| Literature DB >> 35346336 |
Anna Zwierzchowska1, Eliza Gawel2, Diana Celebanska1, Barbara Rosolek1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the dynamic development of professional Paralympic sport, the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and structural and/or functional disturbances in Para athletes constantly increases. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of internal compensatory mechanisms on selected aspects of body structure and function in elite sitting volleyball players.Entities:
Keywords: BAI; LBP; Paralympic volleyball; Pelvic inclination; Spine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35346336 PMCID: PMC8962485 DOI: 10.1186/s13102-022-00439-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil ISSN: 2052-1847
Detailed characteristics of the study participants
| Participants’ characteristics (n = 18; nF = 6, nM = 12) | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 36.0 ± 6 |
| Body mass (kg) | 76.6 ± 16.1 |
| Body height* (m) | 179.3 ± 0.1* |
| Hip circumference (cm) | 102.7 ± 10.4 |
| Trunk fat mass (%) | 29.07 ± 9.6 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 89.4 ± 11.9 |
| BMI in participants with lower limb deficiency (n = 14) | 23.4 ± 5.1 |
| BMI (n = 18) | 25.5 ± 3.4 |
| BAI* (%) | 24.9 ± 4.1 |
| Duration of paralympic sport-specific training (years) | 8.9 ± 7.9 |
| Duration of disability (years) | 21.9 ± 10.1 |
n—total number of participants; nF—number of females; nM—number of males; *excluded bilateral amputation (n = 1)
SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index, BAI body adiposity index
Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of physiological spinal curvatures in the sagittal plane in three positions (sagittal standing, sagittal standing flexion, sagittal standing extension) in elite sitting volleyball players
| Spinal curvatures measurements—sagittal plane | Mean ± SD (°) | Values of the spinal deviations—sagittal plane | Number and percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| kTH-sagittal standing | 36.9 ± 15.8 | Thoracic hyperkyphosis | 7 (39%) |
| PV of kTH | 38.3 ± 16.6 | ||
| Difference between kTH and PV | 2.9 ± 3.9 | ||
| kTH-sagittal standing flexion | 60.4 ± 13.9 | Thoracic hypokyphosis | 7 (39%) |
| PV of kTH | 59.6 ± 15.6 | ||
| Difference between kTH and PV | 3.8 ± 5.1 | ||
| kTH-sagittal standing extension | 32.6 ± 15.5 | Norm | 4 (22%) |
| PV of kTH | 31.5 ± 16.5 | ||
| Difference between kTH and PV | 4.0 ± 4.7 | ||
| kLL-sagittal standing | 15.5 ± 10.6 | Lumbar hyperlordosis | 1 (6%) |
| PV of kLL | 17.6 ± 13.0 | ||
| Difference between kLL and PV | 3.1 ± 4.0 | ||
| kLL -sagittal standing flexion | 22.3 ± 12.7 | Lumbar hypolordosis | 15 (83%) |
| PV of kLL | 22.9 ± 16.0 | ||
| Difference between kLL and PV | 3.7 ± 5.1 | ||
| kLL -sagittal standing extension | 24.6 ± 14.1 | Norm | 2 (11%) |
| PV of kLL | 25.3 ± 14.5 | ||
| Difference between kLL and PV | 3.9 ± 4.6 |
kTH thoracic kyphosis angle, PV physiological values, kLL lumbar lordosis angle, SD standard deviation
The prevalence (%) and locations of musculoskeletal pain based on NMQ—7
| Body parts (NMQ-7) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|
| Neck | 50 |
| Shoulders | 22 |
| Upper back | 44 |
| Elbows | 17 |
| Wrists | 22 |
| Low back | 50 |
| Hips/ties | 22 |
| Kneesa | 28 |
| Ankles/feeta | 22 |
aOne participant did not answer because of bilateral amputation above the knees
Variability of selected elements of the body posture in the sagittal plane in three positions (sagittal standing, sagittal standing flexion, sagittal standing extension)
| The level of significance of the analyzed variable between sagittal standing and sagittal standing flexion | Sagittal standing flexion | Sagittal standing | Sagittal standing extension | The level of significance of the analyzed variable between sagittal standing and sagittal standing extension |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.002 | 57.9 (13.7) | 43.3 (17.4) | 35.5 (9.9) | 0.001 |
| – | 25.4 (11.4) | 22.1 (12.2) | 34.8 (12.3) | 0.0002 |
| 0.0002 | 66.9 (20.9) | 8.3 (3.8) | − 6.7 (17.4) | 0.003 |
| 0.02 | 603.6 (122.7) | 561.9 (85.5) | 526.3 (98.1) | 0.004 |
kLL lumbar lordosis angle, kTH thoracic kyphosis angle
Qualities and indicators of the body build and posture and the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain (NMQ-7)—Spearman’s rank-order correlation
| NMQ-7 | R-value | Somatic parameters (SP) | R-value | Characteristics of the spine (ChS) | R-value | NMQ-7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| × | × | BM (kg) | 0.7** | SL | × | × |
| Shoulders | 0.5* | BH (cm) | 0.9** | SL | 0.6* | Shoulders |
| × | SLe | 0.5* | ||||
| × | × | BAI (%) | − 0.6** | SL | × | × |
| × | × | WC (cm) | 0.6** | SL | × | × |
| × | × | HC (cm) | 0.5** | kTH in SSf | × | × |
| Elbows | 0.6** | FT (%) | − 0.6* | PI | × | × |
| × | × | × | × | PIe | 0.5* | Shoulders |
| 0.6** | LBP | |||||
| × | × | × | × | Variability of kTH in SS versus SSe | − 0.5* | Wrists |
| − 0.5* | Knees | |||||
| × | × | × | × | kTH in SSe | 0.5* | Neck |
| × | × | × | × | kLL in SSf | − 0.5* | Sum of the NMQ-7 |
SP somatic parameters, FT trunk fat mass, ChS characteristics of the spine, SL spine length, SLe spine length in sagittal standing extension, kTh the angle of thoracic kyphosis, SSf sagittal standing flexion, SS sagittal standing, SSe sagittal standing extension, PI pelvic inclination, PIe pelvic inclination extension, kLL the angle of lumbar lordosis, LBP low back pain