Shaw Megan Y, Gribble Phillip A, Frye Jamie L
Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA.
J Athl Train. 2008 Apr-Jun;43(2):164-71. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-43.2.164.
Fatigue has been shown to disrupt dynamic stability in healthy volunteers. It is not known if wearing prophylactic ankle supports can improve dynamic stability in fatigued athletes.
To determine the type of ankle brace that may be more effective at providing dynamic stability after a jump-landing task during normal and fatigued conditions.
Two separate repeated-measures analyses of variance with 2 within-subjects factors (condition and time) were performed for each dependent variable.
Research laboratory.
Ten healthy female collegiate volleyball athletes participated (age = 19.5 +/- 1.27 years, height = 179.07 +/- 7.6 cm, mass = 69.86 +/- 5.42 kg).
INTERVENTION(S): Athletes participated in 3 separate testing sessions, applying a different bracing condition at each session: no brace (NB), Swede-O Universal lace-up ankle brace (AB), and Active Ankle brace (AA). Three trials of a jump-landing task were performed under each condition before and after induced functional fatigue. The jump-landing task consisted of a single-leg landing onto a force plate from a height equivalent to 50% of each participant's maximal jump height and from a starting position 70 cm from the center of the force plate.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Time to stabilization in the anterior-posterior (APTTS) and medial-lateral (MLTTS) directions.
For APTTS, a condition-by-time interaction existed (F(2,18) = 5.55, P = .013). For the AA condition, Tukey post hoc testing revealed faster pretest (2.734 +/- 0.331 seconds) APTTS than posttest (3.817 +/- 0.263 seconds). Post hoc testing also revealed that the AB condition provided faster APTTS (2.492 +/- 0.271 seconds) than AA (3.817 +/- 0.263 seconds) and NB (3.341 +/- 0.339 seconds) conditions during posttesting. No statistically significant findings were associated with MLTTS.
Fatigue increased APTTS for the AA condition. Because the AB condition was more effective than the other 2 conditions during the posttesting, the AB appears to be the best option for providing dynamic stability in the anterior-posterior direction during a landing task.
研究表明,疲劳会破坏健康志愿者的动态稳定性。目前尚不清楚佩戴预防性脚踝支撑装置是否能提高疲劳运动员的动态稳定性。
确定在正常和疲劳状态下,哪种脚踝支具在单腿跳落地任务后提供动态稳定性方面可能更有效。
对每个因变量进行两次独立的重复测量方差分析,包含两个受试者内因素(状态和时间)。
研究实验室。
10名健康的大学女子排球运动员参与研究(年龄 = 19.5 ± 1.27岁,身高 = 179.07 ± 7.6厘米,体重 = 69.86 ± 5.42千克)。
运动员参加3次独立的测试环节,每次测试环节采用不同的支撑条件:不佩戴支具(NB)、瑞典通用系带式脚踝支具(AB)和主动脚踝支具(AA)。在诱发功能性疲劳前后,每种条件下均进行3次单腿跳落地任务试验。单腿跳落地任务包括从相当于每个参与者最大跳跃高度50%的高度、距离测力台中心70厘米的起始位置单腿跳到测力台上。
前后方向(APTTS)和内外侧方向(MLTTS)的稳定时间。
对于APTTS,存在状态与时间的交互作用(F(2,18) = 5.55,P = 0.013)。在AA条件下,Tukey事后检验显示测试前的APTTS(2.734 ± 0.331秒)比测试后(3.817 ± 0.263秒)更快。事后检验还显示,在测试后,AB条件下的APTTS(2.492 ± 0.271秒)比AA(3.817 ± 0.263秒)和NB(3.341 ± 0.339秒)条件更快。MLTTS未发现具有统计学意义的结果。
疲劳使AA条件下的APTTS增加。由于在测试后AB条件比其他两种条件更有效,因此AB似乎是在落地任务中提供前后方向动态稳定性的最佳选择。