Sports Physical Therapy
Conditions
Keywords
Soccer, Prevention injury
Brief summary
The prevention of injuries has a close relation with the proprioception. In this sense, the proprioception is defined as the information about the corporal and segmental movement, as well as the position of the body and the corporal segments of oneself in the space. Some authors divide the proprioception into kinesthesia and the Joint Position Sense (JPS). The hypothesis of the study is the implantation of a progressive multimodal exercise protocol with transferences to sport in the trainings of amateur male soccer players in the age range from 18 to 30 years, can decrease the adverse effects of the fatigue during the high intensity activities and its relation with the JPS. Due to the close relation between fatigue and incidence of injuries, the obtaining of positive results could be an important finding for the design of prevention and rehabilitation protocols in soccer.
Interventions
OTHERIAI Exercises Protocol
Progressive exercises to improve the strength and propioception of the male soccer players.
OTHERFIFA 11+
Progressive exercises protocol to prevent injuries in male soccer players which has been created by FIFA. It is based in different body wieght exercises to improve the neuromuscular control and stabilization.
Sponsors
Ilustre Colegio Profesional de Fisioterapeutas de la Comunidad de Madrid
University of Alcala
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
18 Years to 40 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Soccer Players inscribed in Madrid's Soccer Confederation, who have not been sufferd any injury in the last three months and had been trainning regularly in the last six weeks.
Exclusion criteria
* Soccer Players who had been suffered any severe injury in the last six months like (1) fracture in the low limb, (2) ACL injury, (3) grade III ankle sprain or (4) any surgical intervention in the low limb.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Joint Position Sense of the knee | Was measured at baseline (realized before the training), post-treatment (six weeks, realized before the training), ten weeks (before the training) and three months (realized before the trainng) | A digital inclinometer (range measured in degreesº) was used to assess knee Joint Position Sense in a Closed Kinetic Chain using an active modality (athletes actively reached and maintained the knee). The athletes did three trials to the target position. The average of three trials was used to compared with the target position to obtain the absolute error and relative error. |
| Joint Position Sense of the knee after the training | Was measured at baseline (realized after the training), post-treatment (six weeks, realized after the training) and three months (realized after the trainng) | A digital inclinometer (range measured in degreesº) was used to assess knee Joint Position Sense in a Closed Kinetic Chain using an active modality (athletes actively reached and maintained the knee). The athletes did three trials to the target position. The average of three trials was used to compared with the target position to obtain the absolute error and relative error. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Fatigue | Was measured at baseline (after the training), post-treatment (six weeks, after the training), and three months (after the training | The effort perception was measured with Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale (Borg RPE), a 15-point single-item scale ranging from 6 to 20 (with anchors ranging from 6 No exertion to 20 Maximum exertion) (little or no effort) to 20 (maximun exertion) scores |
| Lateral Step Down Test | Was measured at baseline (realized before and after the training), post-treatment (six weeks, realized before and after the training), ten weeks (realized only before the training) and three months (realized before and after the training | Five consecutive test repetitions were then performed. The examiner were positioned 3 m in front of the subject during the test. The examiner evaluated the performance of the test simultaneously and scored the test on a 6-point scale (0-5), according to the criteria outlined by Piva et al. A total score of 0 to 1 was classified as good quality of movement, a total score of 2 to 3 was classified as moderate quality of movement, and a total score of 4 to 5 was classified as poor quality of movement. |
| Counter movement jump | Was measured at baseline (realized before and after the training), post-treatment (six weeks, realized before and after the training), ten weeks (realized only before the training) and three months (realized before and after the training | Measured by app My Jump 2, participants performed each CMJ with hands on their hips, starting from a static standing position and with their legs straight during the flight phase of the jump. The landing was performed simultaneously with either feet keeping ankle dorsiflexion. Participants were instructed to jump as high as possible. |
Countries
Spain
Outcome results
None listed