The Association Between Functional Movement Screen Scores and Knee Valgus Moments During Unplanned Sidestep Cutting in Netball

Abstract

Background Regular employment of three-dimensional (3D) motion analyses to assess and monitor knee valgus moments; a contributor to non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury; during unplanned sidestep cutting (USC) is costly and time-consuming. An alternative quick-to-administer assessment tool to infer an athlete’s risk for this injury could allow prompt and targeted interventions to mitigate this risk. Purpose This study investigated whether peak knee valgus moments (KVM) during weight-acceptance phase of an unplanned sidestep cut were correlated with composite and component scores of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS™). Study Design Cross-sectional, Correlation Methods Thirteen female national-level netballers performed six movements of the FMS™ protocol and three trials of USC. A 3D motion analysis system captured lower limb kinetics and kinematics of each participant’s non-dominant leg during USC. Averages of peak KVM across USC trials were calculated and examined for correlations with composite and component scores of the FMS™. Results No correlations were found between FMS™ composite or any of its component scores with peak KVM during USC. Conclusions The current FMS™ did not show any correlations with peak KVM during USC on the non-dominant leg. This suggests that the FMS™ has limited utility in screening for non-contact ACL injury risks during USC. Level of Evidence 3

Pilot Study: The Relationship between Foot Posture and Movement Quality in Non-Professional Male Football Players

“…Each test is evaluated on a scale of 0-3, and each individual performed each task three times, recording the lowest score achieved (Figure 3). In asymmetric tests, both limbs were assessed separately and the right limb was always assessed [41,42]. Each test is evaluated on a scale of 0-3, and each individual performed each task three times, recording the lowest score achieved (Figure 3).…”

“…Each test is evaluated on a scale of 0-3, and each individual performed each task three times, recording the lowest score achieved (Figure 3). In asymmetric tests, both limbs were assessed separately and the right limb was always assessed [41,42]. A score of 3 means that the participant has a correct movement pattern, a score of 2 means that the movement occurs with compensation but not in the correct way, and a score of 1 means that he could not perform the task in a coordinated or correct way, and 0 means that the subject has pain at any time during the movement (Figure 4).…”