The American journal of sports medicine · 2023
Wrist Guards/Supports in Gymnastics: Are They Helping or Hurting You?
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.
Hart Elspeth, Whited Amy, Bae Donald S, Bauer Andrea S, Sugimoto Dai
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of wrist pain among gymnasts ranges from 46% to 79%. To alleviate wrist pain, gymnasts wear wrist guards/supports (WG/S).
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of WG/S on the wrist joint through joint moment, angles, total joint range of motion (ROM) arc, and ground-reaction force (GRF).
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used to investigate 23 female gymnasts (mean ± SD: age, 12.3 ± 1.5 years; height, 143.4 ± 7.6 cm; mass, 37.7 ± 6.6 kg; body mass index, 18.6 ± 2.9) who performed back handsprings (analyzed by first half [phase 1] and second half [phase 2]) with the following 3 conditions: no WG/S, Skids/Ultimate Wrist Supports (S/UWS), and Tiger Paws (TP). Wrist joint moments, angles, total ROM arc, and GRF were examined by the 3 conditions using analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction and effect size (Cohen d).
RESULTS: For mean wrist flexion moment, both S/UWS and TP showed significantly higher values than the no-WG/S condition in landing phase 1 (S/UWS: P = .001, d = 1.30; TP: P = .019, d = 0.87). In angle comparisons in landing phase 1, no WG/S showed greater mean wrist extension angles compared with S/UWS (P = .046; d = 0.80), but no significant differences with TP (P = .096; d = 0.65). Also, in landing phase 1, total ROM arc of the right wrist was greater in the no-WG/S condition compared with S/UWS (P = .018; d = 0.88), but there were no differences with TP (P = .400; d = 0.52).
CONCLUSION: These data show an increased wrist flexion moment using S/UWS and TP compared with the no-WG/S condition in landing phase 1 of back handsprings. Also, increased wrist extension angles and total arc ROM of the right wrist were found in the no-WG/S condition compared with S/UWS, but not with TP in landing phase 1. S/UWS may be helpful to reduce wrist joint angles, specifically wrist extension in landing phase 1, but both S/UWS and TP caused higher wrist flexion joint moment in landing phase 1. There were no differences found in GFG among the three variables.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the first half of the back handspring, wrist guards can limit wrist extension joint angles and total arc ROM; however, an increased wrist flexion moment was found when wrist guards were worn, which may potentially lead to an increased risk of injury. Injury history, especially overuse signs/symptoms, and previous surgery on the wrist joint need to be well considered before the application or use of wrist guards. Also, the amount of time/exposure wearing wrist guards should be carefully controlled in young female gymnasts.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of WG/S on the wrist joint through joint moment, angles, total joint range of motion (ROM) arc, and ground-reaction force (GRF).
STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used to investigate 23 female gymnasts (mean ± SD: age, 12.3 ± 1.5 years; height, 143.4 ± 7.6 cm; mass, 37.7 ± 6.6 kg; body mass index, 18.6 ± 2.9) who performed back handsprings (analyzed by first half [phase 1] and second half [phase 2]) with the following 3 conditions: no WG/S, Skids/Ultimate Wrist Supports (S/UWS), and Tiger Paws (TP). Wrist joint moments, angles, total ROM arc, and GRF were examined by the 3 conditions using analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction and effect size (Cohen d).
RESULTS: For mean wrist flexion moment, both S/UWS and TP showed significantly higher values than the no-WG/S condition in landing phase 1 (S/UWS: P = .001, d = 1.30; TP: P = .019, d = 0.87). In angle comparisons in landing phase 1, no WG/S showed greater mean wrist extension angles compared with S/UWS (P = .046; d = 0.80), but no significant differences with TP (P = .096; d = 0.65). Also, in landing phase 1, total ROM arc of the right wrist was greater in the no-WG/S condition compared with S/UWS (P = .018; d = 0.88), but there were no differences with TP (P = .400; d = 0.52).
CONCLUSION: These data show an increased wrist flexion moment using S/UWS and TP compared with the no-WG/S condition in landing phase 1 of back handsprings. Also, increased wrist extension angles and total arc ROM of the right wrist were found in the no-WG/S condition compared with S/UWS, but not with TP in landing phase 1. S/UWS may be helpful to reduce wrist joint angles, specifically wrist extension in landing phase 1, but both S/UWS and TP caused higher wrist flexion joint moment in landing phase 1. There were no differences found in GFG among the three variables.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the first half of the back handspring, wrist guards can limit wrist extension joint angles and total arc ROM; however, an increased wrist flexion moment was found when wrist guards were worn, which may potentially lead to an increased risk of injury. Injury history, especially overuse signs/symptoms, and previous surgery on the wrist joint need to be well considered before the application or use of wrist guards. Also, the amount of time/exposure wearing wrist guards should be carefully controlled in young female gymnasts.