I’ve recently made the move from the clinical environment into academia (despite the occasional clinical fix to satisfy my itchy feet). Part of this move was to set up some new MSc modules at the University of Brighton. The way I wanted this to run was based on me facilitating discussion rather than standing up and banging on about what I would do in different situations – no-one is going to enroll for that! But for this to work, it relies on people feeling comfortable talking about their own practice, something I’ve been surprised by the reluctance in doing so. People seem very uncomfortable disclosing what they do and how they do it.
A while back I read a blog re-tweeted by IFL Sciences (@IFLScience) about how a disagreement is different to an argument. Now rather than me eloquently blurring these definitions and confusing you more, why not allow the genius of Monty Python to explain.. please watch this brief 3 min video (here).
The original clip goes on a bit longer and in true python fashion, gets stupider. But this clip can translate into our practice. It is perfectly reasonable and healthy to argue. We are not going to learn from each other by accepting that the other guy sat in the room, who has more experience than me, treated his ankle sprain using those exercises, so that’s what I should do.
No! Why? Why those exercises for that individual?
There are many roads to Derby:
Completely random destination (just so happened to be one of the cities I can spell). But this image sums up what I think about clinical reasoning. It also demonstrates what I encourage our students, more so post-grad students with clinical experience, to accept when questioned about their practice.
Most of us have at some point ignored the sat-nav, right? Intentionally or not. But it simply re-routes and will eventually lead you to your destination. The same with rehab & treatment. We may all have the same goal & end point, but how we get there is different. The route we chose depends on many factors.
Letting the sat-nav make the decision:
For a relatively less experienced clinician, the situation may be this:
“I’ve only ever been to Derby once, but when I did go, that route worked pretty well for me, so I’m going for it again. Why risk otherwise?”
This is the equivalent of following a protocol or being led by a more experienced clinician. Perfectly legitimate but after a time the question will become, “have you tried other ways?” Yes that’s a pretty direct route, but sometimes it’s not about the speed you get there. An example I can think of was a player with a partial ACL injury that occurred just before christmas. We made the decision to prolong his rehab until the pre-season, despite realistically being able to get him fit for the last 2 games of the season. But there was no advantage to that, instead we were able to focus more on smaller details, enhance his “robustness” and ultimately, we had no re-injuries with him the following season. We decided to take the more scenic route and enjoy the drive. Sometimes, it shouldnt be other people asking why you have done something, but yourself. (Do this internally, arguing with yourself in a cubicle at work could have very different consequences to the intended career development).
Thanks Sat-Nav, but no thanks:
This option comes after you have driven to & from Derby a few times. Or if you insist on keeping it relevant to practice, an exposure to a certain injury with a set population. Experience may tell you that the route suggested by Sat-Nav has an average-speed check for 25 miles, so you may choose one of the alternate routes. This is the same as saying, “I wanted to use squats for his knee rehab, but it aggravates his hip so instead I used dead-lifts.” Someone has asked you why you went that route, the answer is reasoned and justified and neither party needs to be offended. But you have argued your point.
An argument is different to a disagreement:
An example of this not being constructive may be:
“I prefer this route because the services have Costa and not Starbucks. I hate Starbucks.” This opinion, without any justification may turn into a disagreement. “I don’t ever use a wobble cushion in my rehab, just don’t believe in them.” A genuine statement that I heard years back when I was studying myself. There was no rationale, every counter argument was met with “Nope. Dont buy it.”
An argument doesn’t have to be raised voices or expletives (although people who swear more are shown to be more trustworthy and honest. If you belive that bullshit). It can be someone wanting to develop their own thinking and reasoning, therefore probing your experience – “But WHY did you chose that? (subtext = help me learn!)”
Equally it can be someone pushing you to develop. “You use that exercise for all of your patients.. why?”
I’ve started to do a little presentation at the start of our modules to explain this thinking, I will be asking “why?” A lot, but I don’t want people retreating or getting defensive. Asking Why is not a sign that I disagree with you. arguing is not a sign that I disagree with you. If you feel comfortable with those concepts, you have either done an MSc already, or you are ready to do one! For those not on twitter, firstly – how are you reading this blog? Secondly, get on there. Prime examples of arguments about clinical practice everyday and very quickly, normal jovial exchanges are resumed (I would highly commend Tom Goom (@tomgoom) for this attribute). But also, it is a good place to observe some people misunderstanding an argument and presuming it is a disagreement (I wont name people, don’t want to get in a disagreement).
Following our last blog on concussion, I started talking to Kate Moores via twitter (@KLM390) who had some very intersting experiences and ways of managing concussion. So, I am very pleased to introduce Kate as a guest blogger on the topic of Concussion assessment & management – we have decided to split Kates blog into 2 more manageable parts rather than one super-blog (My contribution may have been to add the occassional picture to the blog).
The original blog (here) discussed generalized pitchside assessment of a concussion, irrelevant of age. However Kate has drawn on her knowledge and experience with young rugby players to highlight in particular, the ongoing assessment of young athletes as well as adults and how it differs. Kate raises some very good points throughout but the point that really made me reflect was the consideration over “return to learn.” Looking back at concussions I’ve managed in academy football, I didn’t properly respect the impact that a day at school may have had on symptom severity or neurocognitive recovery. I was mostly interested in “have you been resting from activity?” I think this blog is an excellent resource for medical professionals, but also for teachers, coaches and parents to consider the impact of this hidden injury.
Any player regardless of age should never return to play or training on the same day that they sustain a concussion. So when should they return? The general consensus is that players should be symptom free prior to starting their graded return to play and that youth players should have a 2 week rest period and that youth athletes should have returned to their normal cognitive activities symptom free prior to considering a return to play. It is therefore recommended that cognitive rest is adhered to for 24-48 hours post injury. This means no texting, computer games, loud music and cognitive stress. This can be difficult to get players to adhere to however research has shown that a period of cognitive rest helps to reduce the duration of symptoms.
The concern with any concussion, but increased concern with children returning to play too quickly is the risk of second impact syndrome, with well publicised cases including the tragic death of Ben Robinson a 14 year old rugby player and more recently Rowan Stringer a Canadian rugby player aged 17. Children are at a higher risk of second impact syndrome (McCory et al 2001) and this risk continues for anything up to 2/3 weeks post initial injury. This is part of the reason why an u19 rugby player can not return to play earlier than 23 days post injury unless they are being managed by a medical doctor who is experienced in managing concussions. Below is the concussion management pathway from the WRU.
Under this protocol adult athletes would be able to return within a minimum of 19 days after a concussion whereas u19s would not return before 23 days. Both groups need to be symptom free and have had a 2 week rest period prior to return. For the younger age group it does state that they must have returned to learning however there is no guidance as to how this should be staged. The graded return to play protocol consists of 6 stages which gradually increase the level of activity. Stage 2 starts with light aerobic exercise, stage 3 includes light sport specific drills, stage 4 includes more complex drills and resistance training, stage 5 is return to contact with stage 6 being return to normal activity. With children there must be 48 hours in-between stages as opposed to 24 hours with adults.
As mentioned, return to learning protocols are less well documented, there has been some proposed protocols from Oregan and Halted et al (2014) who state that a youth athlete should be able to tolerate 30-40 minutes of light cognitive activity prior to a return to school and that players should be gradually return to normal school activities prior to their graded return to play.
At present youth athletes are part managed as students and part managed as athletes, however there is an emerging theme that return to activity is potentially a far more appropriate method of managing a childs recovery from concussion. We need to do more work to align both protocols. A player may well be “fit” to return to school and therefore deemed “fit” to return to light activity and subsequently drills, however very little research has been done to look at the impact of skill acquisition in a physically challenging environment. Learning your french verbs might be fine (in isolation), gentle jogging may well be fine (in isolation) but there is no denying that trying to do the two in consecutive lessons may well be far more challenging, yet that may well be what we are expecting some of our youth athletes to do. We already know that a concussion can impact players non related injury risk for a year following a single concussion, could it is be impacting on the skill level of players we produce?
Howell et al (2014) (here) explain that traditional concussion severity scales are being abandoned in favour of individualized concussion management with multifaceted evaluation of function. For example, the SCAT3 assesses static balance as part of motor control, however Howell’s study found that up to 2 months post concussion, adolescent athletes display increased centre of mass displacement medial-lateral compared to a matched control group. Could it be that we are clearing people for activity based on a static assessment when in fact dynamic balance may take longer to recover? (a potential study for anyone interested).
Whats up doc?
Concussion management is further complicated by contradictory advice, youth concussion is not only a sporting issue, but a public health one. If GP’s or A&E do not feel able to confidently manage concussions, how can we expect them to make decisions regarding return to play? I’ve attended numerous times to A&E with players who have been told once you feel better, get back to training. With Scotlands new concussion guides they are starting to address the associated public health concerns around child concussion. It can no longer be deemed as just a sport issue or just a medical issue as the potential long term consequences go beyond these two areas. With the Scottish guidelines being aimed across sports at a grass roots level it begins to address the disparity between the quality of concussion management across sports and levels. Whether you’re an elite athlete, a weekend warrior or a 15 year old school child you still only have one brain!
Prevention is better than cure right? Non contact rugby until the age 20? I don’t think so. Considering the reaction to suggesting removing the header from football in youth sport due to concerns around sub concussive events, the suggestion we remove contact from rugby is a no go. However there are lots of benefits to playing a contact sport, from social development, self confidence and the physical benefits from contact so maybe managing the amount of contact sustained in training is one way of combating the risks of concussion and sub concussive events.
How about a helmet, monitors or head guards? Considering the issues within the NFL and concussion with players recently retiring due to concerns around concussion, it would suggest that protective headgear does little for prevention of concussion (think back to blog 1 about mechanisms within the skull). It’s widely accepted that protective headgear has a role to play in prevention of catastrophic head injuries (ie your cycle helmet) however scum caps may well give players a false sense of security which in turn increases the risk of a concussion. RFU guidelines indicate that a scrum cap must be able to compress to a certain thickness and must be made of soft, thin materials – their main purpose is to protect against lacerations and cauliflower ear, they have little to no impact on concussions.
Every concussion needs attention. Every team has a coach or a parent watching. But not every child has access to a health care professional pitch side.
Cournoyer & Tripp (2014) (here) interviewed 334 American football players 11 high schools and found that 25% of players had no formal education on concussion. 54% were educated by their parents (but who is educating the parents?!). The following percentages represent who knew about symptoms associated with concussion:
Persistent headache (93%)
Catastrophic (haemorrhage, coma, death) (60%)
Early onset dementia (64%)
Loss of Consciousness (80%) – how this is lower than headache is worrying.
Early onset Alzheimers (47%)
Nausea / Vomitting (53%)
Early onset parkinsons (27%)
Personality change (40%)
Trouble falling asleep (36%)
Becoming more emotional (30%)
Increased anxiety (27%)
Table 1: Frequency of concussion symptoms and consequences identified by American Football playing high school students (Cournoyer & Tripp 2014)
Education is key! Players, parents, coaches, friends, family. Everyone! The IRB has some great online learning for general public, coaches and medical professionals (here). Only by symptoms being reported, assessed and managed can we make an impact on concussion.
Kate is a band 6 MSK physiotherapist, having graduated in 2011 from Cardiff Univeristy. Beyond her NHS work, Kate has worked for semi-pro Rugby League teams in Wales, the Wales Rugby League age grade teams and is now in her 3rd season as lead physio for the Newport Gwent Dragons u16 squad.
Following our last blog on concussion, I started talking to Kate Moores via twitter (@KLM390) who had some very intersting experiences and ways of managing concussion. So, I am very pleased to introduce Kate as a guest blogger on the topic of Concussion assessment & management – we have decided to split Kates blog into 2 more manageable parts rather than one super-blog (My contribution may have been to add the occassional picture to the blog).
The previous blog discussed generalized pitchside assessment of a concussion, irrelevant of age. However Kate has drawn on her knowledge and experience with young rugby players to highlight in particular, the ongoing assessment of young athletes as well as adults and how it differs. Kate raises some very good points throughout but the point that really made me reflect was the consideration over “return to learn.” Looking back at concussions I’ve managed in academy football, I didn’t properly respect the impact that a day at school may have had on symptom severity or neurocognitive recovery. I was mostly interested in “have you been resting from activity?” I think this blog is an excellent resource for medical professionals, but also for teachers, coaches and parents to consider the impact of this hidden injury.
Part 1 (of Blog 2)
Children are not just little adults… a phrase commonly heard within healthcare. It’s particularly true when it comes to concussion. Children’s brains are structurally immature due to their rapid development of synapses and decreased levels of myelination, which can leave them more susceptible to the long term consequences of concussion in relation to their education and sporting activities. With adults the focus is usually on return to play, with similar protocols being used in managing youth concussions, albeit in a more protracted time frame.
However a child is physically, cognitively and emotionally different to adults, therefore is it appropriate for these return to play protocols to be used with youth athletes? Youth athletes are still children – still students as well as athletes. It is during these years that children develop & learn knowledge & skills (academic and social), in a similar way these youth athletes need to be learning the tactical knowledge and motor skills they will need for their sport. Shouldn’t “return to learning” be as much the focus in youth athletes as a “return to play” protocol?
“Youth Athletes are still children balancing studies with sports”
So, the pitchside decision on management has been made (blog 1) and now the assessment continues in the treatment room
The use of the SCAT3 (here) and Child SCAT3 (age 5-12) (here) have been validated as a baseline test, a sideline assessment and to guide return to play decisions. O’Neil et al 2015 compared the then SCAT2 test against neuropsychological testing. They found that SCAT2 standardised assessment of concussion scores were correlated to poorer neuropsychological testing for memory, attention and impulsivity. However symptom severity scores had poor correlation with those same components. Therefore simply being symptom free may not be a good enough indicator that youth athletes are ready to return to learning or sport.
There has been recent research into the King Devick (K-D) test as another option for the assessment on concussion in children with research being done comparing SCAT scores with K-D testing (Tjarks et al 2013)
One of the benefits of using the KD test is that it has stronger links with the neurocognitive processing which may mean that it has a greater role to play with regard to return to learning as well as return to play. Another benefit is that unlike the SCAT3 tests the KD test does not require a health care professional to administer the test.
At a club with full time staff and consistent exposure to players, the SCAT3 can be useful to compare to pre-injury tests conducted as part of an injury screening protocol. It also helps if you know that person, for some the memory tests are challenging without a concussion so post injury assessment with the SCAT3 may score badly, but is that the person or the injury? It is also important that this assessment is done in their native language. These reasons throw up some complexities if you are working part time for a club, or covering ad hoc fixtures as part of physio-pool system. Its advisable in this instance to get a chaperone in with the athlete to help your assessment – this may be a partner for an adult player or a parent / teacher for a child. A quick conversation with them to say “please just look out for anything odd in what they say or how they say it.”
Beyond the assessment tool, there is evidence now to suggest we should be asking about pre-injury sleep patterns. Sufrinko et al (2015) (here) look prospectively at 348 athletes in middle school, high school and colligate athletes across three different states in America (aged 14-23). At the start of the season the researchers grouped the athletes as those with “sleep difficulties” (trouble falling asleep, sleeping less than normal” and a control group of “no sleeping difficulties”. Following a concussion, assessment was conducted at day 2, day 5-7 and day 10-14 using the Post Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS) and found that those with pre-injury sleep difficulties had significantly increased symptom severity and decreased neurocognitive function for longer than the control group.
Looking in the other direction, Kostyun et al (2014) (here) assessed the quality of sleep after a concussion and its subsequent impact on recovery. Looking at 545 adolescent athletes, the results indicated that sleeping less than 7 hours post-concussion significantly correlated with increased PCSS scores, where as sleeping over 9 hours post injury significantly correlated with worse visual memory, visual motor speed and reaction times. A word of caution with this study, the authors assumed that “normal” sleep was between 7-9 hours – but anyone who has adolescent children, or hasn’t blocked the memory of being an adolescent themselves, knows that sleep duration does increase when you are growing. Saying that, the impact of both of these studies suggests that we should be:
1) Asking about normal sleep patterns prior to injury to help us gauge recovery times (disrupted sleepers may take longer than we originally predict) and;
2) We need to keep monitoring sleep quality along with regular re-assessment as sleeping more than normal may indicate ongoing recovery from concussion.
In Part two (here), Kate continues to discuss ongoing assessment and the recovery process.
Kate is a band 6 MSK physiotherapist, having graduated in 2011 from Cardiff Univeristy. Beyond her NHS work, Kate has worked for semi-pro Rugby League teams in Wales, the Wales Rugby League age grade teams and is now in her 3rd season as lead physio for the Newport Gwent Dragons u16 squad.
There is a bit of a buzz phrase in rehab about “individualising programs” and while it is something we wholeheartedly agree with, it is a phrase that is very easy to say and yet very difficult to implement. Especially when you work with a population where said individual changes rapidly through time, like a teenager! It is a common sight on a training pitch to see a star player in their age group suddenly tripping over cones or developing a heavy touch where there was previously effortless control. Side effects of the adolescent growth spurt, where the brain is now controlling a much longer lever. It’s like giving a champion gardener a new set of garden sheers when for the past year they have used little hand-held scissors and asking to them maintain their award-winning standards. (My garden embarrassingly needs some attention and it’s affecting my analogies).
Alongside the performance related issues, there is suggestion that this period of growth may coincide with increased risk of injury (Caine et al 2008). We believe that bone grows quicker than soft tissue, so we are asking a neuromuscular system to control a new, longer lever using prior proprioceptive wiring. Imagine our gardener again, for a long time he has been able to keep his pair of scissors close and controlled, now with his extra long shears the load is further away from his body, his back and shoulders are starting to ache. Not sure what I mean? With one hand hold a pencil to the tip of your nose. Now, with one hand hold a broom handle to your nose. The longer lever is harder to control. **I promise it gets a bit more sciencey than gardening and broom handles. **
Managing these growth spurts is something we have talked about before and recently contributed to a BJSM podcast on the topic (Part 1 & Part 2) and a complimentary BJSM blog about “biobanding” during periods of growth and development (here). This particular blog was inspired by a recent (2015) systematic review looking into exactly which sensorimotor mechanisms are mature or immature at the time of adolescence by Catherine Quatman-Yates and colleagues over in Cincinnati (here). The following is a combination of their summary and our examples of how these findings can influence our rehab programs.
Tailoring the program:
We have so many options for exercise programs, that’s what makes the task of designing them so fun. It challenges our creativity. When working with a teenager with sensorimotor function deficits, let’s call them “Motor Morons” for short, we don’t have to totally re-think our exercise list, just perhaps the way we deliver them. We previously spoke about motor control and motor learning (here) and how our instructions can progress just as our exercises do, but the following relates to children and adolescents in particular.
Consider the stimuli.
Children aged between 14-16 have well-developed visual perception of static objects however their perception of moving objects and visual cues for postural control continue to mature through adolescence. When very young children learn new skills such as standing and walking, they become heavily reliant on visual cues. Quatman-Yates et al suggest that puberty and growth spurts (think gardener with new shears) brings new postural challenges that causes adolescents to regress proprioceptive feedback and increase reliance on visual cues again. From a rehab perspective, we need to consider this as part of our balance and proprioception program. How many of us default to a single leg stand and throwing a tennis ball back & forth from therapist to athlete? For our Motor Moron, this may not be an optimal form of treatment in early stages, where it is commonly used, however it may incredibly beneficial to that athlete in the later stages or as part of ongoing rehab as we try to develop that dynamic perception.
We should also consider the amount of stimuli we add to an exercise. Postural stability in children is believed to be affected by multiple sensory cues. If we consider that children are more dependent on visual cues than adults are, perhaps our delivery of external stimuli should be tailored also. With a multi directional running drill for example, there is sometimes an element where the athlete is given a decision making task (a red cone in one direction and a yellow cone in another) and they have to react quickly to instructions from the therapist or coach. Rather than shouting instructions like “red cone”, “yellow cone” etc, hold up the coloured cone for the corresponding drill. This way we are utilising this developed visual perception, minimising the number of stimuli and also encouraging the athlete to get their head up and look around rather than looking at their feet.
When to include unilateral exercises:
Within adult populations, it is often considered gold standard to make exercises unilateral as soon as tolerable. If they can deep squat pain free and fully weight bear through the affected side, progress them to pistol squats ASAP, or single leg knee drives. However, young children (pre-pubescent) may struggle with this for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, we need to consider postural adjustments. Where as adults and young adults can adjust their balance with smooth control and multiple, small oscillations, children rely on larger ballistic adjustments. There is also reduced anterior-posterior control in younger athletes which suggests reduced intrinsic ankle control. Put this alongside immature structures and (if working a physio, most probably) an injury then single leg exercise become a progression that may be further down the line than an adult counterpart with the same injury. Instead, consider semi-stable exercises. Support the contralateral leg with a football or a bosu ball – something that is difficult to fixate through but provides enough stability to support the standing leg.
Secondly, we understand that coupled movements are mastered earlier in adolescence, around 12-15 years old but uncoupled movement patterns take longer to develop, 15-18 years old (Largo et al). A good example is watching a young child reach for a full cup of water at the dinner table. It is much easier and more natural for them to reach with both hands than it is with one, as coupled movements are unintended. Rarely do you see a child taking a drink with one hand filling their fork with the other – yet this is something commonly seen with adults as they are able to uncouple and segmentalise. Another example is watching a child dynamically turn, watch how the head, trunk and limbs all turn as a “block”, it is not until further down the line where dynamic movements become more fluid. The argument here is that surely running is an uncoupled movement? Or kicking a football, swinging a tennis racket, pirouetting in ballet – they are all uncoupled, segmental movement patterns that we expect kids to do, and in all they cope with. Correct, but it is usually in rehab programs for kids that we begin to introduce unfamiliar tasks and exercises that they may not have encountered before. Also, we should respect the impact of the injury on proprioception and control. So these are all considerations for starting points in exercise & if a regression is ever required.
For this reason, it is important that exercises are monitored and reviewed regularly. There is no need to hold an athlete back because of their age and making assumptions on motor function because of their age. If they can cope, then progress them. But be mindful of “over-control” where speed and variability of movement are sacrificed in place of accuracy and control (Quatman-Yates et al 2015).
Become a Motor Moron hunter
It is worth spending some time watching training, watching warm ups, watching gym sessions and talking with coaches and S&C’s trying to identify a Motor Moron as soon as possible. It’s important to minimise the chances of an immature sensorimotor mechanism ever meeting a growth spurt. It is when these two things combine that we see kids doing immaculate Mr Bean impressions and therefore increase their risk of injury.
Regularly re-assess your exercise programs. If things arent quite progressing as quickly as they should, it may not be failed healing of an injury, but it may be that we are providing the sensorimotor mechanism with too much information!
Yours in sport,
“The Young Athlete” conference 9-10th Oct, Brighton. Here
We are delighted to introduce a guest blog from Jonny King (@Jonny_King_PT), a sports physiotherapist based at Aspetar, Qatar. Jonny has experience working in professional football in the UK with both Norwich City FC and AFC Bournemouth before he made the big move East to Doha. A prevalent voice on twitter and definetely worth a follow, he provkes some intriguing questions regarding our current understanding of hamstring injuries. We hope you enjoy… P&P
Hamstring strain injury (HSI) continues to present as a huge challenge for those of us working within the sport and exercise medicine field – whether that be in a research or clinical setting. Disappointing figures have recently shown that despite an increasing body of publications over recent years and a perceived improvement in understanding of underlying causes, the epidemiology for HSI in elite sport has not changed over the past 10 years (Ekstrand, Hagglund & Walden, 2009) A worrying reality.
Some will argue that WE HAVE improved our understanding and management of hamstring injuries but the evidence base is not being applied effectively into clinical practice. (Bahr, Thornborg, EKstrand, 2015). Others will state that our ability to influence epidemiological data at elite level, has been affected by the evolution of sporting competition including increased physical application. Take professional football for example, both sprint distance (35%) and high intensity running distance (30%) have significantly increased over the past 7 years, alongside a reduction in recovery times as a result of increased fixture congestion (Barnes et al, 2014) These can all be seen as restraints to our drive for better data around HSI.
These are all factors we should appreciate, however are we missing something else?
In brief, we know those at highest risk are those with history of previous strain, weak eccentric strength and those in a fatigued state (Opar, Williams and Shield, 2012). Flexibility, neuromuscular inhibition, biomechanics and H:Q ratios have all been flirted with, but with no real hard conclusion as to their influence on HSI. Identifying those at risk is relatively straight forward these days, given increased accessibility to advanced monitoring technology, helping to identify fatigue or strength reduction. We can thank systems such as GPS and The Nordboard for this. These are for sure all very important considerations as we take a multifactorial approach to injury management and prevention. But, Is there anything else we need to consider?
One area that I feel needs further investigation with regards to HSI is the psychological harmony of the athlete. It may be difficult to account for the primary injury, but are negative beliefs, anxiety and apprehension contributing factors to high rates of re-injury?
Cognitive functioning and therapy has been discussed at length in the treatment and management of many other musculoskeletal conditions, notably chronic LBP (O’Sullivan 2012) and ACL Reconstruction , with methods such as CBT proving an effective intervention in many cases. I wonder therefore if this needs more consideration when it comes to hamstring injury treatment? Poor psychological readiness has been associated with hamstring strain re-injury (Glazer, 2009) and this would also provide a feasible explanation as to why completion of Carl Askling’s H-Test appears a strong indicator for RTP. Maybe it’s something we are missing, or not considering enough? By more thorough monitoring of anxiety and apprehension can we mitigate ‘previous HSI’ as a risk factor? Food for thought..
What about fatigue and eccentric weakness?
We know HSI is more likely to occur towards end of 1st half & throughout the 2nd half (Ekstrand 2011) and that optimal time for full physiological recovery is 72 hours (Dellal et al 2013).
We also know..
The widely documented success of the Nordic Curl programme and other eccentric lengthening programmes in reducing HSI in some populations (Arnason, 2008 and Askling 2013).
Throughout the competitive season, the clinical challenge is to address both fatigue and eccentric strength, because for me, the 2 are counterintuitive to one another. You cannot perform regular, effective eccentric strength training without inducing fatigue, therefore it becomes very difficult to address both variables during a season of heavy fixture congestion.
I do wonder if we spend too much time in-season, prescribing injury prevention programmes and exercises. I feel there is a strong argument that we are only exposing our athletes to a greater risk of injury by adding to the overall accumulative training load and fatigue.
Why are we not reducing hamstring strain injuries?
Are we trying too hard in search for that holy grail of HSI prevention? Do we just need to ease off these guys?
Ultimately, and realistically I think there has to be a fine balance between the 2 . Windows of opportunity, such as the international breaks and pre-season, should be fully utilized for specific strength training and the remainder of the season used to ensure players have adequate time to recover and prepare physiologically for upcoming competition.
No answers here, just some food for thought. Enjoy your sport =)
A while back, we wrote a blog about pitchside management (here) and I was very careful not to discuss concussion at the time as its potentially a topic that warrants a couple of blogs on it own (blog #2 will discuss post concussion management).
Since writing that blog, there have been a number of high-profile head injuries in the football World Cup and more recently in the IRB 6 Nations. It’s very easy to assess such scenarios from the armchair with the benefits of replays – but what these examples did do was spark positive discussions about a topic that unfortunately is glossed over within sport (not necessarily sports medicine – a few tweeters in particular that discuss the topic a bit: @PhysioRichmond, @Sophie_T_SEM, @SportsDocSkye , @KLM390).
What is concussion?
The RFU describes concussion as:
“a functional disturbance of the brain without any associated structural pathology (as visible using current scanning technology) that results from forces transmitted to the brain (either directly or indirectly). It is generally considered part of the spectrum of traumatic brain injury (TBI)“
One issue we have as clinicians is a poorly defined summary of what concussion is – where does an acute bang to the head that causes some dizziness become “concussion”? The first thing to clarify is that not all head injuries are concussions, and not all concussions result from head injuries (explained later). In fact, terming concussion a “traumatic brain injury” (TBI) may be more accurate – I am certainly not a fan of the word “mild” when discussing brain injuries.
We also have no gold standard for assessing concussion. In the updated version of the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool version 3 (SCAT3), the authors describe (here) clinical diagnosis as a combination of symptoms, physical signs and impaired cognitive function. To diagnose a concussion, some of the following symptoms should be present (via the CDC):
Difficulty thinking clearly
HeadacheFuzzy or blurry vision
Sleeping more than usual
Feeling slowed down
Nausea or vomiting
Sleep less than usual
Sensitivity to noise or lightBalance problems
Trouble falling asleep
Difficulty remembering new information
Feeling tired, having no energy
Nervousness or anxiety
Perhaps one reason concussion isn’t taken as seriously as it should is the lack of external signs. In some cases, it is a hidden injury. Classed as a TBI, there is undoubtably going to be swelling associated with a concussion. A swollen knee or ankle looks pretty drastic to players and coaches, its easy to point at and compare to the other limb and easy to explain why you are removing someone from the field of play. But here we are talking about something contained within the skull. There are also elements of a concussion that we won’t see in the 2 minutes we have on the pitch – such as disrupted sleep, anxiety, drastic mood swings (continued management discussed in forthcoming blog). So now we start to see some of the difficulties with assessing a head injury at pitchside..
Saying the C-Word
So, following a clash of heads on the pitch, we rush on to survey the scene. As well as the adrenaline associated with getting on the pitch and thinking quickly about what to do & say, you probably have a referee, a handful of players, spectators and the coaching staff all asking whats going on. Lets assume there is no associated neck injury (essential to check following any head injury!!), no abrasions or lacerations – just this hidden injury within the skull. How many of those symptoms listed above should be present before you diagnose a concussion? And if they aren’t present now, how might continued swelling affect them in 1 minute, 10 minutes, 30 minutes? Some signs and symptoms may not evolve for hours (McCrory et al). The two voices in your head are saying:
“If this players gets better in a minute and I take them off, the players and coaches are going to crucify me – they’ll probably never tell me the truth about their injuries again because they think I’ll sub them every time.. Should I let them carry on for a bit?”
“Actually, I Couldnt care less what they think, even if they are star player and we lose, we are talking about this persons brain!”
I believe things are about to change, if they havent already, but previously just saying the word concussion in rugby ruled a player out for a minimum of 3 weeks. Two concussions in one season for the same player would rule them out for the remainder of the season. Designed to safeguard the player and the medical team, this does add a bit more pressure to on-pitch assessments.
Making the Call
There are huge benefits to being pitchside to witness injuries, especially when the injury may result in the loss of memory of said injury. Observing the mechanism of injury can give you great indicator as to potential problems. But remember, not all concussions are caused by impact injuries to the head. McCrory et al (here) define concussion as:
“An injury caused by a direct blow to the head, face, neck, or somewhere else on the body with an impulsive force transmitted to the head, resulting in a graded set of clinical symptoms”
The population you work with is going to be key here. Reduced neck musculature and head control could make younger athletes, or slighter built adult athletes, more susceptible to non-head impact concussions.
It is personal opinion, but I would say some symptoms are more severe than others. For example, ANY loss of consciousness, even seconds and the player should come straight off. We are talking about an event that is significant enough to stop the brain working. Poor terminology, but imagine the fear and anxiety if you told an athlete their back didn’t work – I’m pretty sure they would be asking for your help then (**semantic police disclaimer – I don’t recommend ever telling someone “something doesn’t work”**).
Secondly, vomiting is a pretty clear indicator of a concussion. Although the mechanisms aren’t quite clear, it’s believed to be a combination of individual intrinsic factors (Brown et al 2000), which means the absence of vomiting unfortunately doesn’t rule a concussion out, but the presence of it definitely makes the diagnosis more likely.
Finally, the third thing I would always look for, or listen for, is what they are saying and how they are saying it. If it is incoherent or in any way bizarre (depends on your athlete, you have a pre-existing level of weird that you may want to work from) then that’s a pretty good sign of a brain injury. Most people are familiar with asking your short-term memory questions with a head injury, but equally important to what they aren’t saying, is what they are saying – self-control, judgement & decision-making occurs in the frontal lobe and is one of the first skills to diminish following a brain injury. With a limb injury you may be inclined to listen to their judgement and monitor performance & function briefly, but head injuries are one example where the athlete shouldn’t be involved in the immediate decision-making process. As mentioned above, this may be an invisible injury and it may be tricky to demonstrate to a concussed athlete that they are concussed.
I think this is pretty straight forward. There is no game or event that is bigger than a persons life. Admittedly, I have never worked at a World Cup or a 6 Nations event but the level of sport you work in shouldnt matter either. This is an injury that could have serious implications on quality of life, regardless of the quality of sport. If there is any doubt in your mind about a potential concussion, they need to come off.
Look back at the RFU description of concussion – “a functional disturbance of the brain…” We are talking about THE BRAIN. It controls EVERYTHING. How a person feels, thinks, moves, sees… Do I need to go on? There is some seriously concerning data coming out from America about long-term effects of repeated concussion in the NFL with regards to depression, substance abuse and even suicide. Just this year, NFL line backer Chris Brland, aged 24, retired from the game due to fear of the effects from repeated concussions (here).
There are numerous pressures on therapists pitchside to make quick calls regarding injuries. It is pleasing to see some discussions in rugby and football about providing more time for head injury assessment, similar to a blood sub, but I would say that if there is enough doubt to request this extra time to monitor, is that sufficient doubt to suspect a traumatic brain injury?
There is a whole other blog (or three) to discuss different assessment tools and post-concussion management – how it differs between adults and younger athletes, so bear with us – we’re already working on that.
For those that want to know more – The 2015 ACPSEM conference has Dr Jonathan Hansen (here) (AKA @SportsDocSkye) discussing concussion management in sport – dont miss it!
A bit of an unusual blog from us, but I hope its as popular as our previous ones due to the message it contains. A very good friend of mine is undergoing a year-long series challenges to help raise money for a cause very close to his heart.
Below is a summary of the 30 challenges that Nick Atkins is doing, having turned 30 this year.
I’m sure a lot of people will question the management of some of his injuries I’m detailing here because I’ll admit its not how I would typically manage these problems, so let me explain quickly why rest is not an option here:
Nick, along with his sister Jen & brother Jon, very sadly lost their mum, Judith Atkins, to pancreatic cancer in 2013. Pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of any cancer. Doctors believe there is a period of remission around 5 years that if reached, the risk of the cancer returning is negligible. Judith was a few months short of this milestone before the pancreatic cancer aggressively returned. While we are generally winning the fight against cancer, pancreatic cancer remains the outlier and part of Nicks aim is to not only raise money for research, but also awareness. (Nicks justgiving page here). For this reason, he is displaying an incredible amount of grit and determination to complete these challenges, despite his body saying otherwise.
A quick background into Nick, he is what his friendship circle would describe as a “drinking athlete” and certainly not a runner. So while some endurance junkies out there may do physical challenges like these regularly, Nicks starting position was certainly not one built on endurance.
Nicks injuries to date:
The nature of Nicks challenges meant the timeframes were dictated by inflexible dates, making it very hard to periodize any training. So load management became critical, forecasting time periods where we could off-load but maintain a crucial level of fitness.
The first problematic injury(ies) was the bilateral plantafascia pain with right sided calcaneal fat pad irritation. This was the first time we had to make decisions about the program. Previous aches and pains in the lower limbs and back were manageable and its not in Nicks nature to complain. But this pain in his foot was affecting ADL’s as well as training. Typically inflammatory in nature and progressively increasing pain, it took him to the point where he couldn’t weight bear through his heel – but was still completing physical challenges.
Controlling the controllables:
Dropping or moving a challenge was not an option, so we had to sacrifice road running training and hockey for a period of two weeks. Nick maintained fitness via swimming and cycling (a lot) in the mean time we addressed some biomechanical issues in the foot. I say this very tentatively, because in fact it was a lack of biomechanical issues that we had to address. Nick was prescribed some permanent orthotics when he was about 16 for “collapsed arches” – in fact these orthotics were probably causing more problems than solving. Nick had good active control of the medial and longitudinal arches in both feet, so no evidence of a collapsed arch. These orthotics were encouraging him to laterally weight bear via some high density medial posting of the calcaneus & preventing any medial rocking after heel-strike. We removed these, added some gel heel cushions to his work shoes to help offload the fat pad and temporarily reduced running training, which seemed to resolve the pain after two weeks. Instead, nick ramped up the swimming and cycling as part of his triathlon training.
Nature of the beast:
There have been times recently however where we can’t modify load. Nick is currently running with right sided Achilles pain and in the last week has developed sharp pain in his left groin which is present following a rest at the end of a long run. This presented us with a problem; a month of 10k’s, with half marathons immanent and full marathons on the near horizon. Nick can’t afford to rest.
Typical management of tendon problems would be modifying load along with addressing strength. There was a dramatic difference with single leg heel raise between left & right. Temptation would be to add some exercises here to address this, but we need to acknowledge the accumulative load and consider if there would be any benefit. We decided that the back to back events could in themselves serve to maintain fitness, so we could drop a training session during the week.
The other consideration is where & when Nick is getting the pain. The Achilles pain is only present with compression, so with full plantaflexion – recreated both actively and passively, which makes me suspect a retrocalcaneal bursa involvement. We know that tendons don’t like compression but the absence of any Haglunds deformity and with adequate, well fitting running shoes there is reason to think the tendon may not be a source of symptoms. (See my previous tendon blog here with references).
The pain has stayed at the same level for over 4 weeks now, so we have identified an upcoming gap in events as a window to unload and reassess. In the mean time we can achieve short term relief with soft tissue massage to the gastrocs and some tib-fib, talocrural and subtalar mobilisations.
The groin on the other hand presents like a classic tendinopathy and we were able to exclude any pubic synthesis involvement via a series of tests. This injury was a lot more acute in nature compared to the Achilles. We tried some isometric adduction through different ranges of hip flexion and achieved some short term reductions in pain. Once again, we had to sacrifice some hockey training to try and reduce load and cutting actions in the groin, but in place of this we added isometric groin squeezes into Nicks program.
At the time of writing, I have my fingers crossed as Nick is running a “True Grit” obstacle course with his dedicated wife, Cat, who has done every challenge with him so far! (Except the 100 different beers in a year).
With some half marathons and marathons coming up, along with long distance treks I’m anticipating an update to this blog in the summer. Like I said, the plan now is to highlight a window of relative rest where we’ll do some detailed analysis of the right leg in particular. Overall though, I’m incredibly impressed that someone with no endurance running experience has had so little problems. It wont be typical management that’s for sure – while there are long term goals to be met, performance is not the main driver. I’m used to managing similar problems with a view of being pain free, able to perform at high level and minimising the risk of re-injury. So some of this management may not appease the purists, I understand.
For Nick, however, there are no specific performance targets to be met, it is just essential that he finishes. He’ll do that without my help because of the level of determination he has, but my job is to try and keep a lid on the severity of injury (he insists 90 days without a hot drink is harder than any marathon or combination of marathons).
But the description of Nicks injuries & management are secondary to the fact that hopefully I’ve helped promote Nicks challenges and ultimately an awareness of Pancreatic Cancer. For that reason, if you’ve read this far please help share Nicks challenge.
As a younger physiotherapist, I don’t think I ever consciously paid attention to the psychological aspect or power of my job. By that I mean, I didn’t read any research around it – it all seemed a bit wishy-washy and non-tangible. But quickly you realise that a verbal cue that just clicks with one patient turns into a complex dance choreography with another.. “No, I just wanted you to bend you knee.. why are you doing the worm?”
I’ve talked before about the clinical reasoning behind exercise progression and regression and in doing so, I skimmed the surface of the addition of intrinsic & extrinsic stimuli. So now I want to build on the concepts of motor learning to underpin that exercise progression.
My inspiration for this blog came from a couple of podcasts by the PT Inquest gang, Erik Meira (@erikmeira) & JW Matheson (@EIPConsult). Well actually, first I bought a chinchilla, then I wrote this blog. If that doesn’t make sense, don’t worry. It doesn’t. But listen here (PTInquest).
The gents speak in detail on two particular podcasts about non-linear pedagogy and how this teaching concept & theory of motor learning ties in with implicit learning. I will break down the idea and definitions shortly, but the reason I wanted to blog about this rather than just direct listeners to the podcast, is I feel the motor learning concepts need to be progressed just as much as the physical demands of an exercise are considered.
What are we talking about?
Ok so breaking down some of the terms. Because from first hand experience, these terms can be confusing. Cap in hand moment but, I Published a model to explain exercise progression (here). You will see I have described implicit & explicit learning – where in fact I mean intrinsic and extrinsic. Very different things, here’s why:
Intrinsic exercises – relies on internal feedback mechanisms, such as capsuloligamentous structures – Pancian & Ruffini receptors within joint capsules providing proprioceptive feedback that the athlete is acutely tuned into. A good example is a single leg stand where the athlete is consciously thinking about balance, aware of every movement in the foot & knee, the upper body and arm position etc – those exercises where nothing else in the room matters apart from the mark on the floor you are concentrating on to keep your balance.
The opposite to this are Extrinsic exercises – these revolve around the athlete and their environment. A snowboarder reacting to a sheet of ice after carving through powder, or a downhill biker absorbing the changes in terrain – their thought process is very external. Its about the factors they can’t control. At no point (or at least for an extremely limited time) are they consciously aware of their scapular position or degree of knee valgus, for example.
Explicit teaching – This is probably something that is easy for us to relate to. It’s a teaching technique that most of us are comfortable with because we can achieve quicker short term goals. “I want you to put your feet shoulder width apart” or “keep your knees in line with your second toe during the squat” – very clear instructions that require the athlete internalise their thoughts, suddenly their actions become intrinsic. But we get quick results in line with our (not necessarily their) goals.
Implicit teaching – this is a bit more tricky. It is giving the athlete non-directive instructions with the aim of externalising their thoughts. “When you jump onto that box, I want you to land as quietly as you can” or as the PT Inquest lads say “Land like batman” (in the batman voice). If you are encouraging effective change of direction, Conor always says “Push the ground away with your foot.” We are still giving instructions, but the athlete is thinking about external environment; noise, surface contact etc.
And this is where non-linear pedagogy comes in. Creating learning environments for athletes to explore movement variability. After all, that perfect text-book single leg squat we spent weeks mastering isn’t going to look so perfect on a skier trying to regain their balance. Chang Yi Lee et al (2014) use the example or learning a tennis stroke – comparing linear pedagogy of prescriptive, repetitive drills versus non-linear pedagogy of more open instructions like “make the ball arc like a rainbow.”
How does this fit into progression?
The ideal scenario is for the athlete to have as little reliance on us as therapists or coaches as possible. We wont be following them around the track, or on the pitch reminding them of their pelvic tilt.
I think the concepts of non-linear pedagogy are brilliant to explore with coaching. Working with young athletes for example that are still developing their motor control and have some fantastic imaginations to tap into.
However with a rehabilitative role, I think we need to be more inclusive of all concepts. Learning of a new task is initially rapid but without the addition of further stimuli it can quickly plateau (Gentile 1998). A rehab program should always be low risk, high demand (Mendiguchia & Brughelli 2011).Consider the pathophysiology and the structures injured. No injuries happen in isolation, if muscle is injured we will have some neural limitations also. The presence of swelling and inflammation decreases cell metabolism along with a decrease in the presence of oxygen; so we can assume that proprioception is reduced and risk of secondary injury is high.
Therefore, following injury, it is always a good concept to assume that skill level has regressed to novice, regardless of the level of athlete pre-injury.
What if we were to encourage intrinsic, explicit, linear pedagogy exercises in the early stages? We don’t need to be adding external stimuli at this stage. It’s important to internalise in order to rehabilitate proprioception. You can’t safely expect someone to externalise while proprioceptively deficient – as soon as someone can weight bear, we don’t start throwing them a tennis ball whilst stood on a Bosu (I hope!)
As the injury improves and skill levels progress, it is then important to move our instructions towards non-linear pedagogy methods, encouraging extrinsic thinking via implicit instructions. By end stage rehab, our instructions should be “start – stop” and hopefully not much more.
Just as we would progress the demand of physical activity following injury, we should really progress the cognitive demand also – but we need to start from a safe, effective position in acute stages.
In order to effectively clinically reason, we need to be able to critique the evidence. I want to be clear from the start – I’m not here to sledge any authors or specific papers, so I’ll just use hypothetical examples throughout. But what I want to try and do is simplify the ability to critique research for those people who maybe aren’t comfortable doing so.
A few recent discussions with colleagues and MSc students at University prompted me to write this blog. I’m not a researcher and I’m certainly not a statistician. My wife just throws more than 3 sums at me to convince me I owe her money. Numbers fry my brain. But, that shouldn’t put me off being able to critique a paper in a constructive way.
Critical Comment #1: Can I understand why they’ve used this Methodology?
For an author to create a robust methodology, there has to be the existing literature available in the first place to support their design. We place a great deal of trust in authors that they have researched their methodology appropriately -the tests they use are validated, there’s evidence behind their outcomes, a clear rationale for their intervention. But have they made all of these clear? You can see already how we can create a peeled onion effect, whereby we could (if social lives weren’t an issue) trace back all of the references for outcomes measures and tests.
I feel a great deal of sympathy for authors here, because in some cases they cant win. Authors are torn due to previously limited research, to which they need to reference their proposed methodology in order to be considered robust.
Lets use something that’s not contentious, I don’t know…? Massage. No one has established an appropriate and valid duration. Neither have they determined best technique, and so on – so a great deal of literature these days will standardise their methodology to an arbitrary figure, often 2 minutes per technique. Where has this come from? For those who do use massage as part of their practice – when do you time a duration for techniques? Surely its individual, dependent on the therapist, the treatment outcomes and goals etc – but any paper that justified their methodology on something that is extremely subjective like clinicians experience would get slated!
I’m sure this will get shot down monumentally, but personally I would commend a study brave enough to use an experienced clinician and trust their clinical knowledge & autonomy. Let them use an intervention they use routinely and daily and allow for creative freedom and individual needs. We constantly bang on about treatments being individual, so lets put our money where our mouth is. I’ve used massage here, but the same could be applied for a lot of interventions – types, techniques, durations. If they haven’t been validated historically, how can we be assured about results from this current paper we’re critiquing?
It’s another argument for another time – but do we need to go back to basics with some interventions and learn more about them before we critique and dismiss them? Rather than compare intervention vs no intervention, should we compare the same intervention but with different goal posts first?
I’ve used massage here but that’s not my point, its the methodology I’m trying to emphasise.
Is it a fair comparison between interventions?
Does it even need a control?
Critical comment #2: Is there an appropriate population used for the research question?
We have to remember that any outcome or clinical relevance from a study can only be applied to the population that they used within that study. Can we assume that a new training program implemented with recreational athletes will have the same benefits with elite athletes? It’s impossible for authors to give us huge details about population because of their limited word count – but we need to make some educated guesses regarding the outcomes. The benefits of an eccentric intervention for an elite group of footballers doesn’t mean we can start Sunday league players or even semi-pro players on the same intervention at the same intensity or volume.
Take the findings and apply them to your clinical practice & patient exposure. Would this intervention fit with your athletes current schedule or level of conditioning?
Flip that around and consider that a study using a lay population may find huge benefits from an intervention – but is it just an accelerated learning curve that wouldn’t impact an elite athlete in the same way? Exposure to something completely new will have bigger consequences and effects.
Critical comment #3: The dreaded stats! Or am I just being Mean? Probably (<0.05)
I’ve already said, I’m no statistician. The critique that can be applied with some understanding of these stats processes is incredible and I am in awe of people that can do this. But there are some simple points to consider when looking through analysis and results of papers. The first thing to consider, does the presented data tell you what you need to know? Go back to secondary school maths with Mean, Median (and Mode):
We want to investigate how many hops a subject can manage after ankle mobilisations (assuming we had no other variables like fatigue etc). Their pre-test scores are around 50. During assessment they record the following scores (40, 51, 45, 52, 100), one time they have blinder, recording 100 hops. A mean score would suggest that the effect of mobilisations increased their pre-intervention scores from 50 to 57.6, this sounds quite impressive. A median score used in this example would tell us that aside from one outlier, their post-intervention scores didn’t change too much (51). In this case, we want to know for definite whether or not our mobilisations have allowed this subject to hop better – they have a world championships in hopping coming up. If the data is clearly presented, we may be able to work this out ourselves. But I’m lazy – I’ve got 30minutes over coffee to read an article, I want to read their results and discussions and hope that this leg work has been done for me.
Now an author wanting to get a publication is always going to present the data with greatest impact – in this case the mean. That’s fine, but its worth checking the number of scores recorded. The greater the amount of data, the more accurate a mean will be. But less subjects or less tests would always be worth double checking the data.
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it” Albert Einstein
This brings us nicely onto probability. After writing this blog draft, I was shown this brilliant lecture by Rod Whiteley (Here) who understands this much more than me! (See above quote). It must be en vogue because the editorial in Physical Therapy in Sport this month disucsses P-Value also (Here). But what I do understand about P-Values is to always ask.. “So what?” So its statistically significant, but is it clinically relevant?
Again, another hypothetical study. We investigate the use of weighted squats to increase knee flexion. We find that by squat 1.5x body weight can significantly increase knee flexion (P<0.001). That significant difference is 3 degrees. Is that going to make your practice better? In some cases it may do! Achieving a few degrees in smaller joints with less room to play with, or perhaps post-op TKR and we just need a few more degrees to allow this patient to safely negotiate stairs – if they cant do stairs I’m not sure I would get them doing 1.5x BW squats though, which takes us back to our population critique.
Hopefully you have watched the Rod Whiteley lecture by now, so you can see where non-significant data can be very clinically relevant. It does make me wonder how much we have thrown out or dismissed that could be very beneficial.
Critical Comment #4: The Conclusion
So we have 30 minutes to quickly search for a paper, read the abstract and decide to read the article. I’ll hold my hands up to skimming the vast majority of a paper just to get to the conclusion. Not good practice though. Its worth checking who the author is, have they published on this topic before? What is their motivation? Most people will publish something that they either strongly believe in, or don’t believe at all. We’ve already discussed how its easy to manipulate stats, so if I strongly want to prove something works, given enough data & appropriate stats I could probably could. This sounds incredibly synical, but it should be a question you ask. If the conclusion is strong despite some variable results, bear it in mind.
“Its actually quite exciting, what you know now will probably change”
So can we believe anything that’s published? Yes. We can & We need to. Otherwise we stand still. Being critical is not the same as disagreeing or dismissing something. It just shows us where there are gaps and where can start investigating next. It’s actually quite exciting, what you know now will probably change. Something you don’t understand now, we will probably find out in the future. But taking a single paper and changing our practice based on that is a bit drastic. We need to consider the body of literature, read articles that challenge accepted beliefs and make our own decision. The beauty of sports medicine is there are no recipes. Where possible the literature should challenge our thinking and keep us evolving, but it doesn’t always restrict us to guidelines and protocols. We are lucky enough to be autonomous in our treatment and our exercise prescription and we should celebrate that. Ask 3 respected conditioning coaches to create a program for one athlete with a specific goal and see how diverse they are. Thats what sets us apart from each other and makes us individual therapists and coaches.
Take home points:
Check the methodology – are you happy with what they are investigating & how they do so? It is perfectly acceptable to disagree!
Does the population used apply to what you’re looking to take from the paper? You are reading this paper for some reason – hopefully to re-inforce / change your practice. Do the female college basketball players used in this study apply to your clinical caseload?
Don’t accept or dismiss a paper purely on its P-Value.
Has the author based their opinion purely on the P-Value? Check! Don’t just accept their conclusion. This is their entitlement but its their interpretation of the stats.
#PrayForAuthors: They do face a fight between getting something published, and in doing so making their study conform to previously accepted literature but perhaps deviating away from what the masses actually practice in clinic. The lasting question I will leave you with; considering the points made in this blog and the discussion by Rod Whiteley – where does that leave systematic reviews? I have my own thoughts 😉 Let us know yours.
Just because we can’t prove what something does, doesn’t mean it doesn’t do anything.
The older I get, the more I read, the less I know. I know that for a fact. But recently I’ve started re-reading around the topic of massage and its place in sport and recovery. And with my critical head on, the one thing that I can consistently critique is the literature. The methodology, the participant population, but not necessarily “Massage” itself.
A good starting point for this defence would be to read the antithesis for this blog, a great blog by @AdamMeakins (There is no skill in manual therapy). Adam makes a valid point that there is not a strong background of evidence to support massage. Agreed. And its worth pointing out that a large, very large, part of my practice is exercise based rehab – I’m a strong believer of “move well, move often”. However, massage is a very well used tool in my pocket of possible treatments, so I’m going to fight for the underdog.
Below is a summary of terms / applications commonly used with recognised massage techniques (not an exclusive list).
Gliding movement over the skin in a continuous movement
Beginning & end of a session
Stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system, promotes relaxation and enhances venous return.
Lifting, wringing, squeezing and kneading of soft tissue.
Mobilise deep muscle and subcutaneous tissue. Increases local circulation and enhances venous return
An accurate penetration of pressure applied with the fingertips
Used for specific purposes, such as reducing muscle spasm or breaking down adhesions.
Break down adhesions from old injuries
Various parts of the hand striking the tissues in a rhythmical but rapid rate
Before and during competition
Stimulation of tissues either by direct mechanical force or by the reflex action
The problem with Evidence Based Practice:
I think that all medical professions are dependent on research to ensure our practice evolves for the better. But I think sometimes we overlook the importance of anecdotal evidence. It must be considered that not all aspects of sporting competition depend on physical attributes, the mind and perceived benefits of treatment play an important role. The majority of people that go back for massages are because it made them feel better. Maybe not during, but after. A prime example, my wife never says “Can you give me an exercise program for my neck & shoulders please?” But I know that anecdotal evidence on its own doesn’t wash.
So here is where I think the literature lets massage down. The effectiveness of massage will vary depending on duration, method and depth of pressure (Drust et al) however none of these variables have been standardized making comparisons between studies very difficult (Mancinelli et al).
Jönhagen et al investigated the effects of sports massage on recovery following eccentric exercise. 16 “recreational athletes” (I have issues with this terminology for a start) were asked to complete 300 maximal eccentric contractions of their quadriceps using a Kin-Com dynamometer. Subjects received a pretissage massage once a day for 3 days before re-testing single leg long jumps to analyse “functional recovery”. SHOCK – The study found no improvement in function following massage.
Firstly, it may not be possible for one to truly maximally contract for such a high number of repetitions, therefore cannot be considered functional for an athlete; professional or recreational.
Secondly, name a sport that requires 300 maximal eccentric contractions in succession. Even an eccentric dominant sport like basketball would be interspersed with periods of rest and I don’t imagine basketball players would define those eccentric actions as maximal.
Thirdly, pretissage is a deep and firm technique, the use of which immediately following 300 eccentric contractions and continued for 3 days is more than likely going to cause mild muscle trauma. Not exactly a therapeutic choice for a tissue with acutely induced micro-trauma.
In another study investigating fatigue, Zainuddin et al studied the effects of massage on the upper limb following 60 maximal eccentric contractions of the elbow flexors of a single arm in 10 healthy subjects (5:5 M:F). The results indicated no significant change between the two arms in isometric & isokinetic strength and torque, but it did find reductions in muscle soreness and swelling. The lack of significance in the results may be due to measurements, including maximal strength, being taken before, immediately and 30 minutes after, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 & 14 days after, which may have been too many re-assessments of maximal strength following eccentric activity. Also, the 10 minute massage protocol consisted of 3 minutes frictions to the major muscles in the upper limb. As explained earlier, frictions are designed to promote inflammation, not to promote recovery!
The point of these studies was to investigate the use of massage in recovery from sport. Eliciting DOMs in untrained subjects and concluding that they still hadn’t returned to baseline in 3 days is not representative of the demands you will be faced with in sport. For the most part, the athletes are familiar with the exercise, so apart from pre-season or the introduction of a new exercise technique, DOMS is relatively rare throughout a season.
Fatigue is believed to be determined by the accumulation of lactate in exercising muscle (Monedero & Donne). However, the notion that lactic acid (consisting of lactate ions and H+) is detrimental to muscle function is derived from early findings on amphibian muscles, in which acidosis is more pronounced than mammalian musculature. These early studies were conducted at 10-20°C, when they were repeated at 25-30°C the effects of acidosis were abolished (Cairns). Studies on human skeletal muscles have shown a positive correlation between increased lactic acid and muscle fatigue, but what is usually overlooked is that there is also a relationship between fatigue and a decrease in ATP, increases in inorganic phosphate and increased ADP, as well as decreased nitrous oxide and reactive oxidative species (Franklin et al) – so why do we bang on about lactate clearance all the time?!
There is now a belief that lactic acid may have ergogenic effects on performance. It is well known that acidosis stimulates the Bohr effect, whereby H+ causes the release of oxygen from haemoglobin, which stimulates increased ventilation, enhanced blood flow, and an increased cardiovascular drive. (Cairns). Despite this recent shift in opinion, many studies still believe lactate to be detrimental to performance, and investigations continue into the most efficient method of lactate removal.
Monedero & Donne investigated different recovery strategies after maximal exercise using 18 trained cyclists. It was concluded that a combined treatment of massage and active recovery was significant in aiding future performance compared to passive recovery, active recovery or massage alone. Despite quoting in the introduction that “the role of lactate in fatigue is questionable”, the removal of lactate forms the bulk of the conclusion as to why massage alone was not a viable treatment for recovery.
Judging a fish by its ability to climb trees:
I mentioned earlier that I have reservations over the term “recreational athletes” – its unclear if this is an accepted scholarly word for “weekend warrior” or if its 3-times-a-week gym goers at the local spa and health club. Even so, the use of these participant populations to make assumptions on elite sport should be taken with caution. So should the use of athletes asked to perform unfamiliar tasks. Robertson et alused cycling to exhaust 9 male subjects and found no significant effect with blood lactate clearance following 20 minutes massage. However participants were from field based backgrounds such as football, rugby and hockey.
A study by Mancinelli et al investigated the effects of massage on DOMS using female athletes. 24 volleyball and basketball players underwent a vigorous strength and conditioning training session to elicit DOMS. The study found that the massage group (n=12) had significant increases in vertical jump scores (P=0.003) and decreased levels of perceived soreness (P=0.001), while the control group significantly increased their shuttle run times (P=0.004). The study that used functional tests appropriate to the subjects sport found favourable results for massage.
More recently, in a series of studies Delextratet al (and again here) compared the benefits of massage alone and in combination with other recovery modalities (stretching; cold water immersion) using basketball players. Again using measure specific to the sport. While I question the conclusions about different reactions between sexes (9:8 M:F), there was significant improvements in interventions compared to control groups, supporting the use of massage as a recovery modality.
So what do we think massage might do but we can’t prove?
“Massage therapy modulates the autonomic nervous system” – Franklin et al
The good thing about the Franklin paper is that it looks at potential systemic effects of massage, in particular the vascular endothelial function of the upper limb following lower limb massage – and they found a single treatment of massage had an immediate (90mins) parasympathetic nervous system response, characterised by reduced heart rate and reduced systolic blood pressure.
We think that massage, administered appropriately with appropriate techniques to suit the situation, may:
I would question the last point – for how long does this influence last? Do we actually increase length? Or do we restore it following a loss of range (injury / pain / change in tone following exercise)? I don’t think even regular massage is enough to encourage creep deformation on tissues, but I’m more open to a change in tone to achieve an optimal length / range.
Therapists working within a sports setting often have to adapt the duration of a massage depending on the number of athletes that require treatment, the number of clinicians available, the seniority of players (!) Clinical based MSK therapists may also be restricted by time constraints. There is also a dearth of techniques and combinations with other modalities to chose from. Two therapists performing the same technique will apply different pressures for different durations in slightly different directions possibly over different tissues. I can see this being an argument against, but its for this reason that its very difficult to measure and quantify effectiveness. To create a sturdy study design, you end up being far removed from how clinical practice actually operates. My point is, although it is important I don’t think you can base an opinion of an intervention soley on published literature.
A lot of the literature with non-significant findings will question the use of massage in clinical application, but I can’t think of any occasions where the intervention has caused a detrimental effect! This leads me back to my first sentence.
“Just because we can’t prove what something does, doesn’t mean it doesn’t do anything.“
Remember that the field I practice in means I’m exposed to athletes for long periods of time through the day and through the week. As a proportion of that day, massage does not make up a large percentage of treatment time. Gym based, movement optimisation does. So I’m not saying we should all go and massage every athlete and patient that requests it. Like everything I think there are certain individuals that benefit from certain techniques and methods. Given time restraints in an outpatients clinic, it may not feature at all as part of my treatment. But regardless of the size this cog plays in the treatment machine, I believe its a valuable one.