Department of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Basel, Birsstrasse 320B, 4052, Basel, Switzerland.
Sports Med. 2017 Jun;47(6):1075-1086. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0631-9.
Adequate static and dynamic balance performance is an important prerequisite during daily and sporting life. Various traditional and innovative balance training concepts have been suggested to improve postural control or neuromuscular fall risk profiles over recent years. Whether slackline training (balancing over narrow nylon ribbons) serves as an appropriate training strategy to improve static and dynamic balance performance is as yet unclear.
The aim was to examine the occurrence and magnitude of effects of slackline training compared with an inactive control condition on static and dynamic balance performance parameters in children, adults and seniors.
Five biomedical and psychological databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, PubMed, SPORTDiscus) were screened using the following search terms with Boolean conjunctions: (slacklin* OR slack-lin* OR tight rop* OR tightrop* OR Slackline-based OR line-based OR slackrop* OR slack-rop* OR floppy wir* OR rop* balanc* OR ropedanc* OR rope-danc*) STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that applied slackline training as an exercise intervention compared with an inactive control condition focusing on static and dynamic balance performance (perturbed and non-perturbed single leg stance) in healthy children, adults and seniors were screened for eligibility.
Eligibility and study quality [Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale] were independently assessed by two researchers. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated as weighted Hedges' g served as main outcomes in order to compare slackline training versus inactive control on slackline standing as well as dynamic and static balance performance parameters. Statistical analyses were conducted using a random-effects, inverse-variance model.
Eight trials (mean PEDro score 6.5 ± 0.9) with 204 healthy participants were included. Of the included subjects, 35 % were children or adolescents, 39 % were adults and 26 % were seniors. Slackline training varied from 4 to 6 weeks with 16 ± 7 training sessions on average, ranging from 8 to 28 sessions. Mean overall slackline training covered 380 ± 128 min. Very large task-specific effects in favor of slackline training compared with the inactive control condition were found for slackline standing time {SMD 4.63 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.67-5.59], p < 0.001}. Small and moderate pooled transfer effects were observed for dynamic [SMD 0.52 (95 % CI 0.08-0.96), p = 0.02] and static [SMD 0.30 (95 % CI -0.03 to 0.64), p = 0.07] standing balance performance, respectively.
Slackline training mainly revealed meaningful task-specific training effects in balance performance tasks that are closely related to the training content, such as slackline standing time and dynamic standing balance. Transfer effects to static and dynamic standing balance performance tasks are limited. As a consequence, slackline devices should be embedded into a challenging and multimodal balance training program and not used as the sole form of training.
日常生活和运动中，具备充分的静态和动态平衡能力是一个重要的前提。近年来，各种传统和创新的平衡训练理念被提出，旨在改善姿势控制或神经肌肉跌倒风险。目前尚不清楚走扁带训练（在狭窄的尼龙绳上平衡）是否是一种提高静态和动态平衡能力的合适训练策略。
本研究旨在检验走扁带训练与非活动对照条件相比，在儿童、成人和老年人的静态和动态平衡能力参数方面的发生和幅度的影响。
使用以下布尔连词在五个生物医学和心理数据库（CINAHL、EMBASE、ISI Web of Knowledge、PubMed、SPORTDiscus）中进行筛选：（slacklin* OR slack-lin* OR tight rop* OR tightrop* OR Slackline-based OR line-based OR slackrop* OR slack-rop* OR floppy wir* OR rop* balanc* OR ropedanc* OR rope-danc*）
筛选了随机和非随机对照试验，这些试验将走扁带训练作为一种运动干预，与不活动的对照组相比，重点是健康儿童、成人和老年人的静态和动态平衡能力（受扰和非受扰的单腿站立）。
两名研究人员独立评估了合格性和研究质量[物理治疗证据数据库（PEDro）量表]。标准化均数差值（SMD）计算为加权 Hedges'g，用于比较走扁带训练与不活动对照在走扁带站立以及动态和静态平衡能力参数上的差异。使用随机效应、逆方差模型进行统计分析。
纳入了八项试验（平均 PEDro 评分 6.5±0.9），共有 204 名健康参与者。纳入的受试者中，35%为儿童或青少年，39%为成人，26%为老年人。走扁带训练时间从 4 周到 6 周不等，平均有 16±7 次训练，范围从 8 到 28 次。平均总走扁带训练时间为 380±128 分钟。与不活动对照组相比，走扁带训练具有非常大的特定任务效应，有利于走扁带站立时间{SMD 4.63 [95%置信区间（CI）3.67-5.59]，p<0.001}。动态[SMD 0.52（95%CI 0.08-0.96），p=0.02]和静态[SMD 0.30（95%CI -0.03 至 0.64），p=0.07]站立平衡能力分别观察到小到中度的 pooled 转移效应。
走扁带训练主要在与训练内容密切相关的平衡能力任务中显示出有意义的特定任务训练效果，例如走扁带站立时间和动态站立平衡。对静态和动态站立平衡能力任务的转移效果有限。因此，走扁带设备应嵌入到具有挑战性和多模式的平衡训练计划中，而不是作为唯一的训练形式。
