Search

The study investigated the incidence of Achilles and patellar tendinopathy in adolescent elite athletes and non-athletic controls. Furthermore, predictive and associated factors for tendinopathy development were analyzed. The prospective study consisted of two measurement days (M1/M2) with an interval of 3.2 ± 0.9 years. 157 athletes (12.1 ± 0.7 years) and 25 controls (13.3 ± 0.6 years) without Achilles/patellar tendinopathy were included at M1. Clinical and ultrasound examinations of both Achilles (AT) and patellar tendons (PT) were performed. Main outcome measures were incidence tendinopathy and structural intratendinous alterations (hypo-/hyperechogenicity, vascularization) at M2 [ %]. Incidence of Achilles tendinopathy was 1 % in athletes and 0 % in controls. Patellar tendinopathy was more frequent in athletes (13 %) than in controls (4 %). Incidence of intratendinous alterations in ATs was 1-2 % in athletes and 0 % in controls, whereas in PTs it was 4-6 % in both groups (p > 0.05). Intratendinous alterations at M2 were associated with patellar tendinopathy in athletes (p ≤ 0.01). Intratendinous alterations at M1, anthropometric data, training amount, sports or sex did not predict tendinopathy development (p > 0.05). Incidence of tendinopathy and intratendinous alterations in adolescent athletes is low in ATs and more common in PTs. Development of intratendinous alterations in PT is associated with tendinopathy. However, predictive factors could not be identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a 6-week sensorimotor or resistance training on maximum trunk strength and response to sudden, high-intensity loading in athletes. Forty-three healthy, well-trained participants were randomized into sensorimotor (SMT; n = 11), resistance training (RT; n = 16) and control groups (CG; n = 16). Treatment groups received either sensorimotor training (SMT) or resistance training (RT) for 6 weeks, 3 times a week. At baseline and after 6 weeks of intervention, participants' maximum isokinetic strength in trunk rotation and extension was tested (concentric/eccentric 30 -/s). In addition, sudden, high-intensity trunk loading was assessed for eccentric extension and rotation, with additional perturbation. Peak torque [Nm] was calculated as the outcome. Interventions showed no significant difference for maximum strength in concentric and eccentric testing (p > 0.05). For perturbation compensation, higher peak torque response following SMT (Extension: + 24 Nm 95 %CI + 19 Nm; Rotation: + 19 Nm 95 %CI + 13 Nm) and RT (Extension: + 35 Nm 95 %CI + 16 Nm; Rotation: + 5 Nm 95 %CI + 4 Nm) compared to CG (Extension: -4 Nm 95 %CI ± 16 Nm; Rotation: -2 Nm 95 %CI ± 4 Nm) was present (p < 0.05). This study showed that isokinetic strength gains were small, but that significant improvements in high-intensity trunk loading response could be shown for both interventions. Therefore, depending on the individual's preference, therapists have two treatment options to enhance trunk function for back pain prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]