Ignite Creation Date:
2024-07-17 @ 11:37 AM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 3:33 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT06472648
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2024-06-27
First Post:
2024-06-18
Brief Title:
Effects of an Instability Training Program Using Global Versus Selective Instability Devices
Sponsor:
University of Valencia
Organization:
University of Valencia
Study Overview
Official Title:
Effects of an Instability Training Program Using Global Versus Selective Instability Devices on Dynamic Balance and Ankle Stability in Young Amateur Soccer Players
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2024-06
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The goal of this clinical trial was to compare the effects of a 4-week balance training programme using a GID or SID on functional dynamic balance and functional ankle stability in young healthy amateur soccer players
The main question it aimed to answer are
1 Are there differences between using GID or SID in improving dynamic balance according to the Modified Star Excursion Balance Test mSEBT and the Emery test and in improving functional ankle stability according to the Side Hop Test
Participants were randomly allocated into two groups GID balance training ie with a BOSU and SID balance training ie with Blackboard The randomization and allocation were performed using the sealed envelope method Both groups performed on a 4-weeks balance training program with the assigned device
Participants were asked to
Perform a 5-minute conventional warm-up cycling and active anke mobility exercises
Perform four balance exercises with a 3-kg medicine ball on the unstable surface device assigned to each group explanation of the exercises in the detailed description
Researchers compared the results of the GID group with those of the SID group to determine the differences between devices in the improvement of dynamic balance and functional stability of the foot and ankle
The main question it aimed to answer are
1 Are there differences between using GID or SID in improving dynamic balance according to the Modified Star Excursion Balance Test mSEBT and the Emery test and in improving functional ankle stability according to the Side Hop Test
Participants were randomly allocated into two groups GID balance training ie with a BOSU and SID balance training ie with Blackboard The randomization and allocation were performed using the sealed envelope method Both groups performed on a 4-weeks balance training program with the assigned device
Participants were asked to
Perform a 5-minute conventional warm-up cycling and active anke mobility exercises
Perform four balance exercises with a 3-kg medicine ball on the unstable surface device assigned to each group explanation of the exercises in the detailed description
Researchers compared the results of the GID group with those of the SID group to determine the differences between devices in the improvement of dynamic balance and functional stability of the foot and ankle
Detailed Description:
Sport injuries are one of the main concerns of soccer players and their coaching staff and ankle sprains are one of the most common injuries in this sport Sprains have a high recurrence in soccer leading to pathological laxity residual pain and sensorimotor deficits in the ankle which could cause stability alterations known as chronic ankle instability In this sense numerous efforts have been made to find alternatives to reduce the incidence and recurrence of ankle sprains but the exercise protocols designed to date are still not completely effective Therefore studies that deal with exercises or devices that could produce changes in ankle stability and consequently can reduce injury rates are still necessary
Stability training programmes are generally performed on unstable surfaces such as Both Sides Utilized BOSU balance boards pads soft mats air cushions or tilting platforms These tools are generally considered global instability devices GIDs as the direction and intensity of the instability cannot be selected and adjusted by the user Although not yet widely studied a new device designed to overcome these limitations is the Blackboard Training as selective instability device SID In a previous study the investigators compared muscle activation of the peroneus longus during single-leg stance on the Blackboard Training and on other GIDs including BOSU finding no differences between devices These findings may suggest that the use of the SID to improve functional ankle balance in athletes ankle sprain preventive programs could be effective at least as those produced by GID but a clinical comparison has not yet been conducted
Thus the aim of this study was to compare the effects of a 4-week balance training programme using a GID or SID on functional dynamic balance and functional ankle stability in young healthy amateur soccer players
A total number of 20 amateur soccer players were randomly allocated into two groups GID and SID Sociodemographic anthropometric dynamic balance modified Star Excursion Balance Test and Emery Test and ankle stability Side Hop Test data were collected
After a 5-minute warm up participants performed the same exercises on their assigned device BOSU in its inverted position for the GID group or Blackboard with the two slats placed centrally for the SID group which was a modified version of a previously proposed plan for proprioception training in athletes The exercises were the same for both groups and were performed with a 3-kg medicine ball being the only difference the unstable surface device These were the following
1 A 30-second series of maintaining the single-leg stance position with extended knee and hip holding the ball with the arms stretched out above the head the free leg was kept at 90º hip and knee flexion
2 A series of 10 repetitions where the participant was asked to pass from the supporting-leg hip and knee starting position to a 90º knee flexion squat keeping the ball above their heads and maintaining the other leg with the knee and hip about 90º flexed
3 A single series of 10 repetitions where the participant started with full limb extension of the supporting member and the ball held with both hands at chest height from this position subjects were asked to bring the free leg from 45º hip extension to 45º hip flexion
4 10 passes between the participant and a partner where the participants started with a total extension of the supporting limb and the ball held in both hands in front of them at chest height and their free leg flexed 90º at the hip and the knee A 2-minute rest between exercises was allowed
The stability training programme was performed for a period of 4 weeks with 3 weekly sessions using BOSU or Blackboard at their soccer club before their usual training and under the supervision of a physical therapist In all 12 sessions were completed
Stability training programmes are generally performed on unstable surfaces such as Both Sides Utilized BOSU balance boards pads soft mats air cushions or tilting platforms These tools are generally considered global instability devices GIDs as the direction and intensity of the instability cannot be selected and adjusted by the user Although not yet widely studied a new device designed to overcome these limitations is the Blackboard Training as selective instability device SID In a previous study the investigators compared muscle activation of the peroneus longus during single-leg stance on the Blackboard Training and on other GIDs including BOSU finding no differences between devices These findings may suggest that the use of the SID to improve functional ankle balance in athletes ankle sprain preventive programs could be effective at least as those produced by GID but a clinical comparison has not yet been conducted
Thus the aim of this study was to compare the effects of a 4-week balance training programme using a GID or SID on functional dynamic balance and functional ankle stability in young healthy amateur soccer players
A total number of 20 amateur soccer players were randomly allocated into two groups GID and SID Sociodemographic anthropometric dynamic balance modified Star Excursion Balance Test and Emery Test and ankle stability Side Hop Test data were collected
After a 5-minute warm up participants performed the same exercises on their assigned device BOSU in its inverted position for the GID group or Blackboard with the two slats placed centrally for the SID group which was a modified version of a previously proposed plan for proprioception training in athletes The exercises were the same for both groups and were performed with a 3-kg medicine ball being the only difference the unstable surface device These were the following
1 A 30-second series of maintaining the single-leg stance position with extended knee and hip holding the ball with the arms stretched out above the head the free leg was kept at 90º hip and knee flexion
2 A series of 10 repetitions where the participant was asked to pass from the supporting-leg hip and knee starting position to a 90º knee flexion squat keeping the ball above their heads and maintaining the other leg with the knee and hip about 90º flexed
3 A single series of 10 repetitions where the participant started with full limb extension of the supporting member and the ball held with both hands at chest height from this position subjects were asked to bring the free leg from 45º hip extension to 45º hip flexion
4 10 passes between the participant and a partner where the participants started with a total extension of the supporting limb and the ball held in both hands in front of them at chest height and their free leg flexed 90º at the hip and the knee A 2-minute rest between exercises was allowed
The stability training programme was performed for a period of 4 weeks with 3 weekly sessions using BOSU or Blackboard at their soccer club before their usual training and under the supervision of a physical therapist In all 12 sessions were completed
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None