Disability and rehabilitation · 2023
What interventions can treat arthrogenic muscle inhibition in patients with chronic ankle instability? A systematic review with meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kim Kyung-Min, Needle Alan R, Kim Joo-Sung, An Yong Woo, Cruz-Díaz David, Taube Wolfgang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize the existing evidence regarding the effects of therapeutic interventions on arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) in patients with chronic ankle instability (CAI).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed exhaustive database searches in Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus.
RESULTS: Nine studies were finally included. Five types of disinhibitory interventions were identified: focal ankle joint cooling (FAJC), manual therapy, fibular reposition taping (FRT), whole-body vibration (WBV), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). There were moderate effects of FAJC on spinal excitability in ankle muscles (g = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.03-1.08, p = 0.040 for the soleus and g = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.01-1.07, p = 0.046 for the fibularis longus). In contrast, manual therapy, FRT, WBV were not effective. Finally, 4 weeks of tDCS combined with eccentric exercise showed large effects on corticospinal excitability in 2 weeks after the intervention (g = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.14-1.85 for the fibularis longus and g = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.16-1.87 for the tibialis anterior).
CONCLUSIONS: FAJC and tDCS may be effective in counteracting AMI. However, the current evidence of mainly short-term studies to support the use of disinhibitory interventions is too limited to draw definitive conclusions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed exhaustive database searches in Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus.
RESULTS: Nine studies were finally included. Five types of disinhibitory interventions were identified: focal ankle joint cooling (FAJC), manual therapy, fibular reposition taping (FRT), whole-body vibration (WBV), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). There were moderate effects of FAJC on spinal excitability in ankle muscles (g = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.03-1.08, p = 0.040 for the soleus and g = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.01-1.07, p = 0.046 for the fibularis longus). In contrast, manual therapy, FRT, WBV were not effective. Finally, 4 weeks of tDCS combined with eccentric exercise showed large effects on corticospinal excitability in 2 weeks after the intervention (g = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.14-1.85 for the fibularis longus and g = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.16-1.87 for the tibialis anterior).
CONCLUSIONS: FAJC and tDCS may be effective in counteracting AMI. However, the current evidence of mainly short-term studies to support the use of disinhibitory interventions is too limited to draw definitive conclusions.