Entorse de la cheville chez le jeune sportif [Ankle sprain in youth athlete]

Lateral ankle sprain is the most frequent musculoskeletal injury in the young athlete. Myths, dogma and common belief are regularly encountered when discussing this injury, for which the scientific literature does not prevail yet. In the youth, the growing skeleton further influences the diagnosis and therapeutic processes, as well as the healing potential. For the athlete, a fast recovery and return to sports without recurrence are a priority. In this specific context, an integrated management of the ankle sprain in the young athlete must be based on an adequate diagnosis, a sound knowledge of pediatrics pitfalls and peer-reviewed physiotherapy recommendations and consensus statements

Return to sport decisions after an acute lateral ankle sprain injury : introducing the PAASS framework - an international multidisciplinary consensus

Background Despite being the most commonly incurred sports injury with a high recurrence rate, there are no guidelines to inform return to sport (RTS) decisions following acute lateral ankle sprain injuries. We aimed to develop a list of assessment items to address this gap. Methods We used a three-round Delphi survey approach to develop consensus of opinion among 155 globally diverse health professionals working in elite field or court sports. This involved surveys that were structured in question format with both closed-response and open-response options. We asked panellists to indicate their agreement about whether or not assessment items should support the RTS decision after an acute lateral ankle sprain injury. The second and third round surveys included quantitative and qualitative feedback from the previous round. We defined a priori consensus being reached at >70% agree or disagree responses. Results Sixteen assessment items reached consensus to be included in the RTS decision after an acute lateral ankle sprain injury. They were mapped to five domains with 98% panellist agreement-PAASS: ain (during sport participation and over the last 24 hours), nkle impairments (range of motion; muscle strength, endurance and power), athlete perception (perceived ankle confidence/reassurance and stability; psychological readiness), ensorimotor control (proprioception; dynamic postural control/balance), port/functional performance (hopping, jumping and agility; sport-specific drills; ability to complete a full training session). Conclusion Expert opinion indicated that pain severity, ankle impairments, sensorimotor control, athlete perception/readiness and sport/functional performance should be assessed to inform the RTS decision following an acute lateral ankle sprain injury. Trial registration number ACTRN12619000522112. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Effects of combined Foot/Ankle electromyostimulation and resistance training on the In-Shoe plantar pressure patterns during sprint in young athletes.

Several studies have already reported that specific foot/ankle muscle reinforcement strategies induced strength and joint position sense performance enhancement. Nevertheless the effects of such protocols on sprint performance and plantar loading distribution have not been addressed yet. The objective of the study is to investigate the influence of a 5-wk foot/ankle strength training program on plantar loading characteristics during sprinting in adolescent males. Sixteen adolescent male athletes of a national training academy were randomly assigned to either a combined foot/ankle electromyostimulation and resistance training (FAST) or a control (C) group. FAST consisted of foot medial arch and extrinsic ankle muscles reinforcement exercises, whereas C maintained their usual training routine. Before and after training, in-shoe loading patterns were measured during 30-m running sprints using pressure sensitive insoles (right foot) and divided into nine regions for analysis. Although sprint times remained unchanged in both groups from pre- to post- training (3.90 ± 0.32 vs. 3.98 ± 0.46 s in FAST and 3.83 ± 0.42 vs. 3.81 ± 0.44 s in C), changes in force and pressure appeared from heel to forefoot between FAST and C. In FAST, mean pressure and force increased in the lateral heel area from pre- to post- training (67.1 ± 44.1 vs. 82.9 ± 28.6 kPa [p = 0.06]; 25.5 ± 17.8 vs. 34.1 ± 14.3 N [p = 0.05]) and did not change in the medial forefoot (151.0 ± 23.2 vs. 146.1 ± 30.0 kPa; 142.1 ± 29.4 vs. 136.0 ± 33.8; NS). Mean area increased in FAST under the lateral heel from pre- to post- (4.5 ± 1.3 vs. 5.7 ± 1.6 cm(2) [p < 0.05]) and remained unchanged in C (5.5 ± 2.8 vs. 5.0 ± 3.0 cm(2)). FAST program induced significant promising lateral and unwanted posterior transfer of the plantar loads without affecting significantly sprinting performance. Key pointsWe have evaluated the effects of a foot/ankle strength training program on sprint performance and on related plantar loading characteristics in teenage athletes, and this have not been examined previously.Our results showed no significant pre- to post- changes in sprint performance.This study revealed initially a lateral transfer and secondly a posterior transfer of the plantar loads after the foot/ankle strength training program

Cognitive biases cloud our clinical decisions and patient expectations: A narrative review to help bridge the gap between evidence-based and personalized medicine.

In sports medicine and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal conditions, training, knowledge and expertise of clinicians are the guarantors of good clinical practice. But are they really? Since the 1970s, a growing body of sociological and behavioral science has developed the concepts of cognitive biases and thinking errors. In a nutshell, it tries to explain how we approach decision-making using shortcuts, or heuristics. Our brains will alternatively use 2 systems to think and decide: system 1 is fast, intuitive and emotional, whereas system 2 is slow, logical and conscious. We may think clinicians use the latter systematically, but they actually use system 1 in many situations. Whether due to intrinsic thinking errors or external forces that cloud our judgment, we are under unconscious influences and so are all the stakeholders in the rehabilitation setting, including the patient/athlete. We present some of the most prevalent biases that pervade clinical decision-making and attempt to give a bit of background context starting from the typical tension between academic authority and personal experience. The field of sports performance is also riddled with beliefs, egocentrism and a general tendency to search for magic bullets that will bring the marginal gains and edge over the competition. This plays into the rehabilitation of patient-athletes in different ways. Finally, there are ways to mitigate the effect of cognitive biases to improve decision-making. This must include better communication, shared decisions and ultimately the understanding that we should drive our profession to deliver high-value care tailored to the patients, in line with the best evidence at the best possible cost. Hopefully, we can shed some light without too many of our own biases on the complexities of thinking in sports medicine and rehabilitation

Passive knee-extension test to measure hamstring tightness: influence of gravity correction

CONTEXT: A passive knee-extension test has been shown to be a reliable method of assessing hamstring tightness, but this method does not take into account the potential effect of gravity on the tested leg. OBJECTIVE: To compare an original passive knee-extension test with 2 adapted methods including gravity's effect on the lower leg. DESIGN: Repeated measures. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 20 young track and field athletes (16.6 ± 1.6 y, 177.6 ± 9.2 cm, 75.9 ± 24.8 kg). INTERVENTION: Each subject was tested in a randomized order with 3 different methods: In the original one (M1), passive knee angle was measured with a standard force of 68.7 N (7 kg) applied proximal to the lateral malleolus. The second (M2) and third (M3) methods took into account the relative lower-leg weight (measured respectively by handheld dynamometer and anthropometrical table) to individualize the force applied to assess passive knee angle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Passive knee angles measured with video-analysis software. RESULTS: No difference in mean individualized applied force was found between M2 and M3, so the authors assessed passive knee angle only with M2. The mean knee angle was different between M1 and M2 (68.8 ± 12.4 vs 73.1 ± 10.6, P &lt; .001). Knee angles in M1 and M2 were correlated (r = .93, P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in knee angle were found between the original passive knee-extension test and a method with gravity correction. M2 is an improved version of the original method (M1) since it minimizes the effect of gravity. Therefore, we recommend using it rather than M1