Shashank Ghai1, Matthew Driller2, Ishan Ghai3. 1. The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Electronic address: shashank.ghai@sportwiss.uni-hannover.de. 2. The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. 3. School of Engineering & Life Sciences, Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current review and meta-analysis systematically investigated the effect of joint stabilizers on proprioception, postural stability, and neurological activity. METHODS: Systematic identification of published literature was performed on online databases; Scopus, PEDro, SportDiscus, and EMBASE, followed by a critical PEDro methodological quality appraisal. Data from the studies were extracted and summarized in a tabular format. RESULTS: Of 2954 records, 50 studies, involving 1443 participants met our inclusion criteria. In the included studies, 60% of studies reported significant enhancements (p < 0.05), 19% of studies reported enhancements (p > 0.05) and 21% of studies reported no effects of joint stabilizers on proprioception and/or postural stability. Meta-analysis of pooled studies demonstrated beneficial effects of joint stabilizers on the knee (95% CI: 0.35°-0.61°) and ankle (at 10: 0.1°-0.65°) joint proprioception, and negligible effects on postural stability (-0.28°-0.19°). CONCLUSION: The pooled evidence suggests that application of joint stabilizers enhances joint proprioception and stability by not merely altering the mechanical stability of the underlying musculoskeletal structures but by also causing subtle changes in cerebral haemodynamics and musculoskeletal activation. These findings support clinical implications of joint stabilizers as a prophylactic and rehabilitation measure in modern sports and rehabilitation settings.
OBJECTIVE: The current review and meta-analysis systematically investigated the effect of joint stabilizers on proprioception, postural stability, and neurological activity. METHODS: Systematic identification of published literature was performed on online databases; Scopus, PEDro, SportDiscus, and EMBASE, followed by a critical PEDro methodological quality appraisal. Data from the studies were extracted and summarized in a tabular format. RESULTS: Of 2954 records, 50 studies, involving 1443 participants met our inclusion criteria. In the included studies, 60% of studies reported significant enhancements (p < 0.05), 19% of studies reported enhancements (p > 0.05) and 21% of studies reported no effects of joint stabilizers on proprioception and/or postural stability. Meta-analysis of pooled studies demonstrated beneficial effects of joint stabilizers on the knee (95% CI: 0.35°-0.61°) and ankle (at 10: 0.1°-0.65°) joint proprioception, and negligible effects on postural stability (-0.28°-0.19°). CONCLUSION: The pooled evidence suggests that application of joint stabilizers enhances joint proprioception and stability by not merely altering the mechanical stability of the underlying musculoskeletal structures but by also causing subtle changes in cerebral haemodynamics and musculoskeletal activation. These findings support clinical implications of joint stabilizers as a prophylactic and rehabilitation measure in modern sports and rehabilitation settings.
Authors: Mark E Cinque; Blake M Bodendorfer; Henry T Shu; Nicholas A Arnold; Aaron D Gray; Benjamin J Summerhays; Trent M Guess; Seth L Sherman Journal: J Orthop Date: 2020-07-06