups. Results: There was no significant difference between LBP and control groups for hip strength ratios on the right (p=0.785) and left limbs (p=0.237). Conclusion: The results of this study did not display any observable or significant difference between the two groups or corresponding ratio measurements. It is still inconclusive what the role the hip adductors play in patients with LBP.

show abstract

Rugby

Carmont¹,

Grossi²,

Pulici³

et al. 2022

Epidemiology of Injuries in Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reduced severity of lumbo-pelvic-hip injuries in professional Rugby Union players following tailored preventative programmes

Abstract: Our preliminary observations support the effectiveness of grouping players and tailoring intervention based on common group characteristics in reducing the severity of LPH injuries in professional Rugby Union.

Cited by 10 publications

References 40 publications

Evaluating the Implementation of Injury Prevention Strategies in Rugby Union and League: A Systematic Review using the RE-AIM Framework

Evaluating the Implementation of Injury Prevention Strategies in Rugby Union and League: A Systematic Review using the RE-AIM Framework

Hip Abductor To Hip Adductor Strength Ratio Measurements In Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain

Rugby

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About