The Effect of Cautionary Versus Resiliency Spine Education on Maximum Deadlift Performance and Back Beliefs: A Randomized Control Trial.

ABSTRACT: Scott, KM, Kreisel, BR, Florkiewicz, EM, Crowell, MS, Morris, JB, McHenry, PA, and Benedict, TM. The effect of cautionary versus resiliency spine education on maximum deadlift performance and back beliefs: A randomized control trial. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): e341-e348, 2024-The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of cautionary information about the spine vs. a message of spine resiliency on maximum deadlift (MDL) performance and beliefs regarding the vulnerability of the spine. This cluster randomized control trial involved 903 military new cadets (n = 903) during their mandatory fitness test in cadet basic training (mean age 18.3 years, body mass index 23.8 kg·m-2, 22% female). Subjects were cluster randomized to 3 groups. The cautionary group received a message warning them to protect their backs while deadlifting, the resiliency group received a message encouraging confidence while deadlifting, and the control group received the standardized Army deadlift education only. The outcome measures were MDL weight lifted and perceived spine vulnerability. Significance was set at alpha ≤0.05. There were no between-group differences in weight lifted (p=0.40). Most subjects believed that the spine is vulnerable to injury. Three times as many subjects who received the resiliency education improved their beliefs about the vulnerability of their spines compared with those receiving the cautionary education (p<0.001). This study demonstrated the potential for brief resiliency education to positively influence beliefs about spine vulnerability, whereas cautionary education did not impair performance.

Diagnostic Imaging for Distal Extremity Injuries in Direct Access Physical Therapy: An Observational Study.

Background: Military physical therapists practicing direct-access routinely utilize diagnostic imaging and numerous published case reports demonstrate the ability of physical therapists to diagnose and appropriately disposition patients with foot/ankle and wrist/hand fractures. However, no larger cohort studies have explored the utilization of diagnostic imaging by physical therapists to detect fractures. Hypothesis/Purpose: To describe the utilization of diagnostic imaging in foot/ankle and wrist/hand injuries by physical therapists in a direct-access sports physical therapy clinic. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: The Agfa Impax Client 6 image viewing software (IMPAX) was searched from 2014 to 2018 for patients with diagnostic imaging ordered for foot/ankle and wrist/hand injuries. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) electronic medical record was independently reviewed by the principal and co-investigator physical therapists. Data extracted were demographics and elements from the patient history and physical examination. Results: In foot/ankle injuries, physical therapists diagnosed a fracture in 16% of the 177 cases and waited for an average of 3.9 days and 1.3 visits before ordering imaging. In wrist/hand injuries, physical therapists diagnosed a fracture in 24% of the 178 cases and waited for an average of 3.7 days and 1.2 visits before ordering imaging. The time to definitive care from the initial physical therapy evaluation was significantly different (p = 0.04) for foot/ankle fractures (0.6 days) compared to wrist/hand fractures (5.0 days). The Ottawa Ankle Rules demonstrated a negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.11 (0.02, 0.72) and a positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 1.99 (1.62, 2.44) for the diagnosis of foot/ankle fracture. Conclusions: Physical therapists utilizing diagnostic imaging in a direct-access sports physical therapy clinic diagnosed fractures in similar proportions for foot/ankle and wrist/hand injuries and quickly dispositioned patients to definitive care for those fractures. The diagnostic accuracy of the Ottawa Ankle Rules was similar to previously reported values. Level of Evidence: Level 3.

The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy on Shoulder Function Following Shoulder Stabilization Surgery: A Case Series.

Background: Traumatic shoulder instability is a common injury in athletes and military personnel. Surgical stabilization reduces recurrence, but athletes often return to sport before recovering upper extremity rotational strength and sport-specific abilities. Blood flow restriction (BFR) may stimulate muscle growth without the need for heavy resistance training post-surgically. Hypothesis/Purpose: To observe changes in shoulder strength, self-reported function, upper extremity performance, and range of motion (ROM) in military cadets recovering from shoulder stabilization surgery who completed a standard rehabilitation program with six weeks of BFR training. Study Design: Prospective case series. Methods: Military cadets who underwent shoulder stabilization surgery completed six weeks of upper extremity BFR training, beginning post-op week six. Primary outcomes were shoulder isometric strength and patient-reported function assessed at 6-weeks, 12-weeks, and 6-months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included shoulder ROM assessed at each timepoint and the Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test (CKCUEST), the Upper Extremity Y-Balance Test (UQYBT), and the Unilateral Seated Shotput Test (USPT) assessed at the six-month follow-up. Results: Twenty cadets performed an average 10.9 BFR training sessions over six weeks. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful increases in surgical extremity external rotation strength (p < 0.001; mean difference, .049; 95% CI: .021, .077), abduction strength (p < 0.001; mean difference, .079; 95% CI: .050, .108), and internal rotation strength (p < 0.001; mean difference, .060; CI: .028, .093) occurred from six to 12 weeks postoperatively. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements were reported on the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (p < 0.001; mean difference, 17.7; CI: 9.4, 25.9) and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (p < 0.001; mean difference, -31.1; CI: -44.2, -18.0) from six to 12 weeks postoperatively. Additionally, over 70 percent of participants met reference values on two to three performance tests at 6-months. Conclusion: While the degree of improvement attributable to the addition of BFR is unknown, the clinically meaningful improvements in shoulder strength, self-reported function, and upper extremity performance warrant further exploration of BFR during upper extremity rehabilitation. Level of Evidence: 4, Case Series.

Shoulder Pain of Spinal Source in the Military: A Case Series.

Musculoskeletal injury (MSI) presents the greatest threat to military mission readiness. Atraumatic shoulder pain is a common military MSI that often results in persistent functional limitations. Shoulder orthopedic evaluation presents many diagnostic challenges, due in part to the possibility of a spinal source of symptoms. This case series outlines the use of mechanical diagnosis and therapy to screen the cervical and thoracic spine in active duty (AD) service members (SMs) with a chief complaint of unchanging or worsening shoulder pain. All three SMs previously received shoulder-specific diagnoses from experienced clinicians, yet repeated movements revealed a possible spinal nociceptive driver that guided targeted intervention. Treatment directed only at the cervical spine resulted in a clinically important improvement within an average of 10 days from the initial evaluation, return to duty (RTD) within an average of 32 days, and continued resolution at 3 months. SMs can independently complete the screening process with guidance from healthcare providers, ultimately shaping the treatment strategy and possibly facilitating self-management of future recurrence. This case series demonstrates that identification of shoulder pain of spinal source in the military population may be an important step in facilitating timely RTD. These cases also highlight the use of a standardized, systematic method to screen the cervical and thoracic spine that concurrently reveals the indicated treatment. Further research to determine the prevalence of shoulder pain of spinal source in the AD population and its impact on RTD rates has the potential to reduce the substantial burden of MSI in the military.

Gait Retraining Improves Running Impact Loading and Function in Previously Injured U.S. Military Cadets: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Running-related musculoskeletal injury (RRI) among U.S. military service members continues to negatively impact force readiness. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of RRI interventions, such as gait retraining, in military populations. Gait retraining has demonstrated effectiveness in altering running biomechanics and reducing running load. The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the clinical effect of a gait retraining intervention on a military cadet population recovering from a lower-extremity RRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study design is a pilot study. Before study initiation, institutional approval was granted by the Keller Army Community Hospital Office of Human Research Protections. Nine rearfoot strike (RFS) runners recovering from a lower-extremity RRI at the U.S. Military Academy were prospectively enrolled and completed a gait retraining intervention. Participants followed-up with their assigned medical provider 6 times over 10 weeks for a clinical evaluation and running gait retraining. Gait retraining was provided utilizing verbal, visual, and audio feedback to facilitate a change in running foot strike pattern from RFS to non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) and increase preferred running step rate. At pre-intervention and post-intervention running ground reaction forces (GRF) [average vertical loading rate (AVLR), peak vertical GRF], kinematic (foot strike pattern) and temporospatial (step rate, contact time) data were collected. Participants self-reported their level of function via the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, and total weekly running minutes. Paired samples t-tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare pre- and post-intervention measures of interest. Values of P < .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Nine patients completed the 10-week intervention (age, 20.3 ± 2.2 years; height, 170.7 ± 13.8 cm; mass, 71.7 ± 14.9 kg; duration of injury symptoms, 192.4 ± 345.5 days; running speed, 2.8 ± 0.38 m/s). All nine runners (100%) transitioned from RFS to NRFS. Left AVLR significantly decreased from 60.3 ± 17.0 bodyweight per second (BW/s) before intervention to 25.9 ± 9.1 BW/s after intervention (P = 0.008; effect size (d) = 2.5). Right AVLR significantly decreased from 60.5 ± 15.7 BW/s to 32.3 ± 12.5 BW/s (P < .001; d = 2.0). Similarly, step rate increased from 169.9 ± 10.0 steps per minute (steps/min) before intervention to 180.5 ± 6.5 steps/min following intervention (P = .005; d = 1.3). Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores improved significantly from 75 ± 23 to 100 ± 8 (P = .008; d = 1.5) and Patient-Specific Functional Scale values significantly improved from 6 ± 2.3 to 9.5 ± 1.6 (P = .007; d = 1.8) after intervention. Peak vertical GRF (left, P = .127, d = 0.42; right, P = .052, d = 0.53), contact time (left, P = 0.127, d = 0.42; right, P = 0.052, d = 0.53), and total weekly continuous running minutes (P = 0.095, d = 0.80) remained unchanged at post-intervention. All 9 patients remained injury free upon a 6-month medical record review. CONCLUSIONS: In 9 military service members with a RRI, a 10-week NRFS gait retraining intervention was effective in improving running mechanics and measures of function. Patients remained injury-free 6 months following enrollment. The outcomes of this pilot study suggest that individuals recovering from certain lower-extremity RRIs may benefit from transitioning to an NRFS running pattern.

IS STEP RATE ASSOCIATED WITH RUNNING INJURY INCIDENCE? AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY WITH 9- MONTH FOLLOW UP.

BACKGROUND: Several strategies have been proposed to reduce loading of the lower extremity while running including step rate manipulation. It is unclear however, whether step rate influences the incidence of lower extremity injuries. PURPOSE: To examine the association between step rate and risk of injury in an adult recreational runner population. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Cohort. METHODS: A total of 381 runners were prospectively followed for an average of nine months. Two-dimensional video was used to assess preferred step rate during a timed two-mile run or a 5K race. Injury surveillance to record sub-clinical injuries (those for which medical treatment was not sought) was performed via semi-monthly email surveys over the course of one year. Injury surveillance for clinical injuries (those for which medical treatment was sought) was performed via a full medical record review using the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application. Clinical, sub-clinical and combined clinical and sub-clinical injury incidence were assessed in separate analyses. Injury was operationally defined as seven or more days of reduced activity due to pain. To assess the predictive validity of running step rate, the step rate of participants who did not develop a musculoskeletal injury during the observation period were compared with the running step rate of participants who did develop an injury during the observation period. RESULTS: Out of 381 runners, 16 sustained a clinical overuse injury for which medical treatment was sought. Mean step rate for clinically un-injured runners was 172 steps/min and mean step rate for clinically injured runners was 173 steps/min which was not statistically significantly different (p = 0.77.) Out of 381 runners, 95 completed all four sub-clinical injury surveys (95/381 = 25%). Out of those 95 runners, 19 sustained a clinical (n=4) or sub-clinical injury (n=15). The step rate of sub-clinically injured and non-injured runners in this sub-sample was also not statistically significantly different (p = 0.08), with a mean of 174 steps/min for the uninjured group and a mean step rate of 170 steps/min for those in the sub-clinical injured group. CONCLUSION: Preferred step rate was not associated with lower extremity injury rates in this sample of DoD runners. Additional research is needed to justify preferred step rate manipulation as a means to reduce lower extremity injury risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Effects of sit-up training versus core stabilization exercises on sit-up performance.

PURPOSE: Core stabilization exercises target abdominal and trunk muscles without the excessive loading that occurs during sit-ups. However, core stabilization exercise programs (CSEP) have not been widely adopted in the US Army partially because of the perceived deleterious impact they would have on performance during the Army Physical Fitness Test. The purpose was to determine whether performing CSEP in lieu of sit-ups during unit physical training would have detrimental effects on sit-up performance and passing rates on the fitness test. METHODS: Soldiers (N = 2616) between 18 and 35 yr of age were randomized to receive a traditional exercise program (TEP) with sit-ups or CSEP. Subjects with a previous history of low back pain or other injury precluding participation in training were excluded. The training programs were completed four times per week for 12 wk. Performance was assessed at baseline and after 12 wk. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in sit-up performance and overall fitness scores over time (P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in overall fitness scores (P = 0.142) or sit-up performance (P = 0.543). However, CSEP resulted in a significant improvement in sit-up passing rates by 5.6% compared with 3.9% for the TEP group (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: CSEP did not have a detrimental impact on sit-up performance or overall fitness scores or pass rates. There was a small but significantly greater increase in sit-up pass rate in the CSEP (5.6%) versus the TEP group (3.9%). Incorporating CSEP into Army physical training does not increase the risk of suboptimal performance on the Army's fitness test and may offer a small benefit for improving sit-up performance.