Normative isometric plantarflexion strength values for professional level, male rugby union athletes.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to establish normative values of isometric plantarflexor muscle strength in professional male rugby union players and compare forwards with backs. The secondary aims were to examine how individual playing position or age influences isometric plantarflexor strength. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Testing at professional rugby clubs. PARTICIPANTS: 355 players (201 forwards and 154 backs) from 9 clubs in the English Premiership club competition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximal unilateral isometric plantarflexion strength was measured, using a Fysiometer C-Station, in a seated position with a flexed knee and in maximal available dorsiflexion. Values are reported normalised to body mass and specific to playing position. RESULTS: Mean combined limb isometric plantarflexion strength for the group was 193.1 kg (SD 32) or 1.86 xBW. (SD 0.31). Forwards were significantly weaker than backs (forwards = 1.75xBW (SD 0.26), backs = 2.00xBW (SD 0.28) (p=<0.0001)). Age category revealed no influence on plantarflexor strength. CONCLUSION: This study presents normative isometric plantarflexion strength values for professional male rugby union players. Forwards are typically relatively weaker than backs.

London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 3: rehabilitation, running and return to sport.

Hamstring injuries (HSIs) are the most common athletic injury in running and pivoting sports, but despite large amounts of research, injury rates have not declined in the last 2 decades. HSI often recur and many areas are lacking evidence and guidance for optimal rehabilitation. This study aimed to develop an international expert consensus for the management of HSI. A modified Delphi methodology and consensus process was used with an international expert panel, involving two rounds of online questionnaires and an intermediate round involving a consensus meeting. The initial information gathering round questionnaire was sent to 46 international experts, which comprised open-ended questions covering decision-making domains in HSI. Thematic analysis of responses outlined key domains, which were evaluated by a smaller international subgroup (n=15), comprising clinical academic sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons in a consensus meeting. After group discussion around each domain, a series of consensus statements were prepared, debated and refined. A round 2 questionnaire was sent to 112 international hamstring experts to vote on these statements and determine level of agreement. Consensus threshold was set a priori at 70%. Expert response rates were 35/46 (76%) (first round), 15/35 (attendees/invitees to meeting day) and 99/112 (88.2%) for final survey round. Statements on rehabilitation reaching consensus centred around: exercise selection and dosage (78.8%-96.3% agreement), impact of the kinetic chain (95%), criteria to progress exercise (73%-92.7%), running and sprinting (83%-100%) in rehabilitation and criteria for return to sport (RTS) (78.3%-98.3%). Benchmarks for flexibility (40%) and strength (66.1%) and adjuncts to rehabilitation (68.9%) did not reach agreement. This consensus panel recommends individualised rehabilitation based on the athlete, sporting demands, involved muscle(s) and injury type and severity (89.8%). Early-stage rehab should avoid high strain loads and rates. Loading is important but with less consensus on optimum progression and dosage. This panel recommends rehabilitation progress based on capacity and symptoms, with pain thresholds dependent on activity, except pain-free criteria supported for sprinting (85.5%). Experts focus on the demands and capacity required for match play when deciding the rehabilitation end goal and timing of RTS (89.8%). The expert panellists in this study followed evidence on aspects of rehabilitation after HSI, suggesting rehabilitation prescription should be individualised, but clarified areas where evidence was lacking. Additional research is required to determine the optimal load dose, timing and criteria for HSI rehabilitation and the monitoring and testing metrics to determine safe rapid progression in rehabilitation and safe RTS. Further research would benefit optimising: prescription of running and sprinting, the application of adjuncts in rehabilitation and treatment of kinetic chain HSI factors.

London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 2: operative management.

The key indications for surgical repair of hamstring injuries (HSIs) remain unclear in the literature due to a lack of high-level evidence and expert knowledge. The 2020 London International Hamstring Consensus meeting aimed to highlight clear surgical indications and to create a foundation for future research. A literature review was conducted followed by a modified Delphi process, with an international expert panel. Purposive sampling was used with two rounds of online questionnaires and an intermediate round involving a consensus meeting. The initial information gathering (round 1) questionnaire was sent to 46 international experts, which comprised open-ended questions covering decision-making domains in HSI. Thematic analysis of responses outlined key domains, which were evaluated by a smaller international subgroup (n=15) comprising clinical academic sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons in a consensus meeting. After group discussion of each domain, a series of consensus statements were prepared, debated and refined. A round 2 questionnaire was sent to 112 international hamstring experts to vote on these statements and determine level of agreement. The consensus threshold was set a priori at 70% agreement. Rounds 1 and 2 survey respondents were 35/46 (76%) and 99/112 (88.4%), respectively. The consensus group agreed that the indications for operative intervention included: gapping at the zone of tendinous injury (87.2% agreement) and loss of tension (70.7%); symptomatic displaced bony avulsions (72.8%); and proximal free tendon injuries with functional compromise refractory to non-operative treatment (72.2%). Other important considerations for operative intervention included: the demands of the athlete/patient and the expected functional outcome (87.1%) based on the anatomy of the injury; the risk of functional loss/performance deficit with non-operative management (72.2%); and the capacity to restore anatomy and function (87.1%). Further research is needed to determine whether surgery can reduce the risk of reinjury as consensus was not reached within the whole group (48.2%) but was agreed by surgeons (70%) in the cohort. The consensus group did not support the use of corticosteroids or endoscopic surgery without further evidence. These guidelines will help standardise treatment of HSIs, specifically the indications and decision-making for surgical intervention.

London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 1: classification.

Muscle injury classification systems for hamstring injuries have evolved to use anatomy and imaging information to aid management and prognosis. However, classification systems lack reliability and validity data and are not specific to individual hamstring muscles, potentially missing parameters vital for sport-specific and activity-specific decision making. A narrative evidence review was conducted followed by a modified Delphi study to build an international consensus on best-practice decision-making for the classification of hamstring injuries. This comprised a digital information gathering survey to a cohort of 46 international hamstring experts (sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists, surgeons, trainers and sports scientists) who were also invited to a face-to-face consensus group meeting in London . Fifteen of these expert clinicians attended to synthesise and refine statements around the management of hamstring injury. A second digital survey was sent to a wider group of 112 international experts. Acceptance was set at 70% agreement. Rounds 1 and 2 survey response rates were 35/46 (76%) and 99/112 (88.4%) of experts responding. Most commonly, experts used the British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification (BAMIC) (58%), Munich (12%) and Barcelona (6%) classification systems for hamstring injury. Issues identified to advance imaging classifications systems include: detailing individual hamstring muscles, establishing optimal use of imaging in diagnosis and classification, and testing the validity and reliability of classification systems. The most used hamstring injury classification system is the BAMIC. This consensus panel recommends hamstring injury classification systems evolve to integrate imaging and clinical parameters around: individual muscles, injury mechanism, sporting demand, functional criteria and patient-reported outcome measures. More research is needed on surgical referral and effectiveness criteria, and validity and reliability of classification systems to guide management.

The Athletic Shoulder (ASH) test: reliability of a novel upper body isometric strength test in elite rugby players.

OBJECTIVES: Lower limb isometric tests are used to assess strength and strength asymmetries and monitor reductions in muscle force that may contribute to loss of performance and increase injury risk. Isometric tests in the upper body may be appropriate to monitor neuromuscular performance of the shoulder joint in sports involving contact and overhead actions. The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of a novel upper body isometric strength test. METHODS: Eighteen elite rugby players (age 22.4±4.6 years; body mass 95.5±13.4 kg) were tested on consecutive days. Maximal isometric contractions using both limbs against a force platform were assessed at three angles of abduction (180°, 'I'; 135°, 'Y' and 90°, 'T'), in a prone lying position. To evaluate interday reliability, intraclass coefficients (ICC) were calculated for mean net peak force (NPF) and highest NPF achieved in any trial (peak NPF). Intratrial variability was assessed using coefficient of variation (CV), and the standard error of measurement (SEM) was used to calculate minimal detectable change (MDC). RESULTS: Interday reliability for NPF was excellent in all test positions (ICC 0.94-0.98). The test demonstrated high absolute reliability values (SEM 4.8-10.8) and interday measurement error was below 10% in all test positions (CV 5.0-9.9%) except for the non-dominant arm I-position (CV 11.3%). Minimum detectable change was between 13.2 and 25.9 N. CONCLUSION: The Athletic Shoulder test demonstrated excellent reliability for each test position supporting its use as a reliable tool to quantify the ability to produce and transfer force across the shoulder girdle.