Thoracolumbar Fascia and Lumbar Muscle Stiffness in Athletes with A History of Hamstring Injury

E. Kellis, Afxentios Kekelekis, Eleni E. Drakonaki
{"title":"Thoracolumbar Fascia and Lumbar Muscle Stiffness in Athletes with A History of Hamstring Injury","authors":"E. Kellis, Afxentios Kekelekis, Eleni E. Drakonaki","doi":"10.52082/jssm.2024.436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) and lumbar muscle modulus in individuals with and without hamstring injury using shear wave elastography (SWE). Thirteen male soccer players without a previous hamstring injury and eleven players with a history of hamstring injury performed passive and active (submaximal) knee flexion efforts from 0°, 45° and 90° angle of knee flexion as well as an active prone trunk extension test. The elastic modulus of the TLF, the erector spinae (ES) and the multifidus (MF) was measured using ultrasound SWE simultaneously with the surface electromyography (EMG) signal of the ES and MF. The TLF SWE modulus was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the injured group (range: 29.86 ± 8.58 to 66.57 ± 11.71 kPa) than in the uninjured group (range: 17.47 ± 9.37 to 47.03 ± 16.04 kPa). The ES and MF modulus ranged from 14.97 ± 4.10 to 66.57 ± 11.71 kPa in the injured group and it was significantly (p < .05) greater compared to the uninjured group (range: 11.65 ± 5.99 to 40.49 ± 12.35 kPa). TLF modulus was greater than ES and MF modulus (p < 0.05). Active modulus was greater during the prone trunk extension test compared to the knee flexion tests and it was greater in the knee flexion test at 0° than at 90° (p < 0.05). The muscle EMG was greater in the injured compared to the uninjured group in the passive tests only (p < 0.05). SWE modulus of the TLF and ES and MF was greater in soccer players with previous hamstring injury than uninjured players. Further research could establish whether exercises that target the paraspinal muscles and the lumbar fascia can assist in preventing individuals with a history of hamstring injury from sustaining a new injury.","PeriodicalId":506848,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2024.436","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) and lumbar muscle modulus in individuals with and without hamstring injury using shear wave elastography (SWE). Thirteen male soccer players without a previous hamstring injury and eleven players with a history of hamstring injury performed passive and active (submaximal) knee flexion efforts from 0°, 45° and 90° angle of knee flexion as well as an active prone trunk extension test. The elastic modulus of the TLF, the erector spinae (ES) and the multifidus (MF) was measured using ultrasound SWE simultaneously with the surface electromyography (EMG) signal of the ES and MF. The TLF SWE modulus was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the injured group (range: 29.86 ± 8.58 to 66.57 ± 11.71 kPa) than in the uninjured group (range: 17.47 ± 9.37 to 47.03 ± 16.04 kPa). The ES and MF modulus ranged from 14.97 ± 4.10 to 66.57 ± 11.71 kPa in the injured group and it was significantly (p < .05) greater compared to the uninjured group (range: 11.65 ± 5.99 to 40.49 ± 12.35 kPa). TLF modulus was greater than ES and MF modulus (p < 0.05). Active modulus was greater during the prone trunk extension test compared to the knee flexion tests and it was greater in the knee flexion test at 0° than at 90° (p < 0.05). The muscle EMG was greater in the injured compared to the uninjured group in the passive tests only (p < 0.05). SWE modulus of the TLF and ES and MF was greater in soccer players with previous hamstring injury than uninjured players. Further research could establish whether exercises that target the paraspinal muscles and the lumbar fascia can assist in preventing individuals with a history of hamstring injury from sustaining a new injury.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有腘绳肌损伤史的运动员的胸腰部筋膜和腰部肌肉僵硬度
本研究的目的是利用剪切波弹性成像(SWE)检查腿筋受伤者和未受伤者胸腰筋膜(TLF)和腰肌模量的差异。13 名没有腿筋损伤的男性足球运动员和 11 名有腿筋损伤史的球员分别进行了从 0°、45° 和 90°屈膝角度的被动和主动(亚极限)屈膝运动以及主动俯卧躯干伸展测试。在测量 TLF、竖脊肌(ES)和多股肌(MF)的弹性模量时,使用了超声波 SWE,并同时测量了 ES 和 MF 的表面肌电图(EMG)信号。受伤组的 TLF SWE 模量(范围:29.86 ± 8.58 至 66.57 ± 11.71 kPa)明显高于未受伤组(范围:17.47 ± 9.37 至 47.03 ± 16.04 kPa)(p < 0.05)。受伤组的 ES 和 MF 模量范围为 14.97 ± 4.10 至 66.57 ± 11.71 kPa,与未受伤组(范围:11.65 ± 5.99 至 40.49 ± 12.35 kPa)相比显著增大(p < .05)。TLF 模量大于 ES 和 MF 模量(p < 0.05)。与膝关节屈曲测试相比,俯卧躯干伸展测试中的主动模量更大,膝关节屈曲测试中0°时的主动模量大于90°时的主动模量(P < 0.05)。仅在被动测试中,受伤组的肌肉肌电图大于未受伤组(P < 0.05)。曾受过腿筋损伤的足球运动员的 TLF、ES 和 MF 的 SWE 模量大于未受过损伤的运动员。进一步的研究可以确定,针对脊柱旁肌肉和腰部筋膜的锻炼是否有助于防止曾受过腿筋损伤的人再次受伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimal Prescription for Superior Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Inter-Individual Variability in Adaptations to Small-Sided Games and Short Sprint Interval Training in Young Basketball Players Combined Aerobic and Resistance Training Improves Body Composition, Alters Cardiometabolic Risk, and Ameliorates Cancer-Related Indicators in Breast Cancer Patients and Survivors with Overweight/Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Thoracolumbar Fascia and Lumbar Muscle Stiffness in Athletes with A History of Hamstring Injury Race Dynamics in Triathlon Mixed-Team-Relay Meaningfully Changes with The New Regulation Towards Paris 2024 Neuromechanical Differences between Pronated and Supinated Forearm Positions during Upper-Body Wingate Tests
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1