مطالعات طب ورزشی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

داوران

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش های متداول

هزینه های دریافتی نشریه

فرم ها

شرایط وضوابط ارسال مقاله

راهنمای نگارش مقاله

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

مقایسه آزمون های عملکرد حرکتی و کنترل پاسچر در بازیکنان والیبال با خطر بالا و پایین آسیب

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه تندرستی و بازتوانی ورزشی، دانشکدة علوم ورزشی و تندرستی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 کارشناسی ارشد، گروه علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم تحقیقات، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار گروه آسیب شناسی ورزشی و حرکات اصلاحی پژوهشگاه علوم ورزشی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

آزمون عملکرد حرکتی (FMS) و تعادل Y،  ابزارهای ارزیابی عملکردی در موقعیت­های گوناگون هستند،   اما در حال حاضر اطلاعات محدودی دربارة تفاوت نمرات آزمون­های FMS، تعادل Y و آزمون هاپ و دیویس بین گروه‌های با خطر زیاد و کم  آسیب‌های ورزشی وجود دارد؛ بنابراین، پژوهش حاضر با هدف مقایسة نمرات آزمون تعادل Y و هاپینگ در بازیکنان والیبال با خطر زیاد و کم  بروز آسیب انجام شده است. در این مطالعة مقطعی، 131 والیبالیست دختر و پسر نوجوان لیگ برتر استان زنجان با میانگین سنی 83/1 ± 78/15، قد 07/7 ± 30/176، وزن 18/6 ± 56/67 و شاخص تودة بدنی 63/1 ± 74/21 شرکت کردند. قبل از شروع فصل، ورزشکاران با چهار آزمون عملکردی تعادل Y، FMS، دیویس و هاپینگ ارزیابی شدند و نمرات آنها ثبت شد. بازیکنان براساس نتایج آزمون FMS به دو گروه با خطر کم  (کسب امتیاز بیشتر از 14) و خطر زیاد  (کسب امتیاز 14 و کمتر) تقسیم شدند. امتیازات بازیکنان با خطرزیاد و با خطر کم  مقایسه شد. همچنین ضریب همبستگی بین آزمون‌ها بررسی شد. نتایج نشان داد میانگین نمرات آزمون‌های عملکردی تعادلY  ، دیویس و هاپینگ در بازیکنانی که در آزمون FMS امتیاز بیشتر از 14 را کسب کرده بودند، به‌طور معناداری بیشتر از همتایانی بود که امتیاز 14 و کمتر را کسب کرده بودند. همچنین بین نمرات آزمون‌های منتخب همبستگی معنادار مشاهده شد (29/0 < r < 94/0). بازیکنان والیبال که نمرة کمتر یا مساوی 14 در آزمون FMS کسب می‌کنند (دارای خطر آسیب‌دیدگی زیاد )، نتایج ضعیف‌تری را در آزمون‌های عملکردی در مقایسه با بازیکنانی به‌دست می‌آورند که نمرة آن‌ها در آزمون FMS بیشتر از 14 (دارای خطر کم  آسیب دیدگی) است؛ بنابراین، پیشنهاد می‌شود از نتایج آزمون‌های این مطالعه در شناسایی ورزشکاران درمعرض خطر بروز آسیب استفاده شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of Functional Movement Test and Postural Control in "High-Risk" versus "Low-Risk" Volleyball Players

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mostafa Zarei 1
  • shabnam soltani 2
  • Mahdi Hosseinzadeh 3

1 Shahid Beheshti University, velengak, Tehran, Iran

2 1. MSc, Department of Sport science, Islamic Azad University, science and research branch, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Sport Sciences Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Background and Aim: Functional movementscreen-) FMS (and Y balance- test are functional assessment tools with some specific relevance. However, information regarding a potential relationship between these assessments and Hop test is still insufficient. Additionally, the FMS and Y balance are used to predict the risk of sport injuries occurrence. Currently, no research is available on the differences in FMS, Y balance, and Hop test between groups with high and low risks of sport injuries.
Materials and Methods: One hundred and thirty-one premier league young adolescents (man/woman) volleyball players from Zanjan Province (age=15.78±1.83 years old; height= 176.30±7.07 cm; weight= 67.56±6.18 kg; BMI=21.74±1.63 kg/m2) participated in this cross sectional study. The pre-participation screening consisted of FMS, Y balance, DEVIS, and Hopping test has been recorded during the pre-season time. All participants followed the routine training in season. Volleyball players were divided based on the FMS score considering scores ˃14 as low risk criteria and ≤14 as high risk criteria of sustaining musculoskeletal injury. The correlations of composite and individual item scores of these assessments were analyzed, and the differences between groups with high and low risks of sports injury were compared.
Results: independent t test showed the Y balance, DEVIS, and Hopping tests scores were all significantly higher in athletes who got FMS scores ˃14 comparing to those who got FMS scores ≤14.
Conclusion: the result showed functional movement test scores are different among volleyball players with/without high risk of sustaining musculoskeletal injuries. Athletes who get FMS scores ≤14 (whom are likely to sustain injuries) are supposed to have lower scores on other functional movement tests as well. It is therefore suggested that functional movements screening tests might be of use for recognizing those athletes with higher risks of sustaining musculoskeletal injury.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Volleyball Injuries
  • Functional Movement Tests
  • Injury Prevention
  • Movement System
مراجع
  1. McCunn R, aus der Fünten K, Fullagar HH, McKeown I, Meyer T. Reliability and association with injury of movement screens: A critical review. Sports Med. 2016;46(6):763-81.
  2. Bahr R, Bahr I. Incidence of acute volleyball injuries: A prospective cohort study of injury mechanisms and risk factors. Scand J Med Sci SportsScand J Med Sci Sports. 1997;7(3):166-71.
  3. Reeser JC. Introduction: A brief history of the sport of volleyball. Handbook of sports medicine and science: Volleyball. Handbook of sports medicine and science: Volleyball, nternational Olympic Committee;  swiss; 2003. p. 1-7.
  4. Schafle MD, Requa RK, Patton WL, Garrick JG. Injuries in the 1987 national amateur volleyball tournament. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(6):624-31.
  5. Bere T, Kruczynski J, Veintimilla N, Hamu Y, Bahr R. Injury risk is low among world-class volleyball players: 4-year data from the FIVB Injury Surveillance System. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(17):1132-7.
  6. O’Connor FG, Deuster PA, Davis J, Pappas CG, Knapik JJ. Functional movement screening: Predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(12):2224-30.
  7. Kiesel K, Plisky P, Butler R. Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off‐season intervention program in professional football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(2):287-92.
  8. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, Voight ML. Can serious injury in professional football be predicted by a preseason functional movement screen? N Am J Sports Phys Ther: NAJSPT. 2007;2(3):147.
  9. Peate W, Bates G, Lunda K, Francis S, Bellamy K. Core strength: A new model for injury prediction and prevention. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2007;2(3):1-9.
  10. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ, Voight M. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(4):  .14-51
  11. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function–part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther: NAJSPT. 2006;1(2):62.
  12. Grgantov Z, Katić R, Janković V. Morphological characteristics, technical and situation efficacy of young female volleyball players. Coll Antropol. 2006;30(1):87-96.
  13. Bennell K, Wajswelner H, Lew P, Schall-Riaucour A, Leslie S, Plant D, et al. Isokinetic strength testing does not predict hamstring injury in Australian rules footballers. Br J Sports Med. 1998;32(4):309-14.
  14. Van der Harst J, Gokeler A, Hof A. Leg kinematics and kinetics in landing from a single-leg hop for distance. A comparison between dominant and non-dominant leg. Clin Biomech. 2007;22(6):674-80.
  15. Augustsson J, Thomee R, Linden C, Folkesson M, Tranberg R, Karlsson J. Single‐leg hop testing following fatiguing exercise: Reliability and biomechanical analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16(2):111-20.
  16. Wasser JG, Tripp B, Bruner ML, Bailey DR, Leitz RS, Zaremski JL, Vincent HK. Volleyball-related injuries in adolescent female players: an initial report. Phys Sportsmed. 2020 Oct 1:1-8.
  17. Siedentop DL, Hastie P, Van der Mars H. Complete guide to sport education: Human Kinetics, chicago; 2019 .p.12.
  18. Bakhtiari RA. Evaluation of static and dynamic balance and knee proprioception in young professional soccer players. Ann Biol Res . 2012;3(6):2867-73.
  19. Gökdemir K, Cigerci A, Er F, Suveren C, Sever O. The comparison of dynamic and static balance performance of sedentary and different branches athletes. World Appl Sci J . 2012;17(7):1079-82.
  20. Westrick RB, Miller JM, Carow SD, Gerber JP. Exploration of the y-balance test for assessment of upper quarter closed kinetic chain performance. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(2):139-290
  21. Hudson C, Garrison JC, Pollard K. Y-balance normative data for female collegiate volleyball players. Phys Ther Sport. 2016;22:61-5.
  22. Smith CA, Chimera NJ, Warren M. Association of y balance test reach asymmetry and injury in division I athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(1):136-41.
  23. Roush JR, Kitamura J, Waits MC. Reference values for the closed kinetic chain upper extremity stability test (CKCUEST) for collegiate baseball players. N Am J Sports Phys Ther: NAJSPT. 2007;2(3):159-553
  24. Cook G. Movement: Functional movement systems: Screening, assessment, corrective strategies.vancouver : On Target Publications; 2010. p. 56(4), p.316.-376
  25. Munro AG, Herrington LC. Between-session reliability of four hop tests and the agility T-test. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(5):1470-7.
  26. Harput G. Effects of plyometric training on dynamic balance, hop distance and hamstring quadriceps ratio in female volleyball athletes. J Strength Cond Res2006 (21):363-8.
  27. Gorman PP, Butler RJ, Plisky PJ, Kiesel KB. Upper Quarter Y Balance Test: reliability and performance comparison between genders in active adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(11):3043-8.
  28. Brumitt J, Patterson C, Dudley R, Sorenson E, Hill G, Peterson C. Comparison of lower quarter Y-balance test scores for female collegiate volleyball players based on competition level , position, and starter status. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2019;14(3):415.
  29. Šiupšinskas L, Garbenytė-Apolinskienė T, Salatkaitė S, Gudas R, Trumpickas V. Association of pre-season musculoskeletal screening and functional testing with sports injuries in elite female basketball players. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):1-7.
  30. Engquist KD, Smith CA, Chimera NJ, Warren M. Performance comparison of student-athletes and general college students on the functional movement screen and the Y balance test. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(8):2296-303.
  31. Kazman JB, Galecki JM, Lisman P, Deuster PA, O'Connor FG. Factor structure of the functional movement screen in marine officer candidates. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(3):672-8.
  32. Koehle MS, Saffer BY, Sinnen NM, MacInnis MJ. Factor structure and internal validity of the functional movement screen in adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(2):540-6.
  33. Li Y, Wang X, Chen X, Dai B. Exploratory factor analysis of the functional movement screen in elite athletes. J Sport Sci . 2015;33(11):1166-72.
  34. Lockie RG, Schultz AB, Callaghan SJ, Jordan C, Luczo T, Jeffriess MD. A preliminary investigation into the relationship between functional movement screen scores and athletic physical performance in female team sport athletes. Biol Sport. 2015;32(1):41-51.
  35. Shaffer SW, Greenberg MD, Teyhen DS, Lorenson CL, Villena SL, Yost CM, et al. Lower extremity measures predictive of dynamic balance in service members. US Army Med Dep J . 2013; : 14(2):312-390 .
  36. Marshall M. Predicting and preventing common volleyball injuries with functional tests; 2018. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga (Tenn.).
  37. Hamilton RT, Shultz SJ, Schmitz RJ, Perrin DH. Triple-hop distance as a valid predictor of lower limb strength and power. J Athl Train . 2008;43(2):144-51.
  38. Goossens L, Witvrouw E, Vanden Bossche L, De Clercq D. Lower eccentric hamstring strength and single leg hop for distance predict hamstring injury in PETE students. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015;15(5):436-42.
  39. Willigenburg N, Hewett TE. Performance on the Functional Movement Screen™ is related to hop performance, but not to hip and knee strength in collegiate football players. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine: Clin J Sport Med. 2017;27(2):119-181
  40. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther: NAJSPT. 2006;1(2):62-72.
  41.  Letafatkar A, Salehi Sarbizhan M. Prediction of musculoskeletal injuries in athletes using individual and composite scores on Functional Movement Screening Test. Medical Rehabilitation Journal. 2018,7(4),51-64.
  42. Schwiertz G, Beurskens R, Muehlbauer T. Discriminative validity of the lower and upper quarter y balance test performance in healthy youth. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2020;12:73.
  43. Sadeghpour M. The reliability of Y balance test: With emphasize on gender and level of physical activity in individual between 16-40 years old [Unpublished master's thesis]. [Tehran]: University of Tehran; 2019.
  44. Letafatkar A, Hadadnezhad M, Shojaedin S, Mohamadi E. Relationship between functional movement screening score and history of injury. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(1):21-7. 
مطالعات طب ورزشی
دوره 11، شماره 26
بهمن 1398
صفحه 215-232
فایل ها
سابقه مقاله
  • تاریخ دریافت: 07 مرداد 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 26 آبان 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 08 آذر 1399
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار