Simon Spencer1, Alex Wolf1,2, Alison Rushton3. 1. The English Institute of Sport, The Manchester Institute of Health and Performance, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, Charing Cross Hospital, United Kingdom. 3. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Identification of strategies to prevent spinal injury, optimize rehabilitation, and enhance performance is a priority for practitioners. Different exercises produce different effects on neuromuscular performance. Clarity of the purpose of a prescribed exercise is central to a successful outcome. Spinal exercises need to be classified according to the objective of the exercise and planned physical outcome. OBJECTIVE: To define the modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance, clarify the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions, and classify spinal exercises according to the objective of the exercise and intended physical outcomes to inform training and rehabilitation. DESIGN: Qualitative study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a qualitative consensus method of 4 iterative phases. An exploratory panel carried out an extended review of the English-language literature using CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed to identify key themes and subthemes to inform the definitions of exercise categories, physical abilities, and physical outcomes. An expert project group reviewed panel findings. A draft classification was discussed with physiotherapists (n = 49) and international experts. Lead physiotherapy and strength and conditioning teams (n = 17) reviewed a revised classification. Consensus was defined as unanimous agreement. RESULTS: After the literature review and subsequent analysis, we defined spinal abilities in 4 categories: mobility, motor control, work capacity, and strength. Exercises were subclassified by functionality as nonfunctional or functional and by spinal displacement as either static (neutral spinal posture with no segmental displacement) or dynamic (dynamic segmental movement). The proposed terminology and classification support commonality of language for practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The spinal-exercise classification will support clinical reasoning through a framework of spinal-exercise objectives that clearly define the nature of the exercise prescription required to deliver intended physical outcomes.
CONTEXT: Identification of strategies to prevent spinal injury, optimize rehabilitation, and enhance performance is a priority for practitioners. Different exercises produce different effects on neuromuscular performance. Clarity of the purpose of a prescribed exercise is central to a successful outcome. Spinal exercises need to be classified according to the objective of the exercise and planned physical outcome. OBJECTIVE: To define the modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance, clarify the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions, and classify spinal exercises according to the objective of the exercise and intended physical outcomes to inform training and rehabilitation. DESIGN: Qualitative study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a qualitative consensus method of 4 iterative phases. An exploratory panel carried out an extended review of the English-language literature using CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed to identify key themes and subthemes to inform the definitions of exercise categories, physical abilities, and physical outcomes. An expert project group reviewed panel findings. A draft classification was discussed with physiotherapists (n = 49) and international experts. Lead physiotherapy and strength and conditioning teams (n = 17) reviewed a revised classification. Consensus was defined as unanimous agreement. RESULTS: After the literature review and subsequent analysis, we defined spinal abilities in 4 categories: mobility, motor control, work capacity, and strength. Exercises were subclassified by functionality as nonfunctional or functional and by spinal displacement as either static (neutral spinal posture with no segmental displacement) or dynamic (dynamic segmental movement). The proposed terminology and classification support commonality of language for practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The spinal-exercise classification will support clinical reasoning through a framework of spinal-exercise objectives that clearly define the nature of the exercise prescription required to deliver intended physical outcomes.
Authors: Toivo Jürimäe; Jose A Perez-Turpin; Joan M Cortell-Tormo; Ivan J Chinchilla-Mira; Roberto Cejuela-Anta; Jarek Mäestu; Priit Purge; Jaak Jürimäe Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Deborah Gubler; Anne F Mannion; Peter Schenk; Mark Gorelick; Daniel Helbling; Hans Gerber; Valeriu Toma; Haiko Sprott Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Anne Keller; Jens I Brox; Ragnhild Gunderson; Inger Holm; Astrid Friis; Olav Reikerås Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468