مقایسه زمان رسیدن به پایداری و نمرات آزمون های غربالگری عملکردی حرکتی بین زنان فعال دارای هایپرموبیلیتی و سالم

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه بیومکانیک و آسیب شناسی ورزشی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

2 گروه بیومکانیک و آسیب‌شناسی ورزشی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه و اهداف
هایپرموبیلیتی به وضعیتی گفته می­شود که بسیاری از مفاصل سینوویال افراد فراتر از محدودیت­های طبیعی حرکت می­ کند. از آنجا که افراد دارای هایپرموبیلیتی در فعالیت­ های ورزشی شرکت می­کنند، یافتن تفاوت­ های عملکردی آنها با افراد سالم و احتمال بروز آسیب می ­تواند در برنامه ­ریزی تمرینات این افراد کمک­ کننده باشد. هدف از تحقیق حاضر مقایسه پارامترهای زمان رسیدن به پایداری و نمرات آزمون غربالگری عملکردی (FMS) بین دختران فعال دارای هایپرموبیلیتی با افراد سالم بود.
مواد و روش­ ها
30 دانشجوی دختر فعال رشته تربیت بدنی با میانگین سن 21/99سال، با (شاخص بیتون بیشتر از 4) و بدون هایپرموبیلیتی به­صورت هدفمند انتخاب و در تحقیق حاضر شرکت داده شدند. زمان رسیدن به پایداری در حرکت پرش و فرود روی صفحه نیرو و نمرات آزمون­های FMS از آزمودنی­های دو گروه گرفته شد و مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت.
یافته­ ها
نتایج آزمون تی مستقل نشان داد به­ طور معناداری زمان رسیدن به پایداری و نمرات آزمون­ های FMS در دختران دارای هایپرموبیلیتی به­ ترتیب بیشتر و کمتر از افراد سالم بود.
نتیجه­ گیری
افراد دارای هایپرموبیلیتی پایداری و تحرک­پذیری و کنترل حرکتی ضعیفتری نسبت به افراد سالم دارند و احتمال بروز آسیب در این افراد بیشتر است؛ بنابراین پیشنهاد می­شود که مربیان به تفاوت­ های این افراد توجه کنند و برنامه تمرینی متناسب با این افراد را طراحی کنند که در آن به پایداری و ثبات و کنترل پاسچر اهمیت ویژه­ای داده شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of the Time to Stabilization and Scores of Functional Movement Screening Tests between Active Females with and without Hypermobility

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Abbasi 1
  • Samira Bahador 1
  • Amir Letafatkar 1
  • Reza Habibi 2
1 Department of Biomechanics and Sport Injuries, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Biomechanics and Sport Injuries, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and Aims: Hypermobility is defined as a condition in which many synovial joints move beyond their natural range of movement. Since hypermobile individuals participate in athletic activities, identifying their functional differences with healthy people and the likelihood of injury can help planning suitable exercises for them. The purpose of the present study was to compare time to stabilization (TTS) and scores of functional movement screening (FMS) tests in active girls with and without hypermobility.
Materials and Methods: A total of 30 physically active girls, with (Brighton criteria more than 4) and without hypermobility were selected and participated in the current study. TTS was calculated during jump-landing on force plate and FMS test was gathered in all the participants.
Results: The results of independent t-test showed that TTS and FMS scores were significantly more and less, respectively, in hypermobile girls compared with healthy participants.
Conclusion: Based on the results, hypermobile girls have weaker stability, mobility, and movement control compared with healthy ones and thus are more prone to injury. Therefore, it is suggested that coaches pay attention to their differences and design a workout program appropriate to them, with particular emphasis on stability and postural control.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Hypermobility
  • Time to stabilization
  • functional movement screening
  • Active Girls
Simmonds J V, Keer RJ. Hypermobility and the hypermobility syndrome. Man Ther. 2007;12(4):298–309. ##
2.        Jensen BR, Sandfeld J, Melcher PS, Johansen KL, Hendriksen P, Juul-Kristensen B. Alterations in neuromuscular function in girls with generalized joint hypermobility. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):410. ##
3.        Jindal P, Narayan A, Ganesan S, MacDermid JC. Muscle strength differences in healthy young adults with and without generalized joint hypermobility: a cross-sectional study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2016;8(1):12. ##
4.        Junge T, Larsen LR, Juul-Kristensen B, Wedderkopp N. The extent and risk of knee injuries in children aged 9--14 with Generalised Joint Hypermobility and knee joint hypermobility-the CHAMPS-study Denmark. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):143. ##
5.        Scheper MC, De Vries JE, De Vos R, Verbunt J, Nollet F, Engelbert RHH. Generalized joint hypermobility in professional dancers: a sign of talent or vulnerability? Rheumatology. 2012;52(4):651–8. ##
6.        DeCoster C, Roos NP, Carriere KC, Peterson S. Inappropriate hospital use by patients receiving care for medical conditions: targeting utilization review. Can Med Assoc J. 1997;157(7):889–96. ##
7.        Sahin N, Baskent A, Cakmak A, Salli A, Ugurlu H, Berker E. Evaluation of knee proprioception and effects of proprioception exercise in patients with benign joint hypermobility syndrome. Rheumatol Int. 2008;28(10):995–1000. ##
8.        Rombaut L, Malfait F, De Wandele I, Taes Y, Thijs Y, De Paepe A, et al. Muscle mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and physical impairment in women with the hypermobility type of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(10):1584–92. ##
9.        Jensen BR, Olesen AT, Pedersen MT, Kristensen JH, Remvig L, Simonsen EB, et al. Effect of generalized joint hypermobility on knee function and muscle activation in children and adults. Muscle Nerve. 2013;48(5):762–9. ##
10.      Riemann BL, Lephart SM. The sensorimotor system, part II: the role of proprioception in motor control and functional joint stability. J Athl Train. 2002;37(1):80. ##
11.      Reuter S, Forkel P, Imhoff AB, Beitzel K. Postural control in elite decathlon athletes: are various modes of dynamic assessment needed? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2017;57(7–8):936–41. ##
12.      Meiners KM, Loudon JK. Dynamic and Static Assessment of Single-Leg Postural Control in Female Soccer Players. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;(00):1–5. ##
13.      Lockie RG, Callaghan S, Jeffriess M, Luczo T. Dynamic stability as measured by time to stabilization does not relate to change-of-direction speed. Facta Univ Ser Phys Educ Sport. 2016;179–91. ##
14.      Abbasi A, Zamanian M, Svoboda Z. Nonlinear approach to study the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on local dynamic stability in lower extremity joint kinematics and muscular activity during pedalling. Hum Mov Sci. 2019 Aug 1;66:440–8. ##
15.      VanMeter AD. Time to stabilization: Number of practice trials and measured trials needed. University of Toledo; 2007. ##
16.      Shaw MY, Gribble PA, Frye JL. Ankle bracing, fatigue, and time to stabilization in collegiate volleyball athletes. J Athl Train. 2008;43(2):164–71. ##
17.      Fransz DP, Huurnink A, de Boode VA, Kingma I, van Dieën JH. Time to stabilization in single leg drop jump landings: an examination of calculation methods and assessment of differences in sample rate, filter settings and trial length on outcome values. Gait Posture. 2015;41(1):63–9. ##
18.      Sorenson EA. Functional movement screen as a predictor of injury in high school basketball athletes. University of Oregon; 2009. ##
19.      Armstrong R. The relationship between the functional movement screen, star excursion balance test and the Beighton score in dancers. Phys Sportsmed. 2019;1–10. ##
20.      Brown M. The ability of the functional movement screen in predicting injury rates in division I female athletes. University of Toledo; 2011. ##
21.      Cook G. Movement: Functional movement systems: Screening, assessment, corrective strategies. BookBaby; 2010. ##
22.      Etzel CE. A literature review of the functional movement screen as a predictor of injury in the sport of basketball. 2012; ##
23.      Schmidt H, Pedersen TL, Junge T, Engelbert R, Juul-Kristensen B. Hypermobility in adolescent athletes: pain, functional ability, quality of life, and musculoskeletal injuries. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2017;47(10):792–800. ##
24.      Letafatkar A, Mantashloo Z, Moradi M. Comparison the time to stabilization and activity of the lower extremity muscles during jump-landing in subjects with and without Genu Varum. Gait Posture. 2018;65:256–61. ##
25.      DuPrey KM, Liu K, Cronholm PF, Reisman AS, Collina SJ, Webner D, et al. Baseline time to stabilization identifies anterior cruciate ligament rupture risk in collegiate athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1487–91. ##
26.      Kraus K, Schütz E, Taylor WR, Doyscher R. Efficacy of the functional movement screen: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(12):3571–84. ##
27.      Parenteau-G E, Gaudreault N, Chambers S, Boisvert C, Grenier A, Gagné G, et al. Functional movement screen test: A reliable screening test for young elite ice hockey players. Phys Ther Sport. 2014;15(3):169–75. ##
28.      Russek LN, Errico DM. Prevalence, injury rate and, symptom frequency in generalized joint laxity and joint hypermobility syndrome in a “healthy” college population. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35(4):1029–39. ##
29.      van den Bogaart M, Bruijn SM, van Dieën JH, Meyns P. P 053—The use of the ankle strategy to restore balance during perturbed walking. Gait Posture. 2018;65:320–1. ##