Gait & posture · 2016
Is proprioception diminished in patients with patellar tendinopathy?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Groot H E, van der Worp H, Nijenbanning L, Diercks R L, Zwerver J, van den Akker-Scheek I
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Patellar tendinopathy is a highly prevalent overuse injury, and most treatments are only effective to some extent. This persistence of complaints could be linked to changed proprioception. One study showed diminished proprioception in athletes with lateral epicondylitis. Aim of this study was to determine differences in proprioception, by measuring threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) between recreational athletes diagnosed with patellar tendinopathy and healthy controls.
METHOD: The TTDPM as measure of proprioception was determined in 22 recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy and 22 healthy recreational athletes using a validated instrument. Amount of knee flexion and extension before the movement was noticed by the subject was determined. 80 measurements per athlete (left and right leg, towards extension and flexion and with two starting angles of 20° and 40° flexion) were performed. Mean TTDPM was compared between groups and among the injured recreational athletes between the affected and unaffected knee.
RESULTS: No significant difference in TTDPM was found between recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy and healthy controls. We did find a significant difference between the injured and non-injured knee in recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy; mean TTDPM was 0.02° higher in the injured knee (p=0.044).
CONCLUSION: No difference was found in proprioception between recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy and healthy recreational athletes. It is unclear whether such a small difference in TTDPM between affected and unaffected knee is important in clinical setting.
METHOD: The TTDPM as measure of proprioception was determined in 22 recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy and 22 healthy recreational athletes using a validated instrument. Amount of knee flexion and extension before the movement was noticed by the subject was determined. 80 measurements per athlete (left and right leg, towards extension and flexion and with two starting angles of 20° and 40° flexion) were performed. Mean TTDPM was compared between groups and among the injured recreational athletes between the affected and unaffected knee.
RESULTS: No significant difference in TTDPM was found between recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy and healthy controls. We did find a significant difference between the injured and non-injured knee in recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy; mean TTDPM was 0.02° higher in the injured knee (p=0.044).
CONCLUSION: No difference was found in proprioception between recreational athletes with patellar tendinopathy and healthy recreational athletes. It is unclear whether such a small difference in TTDPM between affected and unaffected knee is important in clinical setting.