Sagittal spinal morphotype assessment in 8 to 15 years old Inline Hockey players.
Alignment
Injury
Morphotype
Spine
Young athlete
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
19
07
2019
accepted:
18
11
2019
entrez:
10
1
2020
pubmed:
10
1
2020
medline:
10
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physiological sagittal spinal curvatures play an important role in health and performance in sports. For that reason, several scientific studies have assessed spinal morphology in young athletes. However, to our knowledge, no study has assessed the implications of Inline Hockey (IH) practice on sagittal integrative spinal morphotype in adolescent players. The aims of the present study were to describe habitual sagittal spinal posture in young federated IH players and its relationship with training load and to determine the sagittal integrative spinal morphotype in these players. An observational analysis was developed to describe the sagittal spinal morphotype in young federated IH players. A total of 74 IH players from the Technification Plan organized by the Skating Federation of the Valencian Community (aged from 8 to 15 years) participated in the study. Thoracic and lumbar curvatures of the spine were measured in a relaxed standing position (SP), in a slump sitting position (SSP) and in maximum flexion of the trunk (MFT) to determine the "Sagittal Integrative Morphotype" of all players. An unilevel inclinometer was used to quantify the sagittal spinal curvatures. The Hip Joint Angle test was used to quantify the Lumbo-Horizontal angle in flexion (L-H fx) of all participants with a goniometer. When thoracic curvature was analyzed according to normality references, it was found that 64.9% of IH players had thoracic hyperkyphosis in a SSP, while 60.8% and 74.3% of players were classified as normal in a SP and in MFT, respectively. As for the lumbar curve, 89.2% in a SP and 55.4% in MFT were normal, whereas 68.9% of IH players presented lumbar hyperkyphosis in a SSP. Regarding the "Sagittal Integrative Morphotype," only 17.6% of players were classified as "Normal" in the three measured positions for the thoracic curve, while 37.8% had "Thoracic Hyperkyphosis" and 41.8% presented "Functional Thoracic Hyperkyphosis." As for the "Sagittal Integrative Lumbar Morphotype," only 23% of athletes had a normal curve in the three positions, whereas 66.2% presented "Functional Lumbar Hyperkyphosis." When the L-H fx was evaluated, the results showed that only 16.2% of the athletes were classified as normal. Federative IH practice seems to cause specific adaptations in spinal sagittal morphotype. Taking into account the "Sagittal Integrative Morphotype" only 17.6% IH players presented "Normal Morphotype" with a normal thoracic kyphosis in the three measured positions, while only 23% IH players presented "Normal Morphotype" with a normal lumbar curvature in the three assessed positions. Furthermore, only 16.2% of IH players showed normal pelvic tilt. Exercise programs to prevent or rehabilitate these imbalances in young IH players are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Physiological sagittal spinal curvatures play an important role in health and performance in sports. For that reason, several scientific studies have assessed spinal morphology in young athletes. However, to our knowledge, no study has assessed the implications of Inline Hockey (IH) practice on sagittal integrative spinal morphotype in adolescent players.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aims of the present study were to describe habitual sagittal spinal posture in young federated IH players and its relationship with training load and to determine the sagittal integrative spinal morphotype in these players.
METHODS
METHODS
An observational analysis was developed to describe the sagittal spinal morphotype in young federated IH players. A total of 74 IH players from the Technification Plan organized by the Skating Federation of the Valencian Community (aged from 8 to 15 years) participated in the study. Thoracic and lumbar curvatures of the spine were measured in a relaxed standing position (SP), in a slump sitting position (SSP) and in maximum flexion of the trunk (MFT) to determine the "Sagittal Integrative Morphotype" of all players. An unilevel inclinometer was used to quantify the sagittal spinal curvatures. The Hip Joint Angle test was used to quantify the Lumbo-Horizontal angle in flexion (L-H fx) of all participants with a goniometer.
RESULTS
RESULTS
When thoracic curvature was analyzed according to normality references, it was found that 64.9% of IH players had thoracic hyperkyphosis in a SSP, while 60.8% and 74.3% of players were classified as normal in a SP and in MFT, respectively. As for the lumbar curve, 89.2% in a SP and 55.4% in MFT were normal, whereas 68.9% of IH players presented lumbar hyperkyphosis in a SSP. Regarding the "Sagittal Integrative Morphotype," only 17.6% of players were classified as "Normal" in the three measured positions for the thoracic curve, while 37.8% had "Thoracic Hyperkyphosis" and 41.8% presented "Functional Thoracic Hyperkyphosis." As for the "Sagittal Integrative Lumbar Morphotype," only 23% of athletes had a normal curve in the three positions, whereas 66.2% presented "Functional Lumbar Hyperkyphosis." When the L-H fx was evaluated, the results showed that only 16.2% of the athletes were classified as normal.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Federative IH practice seems to cause specific adaptations in spinal sagittal morphotype. Taking into account the "Sagittal Integrative Morphotype" only 17.6% IH players presented "Normal Morphotype" with a normal thoracic kyphosis in the three measured positions, while only 23% IH players presented "Normal Morphotype" with a normal lumbar curvature in the three assessed positions. Furthermore, only 16.2% of IH players showed normal pelvic tilt. Exercise programs to prevent or rehabilitate these imbalances in young IH players are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31915572
doi: 10.7717/peerj.8229
pii: 8229
pmc: PMC6942677
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e8229Informations de copyright
© 2020 Sainz de Baranda et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Mar;76(3):218-24
pubmed: 7717811
Eur Spine J. 1996;5(4):251-7
pubmed: 8886737
Am J Sports Med. 1997 May-Jun;25(3):363-8
pubmed: 9167818
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1988 Jun;11(3):158-64
pubmed: 2969027
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Sep-Oct;31(5):751-7
pubmed: 12975197
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Apr 15;24(8):755-62
pubmed: 10222525
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Mar;86(3):549-57
pubmed: 15759243
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Jul-Aug;28(4):490-8
pubmed: 10921639
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Jun 1;21(11):1332-8
pubmed: 8725925
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2012 Oct;52(5):545-50
pubmed: 22976742
Br J Sports Med. 2008 Mar;42(3):229-32; discussion 232
pubmed: 17615172
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Aug;14(8):847-50
pubmed: 2528818
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jun 1;26(11):1223-30
pubmed: 11389387
Spine J. 2005 Mar-Apr;5(2):145-54
pubmed: 15749614
J Hum Kinet. 2012 Mar;31:69-78
pubmed: 23486214
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Sep 1;33(19):2101-7
pubmed: 18758367
Eur Spine J. 2005 Apr;14(3):234-42
pubmed: 15168237
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Jul;34(7):1076-81
pubmed: 12131244
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001 Jan;16(1):28-37
pubmed: 11114441
J Sports Sci Med. 2011 Jun 01;10(2):355-61
pubmed: 24149883
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014;27(4):513-9
pubmed: 24867901
J Sports Sci Med. 2013 Sep 01;12(3):588-93
pubmed: 24149169
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Apr 1;26(7):715-23
pubmed: 11295887
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Dec 1;24(23):2426-34
pubmed: 10626304
Brain. 1995 Feb;118 ( Pt 1):263-78
pubmed: 7895010
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Feb;15(2):124-9
pubmed: 2139242
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Apr;17(4):405-11
pubmed: 1533731
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2002 Jun;88(4):328-36
pubmed: 12124531
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Sep 1;22(17):1965-9
pubmed: 9306524
J Exerc Rehabil. 2016 Feb 01;12(1):21-8
pubmed: 26933656
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Sep;9(6):588-95
pubmed: 6238424
Phys Ther Sport. 2006 Nov;7(4):181-4
pubmed: 21663829
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1(3-4):206-8
pubmed: 8536031
Clin J Sport Med. 2014 Jul;24(4):320-5
pubmed: 24451690
Sports Health. 2009 May;1(3):212-22
pubmed: 23015874
J Sci Med Sport. 2007 Dec;10(6):456-62
pubmed: 17298887
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Sep;(210):235-42
pubmed: 3757369
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jun 15;29(12):1320-4
pubmed: 15187632
Spine J. 2005 May-Jun;5(3):297-309
pubmed: 15863086
Res Sports Med. 2015;23(2):190-202
pubmed: 25669887
Biol Sport. 2015 Mar;32(1):79-85
pubmed: 25729154
Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2017;19(2):51-58
pubmed: 28869637
J Sport Rehabil. 2019 Apr 29;:1-23
pubmed: 31034307
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2014;27(1):85-92
pubmed: 23948841
Int J Sports Med. 2009 Jan;30(1):53-9
pubmed: 18651371
Int J Sports Med. 1993 Oct;14(7):406-10
pubmed: 8244608
Clin Rheumatol. 1999;18(4):308-12
pubmed: 10468171
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018 Apr;58(4):465-471
pubmed: 28198603
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jan 1;30(1):93-100
pubmed: 15626988
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Feb;33(2):183-7
pubmed: 15701603
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Nov;20(9):947-51
pubmed: 15975697
Morphol Med. 1982 Feb;2(1):39-44
pubmed: 6217420
J Pediatr Orthop. 1996 May-Jun;16(3):354-8
pubmed: 8728637
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jul-Aug;31(4):611-6
pubmed: 12860554
J Phys Act Health. 2014 Sep;11(7):1401-7
pubmed: 24368829