BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Muscular reflex responses of the lower extremities to sudden gait disturbances are related to postural stability and injury risk. Chronic ankle instability (CAI) has shown to affect activities related to the distal leg muscles while walking. Its effects on proximal muscle activities of the leg, both for the injured- (IN) and uninjured-side (NON), remain unclear. Therefore, the aim was to compare the difference of the motor control strategy in ipsilateral and contralateral proximal joints while unperturbed walking and perturbed walking between individuals with CAI and matched controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 13 participants with unilateral CAI and 13 controls (CON) walked on a split-belt treadmill with and without random left- and right-sided perturbations. EMG amplitudes of muscles at lower extremities were analyzed 200 ms after perturbations, 200 ms before, and 100 ms after (Post100) heel contact while walking. Onset latencies were analyzed at heel contacts and after perturbations. Statistical significance was set at alpha≤0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were applied to determine group differences. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to evaluate the extent of differences. RESULTS: Participants with CAI showed increased EMG amplitudes for NON-rectus abdominus at Post100 and shorter latencies for IN-gluteus maximus after heel contact compared to CON (p<0.05). Overall, leg muscles (rectus femoris, biceps femoris, and gluteus medius) activated earlier and less bilaterally (d = 0.30-0.88) and trunk muscles (bilateral rectus abdominus and NON-erector spinae) activated earlier and more for the CAI group than CON group (d = 0.33-1.09). CONCLUSION: Unilateral CAI alters the pattern of the motor control strategy around proximal joints bilaterally. Neuromuscular training for the muscles, which alters motor control strategy because of CAI, could be taken into consideration when planning rehabilitation for CAI.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Muscular reflex responses of the lower extremities to sudden gait disturbances are related to postural stability and injury risk. Chronic ankle instability (CAI) has shown to affect activities related to the distal leg muscles while walking. Its effects on proximal muscle activities of the leg, both for the injured- (IN) and uninjured-side (NON), remain unclear. Therefore, the aim was to compare the difference of the motor control strategy in ipsilateral and contralateral proximal joints while unperturbed walking and perturbed walking between individuals with CAI and matched controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 13 participants with unilateral CAI and 13 controls (CON) walked on a split-belt treadmill with and without random left- and right-sided perturbations. EMG amplitudes of muscles at lower extremities were analyzed 200 ms after perturbations, 200 ms before, and 100 ms after (Post100) heel contact while walking. Onset latencies were analyzed at heel contacts and after perturbations. Statistical significance was set at alpha≤0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were applied to determine group differences. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to evaluate the extent of differences. RESULTS:Participants with CAI showed increased EMG amplitudes for NON-rectus abdominus at Post100 and shorter latencies for IN-gluteus maximus after heel contact compared to CON (p<0.05). Overall, leg muscles (rectus femoris, biceps femoris, and gluteus medius) activated earlier and less bilaterally (d = 0.30-0.88) and trunk muscles (bilateral rectus abdominus and NON-erector spinae) activated earlier and more for the CAI group than CON group (d = 0.33-1.09). CONCLUSION: Unilateral CAI alters the pattern of the motor control strategy around proximal joints bilaterally. Neuromuscular training for the muscles, which alters motor control strategy because of CAI, could be taken into consideration when planning rehabilitation for CAI.
Authors: Claire E Hiller; Kathryn M Refshauge; Anita C Bundy; Rob D Herbert; Sharon L Kilbreath Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Robroy L Martin; James J Irrgang; Ray G Burdett; Stephen F Conti; Jessie M Van Swearingen Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Cailbhe Doherty; Chris Bleakley; Jay Hertel; Brian Caulfield; John Ryan; Eamonn Delahunt Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 6.202