For years, the Dynamic Movement Assessment™ has
aggressively assessed both single limb stability at the lumbopelvic region and
core stability. Yet so many times the Dynamic
Movement Assessment™ has been questioned on the validity of and how
that correlates to injury prevention and performance enhancement. In our current and on-going research, we have
shown that the most significant area impacted when comparing pre and post
fatigue status has been on both of these areas, the core and lumbopelvic region. With an abundance of research out there
indicating the impact that fatigue has on injury rates and performance, with the
Dynamic
Movement Assessment™, we wanted to see exactly where that impact was
originating from. This research further highlights
the importance of.
Research has indicated that excessive trunk motion (rotation
or side bending) and deficits of the lumbopelvic region complex are risk
factors for ACL injury. However, the
relationship between these three has not been examined or determined during
side step cutting tasks. So the authors
of this study analyzed the hip and knee biomechanics and trunk motion of 30
participants during side step cutting tasks.
Ground reaction forces were also determined during the first 50% of the stance
time during cutting tasks.
What the authors found was there greater knee varus moment
associated with decrease in transverse plane trunk rotation away from the
stance limb and greater internal rotation.
There was also found greater internal knee external rotation moment
associated with greater trunk flexion and greater hip internal rotation. So, what does that mean? This means having trunk rotation toward the
new direction of travel with decreased truck flexion results in decreased
internal rotation and valgus stress (mechanism of ACL rupture) than if you have
greater truck flexion and rotation or side bending. This is vitally important because it
highlights the importance of not just the strength, but also the proprioception
of the lumbar spine, lumbopelvic region as well as the hip. If those foundational components (strength and
proprioception) are not present in those areas, then the athlete is a greater
risk. We also know that endurance plays
a crucial role in both these foundational components which also must be
considered in assessment. Yet, how do we
assess that?
This is an article about research and we don’t want to make
it about the Dynamic Movement Assessment™.
That said, articles like this further validate the methodology behind
such a movement assessment. One that is
physically challenging, which assesses both core and the lumbopelvic region in
single limb stance and which has a fatigue component to assess true performance
during athletic activities and not just during an isolated movement. Whether you use an assessment tool like this
or not, articles such as this should give us pause to consider all aspects of
what we should assess when assessing athletes.
About the
author: Trent Nessler, PT, DPT, MPT.
Trent is a practicing physical therapist with 14 years in sports
medicine and orthopedics. He has a
bachelors in exercise physiology, masters in physical therapy and doctorate in
physical therapy with focus in biomechanics and motor learning. He author of a textbook “Dynamic Movement Assessment™: Prevent Injury and Enhance
Performance”, is associate editor of the International Journal of Athletic
Therapy and Training, Member of the USA Cheer Safety Council and
founder/developer of the Dynamic
Movement Assessment™.
Reference:
1.
Frank B, Bell D, Norcross M, Blackburn J,
Goerger B, Padua D. Trunk and Hip Biomechanics Influence Anterior Cruciate Loading
Mechanisms in Physically Active Participants. Am J Sports Med. July 2013 Preview.
2.
Brophy R, Schmitz L, Wright R, Dunn W, Parker R,
Andrish J, McCarty E, Spindler K. Return to Play and Future ACL Injury Risk
After ACL Reconstruction in Soccer Athletes From a Multicenter Orthopaedic
Outcomes Network (MOON) Group. Am j
sports med. 40:2517-2522, 2012.
3.
Holm I, Oiestad B, Risberg M, Gunderson R, Aune
A. No
Difference in Prevalence of Osteoarthritis or Function After Open Versus
Endoscopic Technique for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 12 Year
Follow-up Report of Randomized Controlled Trial. Am j sports med. 40:2492-2498, 2012
4.
McCullough K, Phelps K, Spindler K, Matava M,
Dunn W, Parker R, Reinke E. Return to High School – and College-Level
Football After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Multicenter Orthopaedic
Outcomes Network (MOON) Cohort Study.
Am j sports med. 40:2523-2529,
2012
No comments:
Post a Comment