There is a difference in functional ankle stability between different types of footwear in male athletes: A cross-sectional study.

CONTEXT: Lateral ankle sprains (LAS) are among the most common injuries in sports, with a poor long - term prognosis due to high chronicity and recurrence rates. Chronic ankle instability (CAI) results up to 40% of people that endured a first - time LAS. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare ankle stability between groups characterised by the use of different types of footwear during their sport activities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Firm training surface, local sport clubs. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty - one male subjects were recruited, distributed in four groups based on the type of footwear they use during their sport activities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All subjects performed four clinical ankle stability tests, and completed the Dutch version of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) and Profile of Mood States (POMS). All clinical ankle stability tests were performed barefoot. RESULTS: Subjects performing their sport activities barefoot scored better than subjects performing their sport with shoes at the multiple hop test (p=.002 to .047) and executed the figure-of-8 hop test significantly faster than subjects with submalleolar ankle support (AS) (p=.019). Subjects with submalleolar AS and studs showed significantly better results than subjects with supramalleolar AS on the CAIT- score (p=.024, p=.030) and the side- hop test (p=.050, p=.045). They also scored significantly better than subjects with submalleolar AS for the side - hop test (p=.032), foot - lift test (p=.019) and figure-of 8 hop test (p=.011). CONCLUSION: Barefoot sports performing subjects appear to have better ankle stability compared to subjects performing their sports with shoe support. Subjects performing sports with high AS appear to have worst ankle stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Cross-sectional study.

Inter- and intrarater reliability of two proprioception tests using clinical applicable measurement tools in subjects with and without knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic value of proprioceptive-based exercises in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) management warrants investigation of proprioceptive testing methods easily accessible in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To estimate inter- and intrarater reliability of the knee joint position sense (KJPS) test and knee force sense (KFS) test in subjects with and without KOA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional test-retest design. METHOD: Two blinded raters performed independently repeated measures of the KJPS and KFS test, using an analogue inclinometer and handheld dynamometer, respectively, in eight KOA patients (12 symptomatic knees) and 26 healthy controls (52 asymptomatic knees). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; model 2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change with 95% confidence bounds (MDC95) were calculated. RESULTS: For KJPS, results showed good to excellent test-retest agreement (ICCs 0.70-0.95 in KOA patients; ICCs 0.65-0.85 in healthy controls). A 2° measurement error (SEM 1°) was reported when measuring KJPS in multiple test positions and calculating mean repositioning error. Testing KOA patients pre and post therapy a repositioning error larger than 4° (MDC95) is needed to consider true change. Measuring KFS using handheld dynamometry showed poor to fair interrater and poor to excellent intrarater reliability in subjects with and without KOA. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring KJPS in multiple test positions using an analogue inclinometer and calculating mean repositioning error is reliable and can be used in clinical practice. We do not recommend the use of the KFS test to clinicians. Further research is required to establish diagnostic accuracy and validity of our KJPS test in larger knee pain populations.