Enora Le Flao1, Matt Brughelli2, Patria A Hume2,3, Doug King2,4. 1. Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. enora.leflao@aut.ac.nz. 2. Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. 3. National Institute of Stroke and Applied Neuroscience (NISAN), Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Head/neck dynamic response to perturbation has been proposed as a risk factor for sports-related concussion. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to compare methodologies utilised to assess head/neck dynamic response to perturbation, report on magnitude, validity and reliability of the response, and to describe modifying factors. METHODS: A systematic search of databases resulted in 19 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Perturbation methods for head/neck dynamic response included load dropping, quick release and direct impact. Magnitudes of perturbation energy varied from 0.1 to 11.8 J. Head/neck response was reported as neck muscle latency (18.6-88.0 ms), neck stiffness (147.2-721.9 N/rad, 14-1145.3 Nm/rad) and head acceleration (0.2-3.8g). Reliability was only reported in two studies. Modifying factors for head/neck response included younger and older participants presenting increased responses, females showing better muscular reactivity but similar or increased head kinematics compared with males, and bracing for impact limiting muscular activity and head kinematics. DISCUSSION: Substantial differences in experimental and reporting methodologies limited comparison of results. Methodological factors such as impact magnitude should be considered in future research. CONCLUSION: Each methodology provides valuable information but their validity for anticipated and unanticipated head impacts measured in vivo needs to be addressed. Reports on head/neck response should include measurement of transmitted force, neck muscle latency, head linear and rotational accelerations, and neck stiffness. Modifying factors of anticipation, participants' age, sex, and sport are to be considered for head/neck dynamic response. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051057 (last updated on 27 February 2017).
BACKGROUND: Head/neck dynamic response to perturbation has been proposed as a risk factor for sports-related concussion. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to compare methodologies utilised to assess head/neck dynamic response to perturbation, report on magnitude, validity and reliability of the response, and to describe modifying factors. METHODS: A systematic search of databases resulted in 19 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Perturbation methods for head/neck dynamic response included load dropping, quick release and direct impact. Magnitudes of perturbation energy varied from 0.1 to 11.8 J. Head/neck response was reported as neck muscle latency (18.6-88.0 ms), neck stiffness (147.2-721.9 N/rad, 14-1145.3 Nm/rad) and head acceleration (0.2-3.8g). Reliability was only reported in two studies. Modifying factors for head/neck response included younger and older participants presenting increased responses, females showing better muscular reactivity but similar or increased head kinematics compared with males, and bracing for impact limiting muscular activity and head kinematics. DISCUSSION: Substantial differences in experimental and reporting methodologies limited comparison of results. Methodological factors such as impact magnitude should be considered in future research. CONCLUSION: Each methodology provides valuable information but their validity for anticipated and unanticipated head impacts measured in vivo needs to be addressed. Reports on head/neck response should include measurement of transmitted force, neck muscle latency, head linear and rotational accelerations, and neck stiffness. Modifying factors of anticipation, participants' age, sex, and sport are to be considered for head/neck dynamic response. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051057 (last updated on 27 February 2017).
Authors: Carolyn A Emery; Jian Kang; Ian Shrier; Claude Goulet; Brent E Hagel; Brian W Benson; Alberto Nettel-Aguirre; Jenelle R McAllister; Gavin M Hamilton; Willem H Meeuwisse Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul McCrory; Willem Meeuwisse; Jiří Dvořák; Mark Aubry; Julian Bailes; Steven Broglio; Robert C Cantu; David Cassidy; Ruben J Echemendia; Rudy J Castellani; Gavin A Davis; Richard Ellenbogen; Carolyn Emery; Lars Engebretsen; Nina Feddermann-Demont; Christopher C Giza; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stanley Herring; Grant L Iverson; Karen M Johnston; James Kissick; Jeffrey Kutcher; John J Leddy; David Maddocks; Michael Makdissi; Geoff T Manley; Michael McCrea; William P Meehan; Shinji Nagahiro; Jon Patricios; Margot Putukian; Kathryn J Schneider; Allen Sills; Charles H Tator; Michael Turner; Pieter E Vos Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Lyndia C Wu; Kaveh Laksari; Calvin Kuo; Jason F Luck; Svein Kleiven; Cameron R 'Dale' Bass; David B Camarillo Journal: J Biomech Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Jeffrey A Rihn; David T Anderson; Kathleen Lamb; Peter F Deluca; Ahmed Bata; Paul A Marchetto; Nuno Neves; Alexander R Vaccaro Journal: Sports Med Date: 2009 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Takashi Nagai; Nathan D Schilaty; David A Krause; Eric M Crowley; Timothy E Hewett Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Nicholas J Cooney; Paul Sowman; Nathan Schilaty; Nathaniel Bates; Timothy E Hewett; Tim L A Doyle Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Mohammad Homayounpour; Nicholas G Gomez; Anita N Vasavada; Andrew S Merryweather Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 3.934