Friday, May 21, 2010

The Effects of Precompetition Massage on the Kinematic Parameters of 20-m Sprint Performance

The Effects of Precompetition Massage on the Kinematic Parameters of 20-m Sprint Performance

The effects of precompetition massage on the kinematic parameters of 20-m sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res 24(5): 1179-1183, 2010-The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect precompetition massage has on short-term sprint performance. Twenty male collegiate games players, with a minimum training/playing background of 3 sessions per week, were assigned to a randomized, counter-balanced, repeated-measures designed experiment used to analyze 20-m sprints performance. Three discrete warm-up modalities, consisting of precompetition massage, a traditional warm-up, and a precompetition massage combined with a traditional warm-up were used. Massage consisted of fast, superficial techniques designed to stimulate the main muscle groups associated with sprint running. Twenty-meter sprint performance and core temperature were assessed post warm-up interventions. Kinematic differences between sprints were assessed through a 2-dimensional computerized motion analysis system (alpha level p <= 0.05). Results indicated that sprint times in the warm-up and massage combined with warm-up conditions were significantly faster than massage alone. Also, step rate and mean knee velocity were found to be significantly greater in the warm-up and massage combined with warm-up modalities when compared to massage alone. No significant differences were demonstrated in any measures when the warm-up and massage and warm-up combined conditions were compared. Massage as a preperformance preparation strategy seems to decrease 20-m sprint performance when compared to a traditional warm-up, although its combination with a normal active warm-up seems to have no greater benefit then active warm-up alone. Therefore, massage use prior to competition is questionable because it appears to have no effective role in improving sprint performance. (C) 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Friday, May 7, 2010

Which Method of Rotator Cuff Repair Leads to the Highest Rate of Structural Healing? A Systematic Review

Which Method of Rotator Cuff Repair Leads to the Highest Rate of Structural Healing?
A Systematic Review
Thomas R. Duquin, MD, Cathy Buyea, MS and Leslie J. Bisson, MD*
+ Author Affiliations

From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York
*Address correspondence to Leslie J. Bisson, MD, 4949 Harlem Road, Amherst, New York 14226 (e-mail:

Background The purpose of rotator cuff repair is to diminish pain and restore function, and this most predictably occurs when the tendon is demonstrated to heal. Recent improvements in repair methods have led to improved biomechanical performance, but this has not yet been demonstrated to result in higher healing rates. The purpose of our study was to determine whether different repair methods resulted in different rates of recurrent tearing after surgery.

Hypotheses We hypothesized that (1) the rotator cuff repair method will not affect retear rate, and (2) the surgical approach will not affect the retear rate for a given repair method.

Study Design Systematic review of the literature.

Methods The literature was systematically searched to find articles reporting imaging study assessment of structural healing rates after rotator cuff repair, with data stratified according to tear size. Retear rates were compared for transosseous (TO), single-row suture anchor (SA), double-row suture anchor (DA), and suture bridge (SB) repair methods, as well as for open (O), miniopen (MO), and arthroscopic (A) approaches.

Results Retear rates were available for 1252 repairs collected from 23 studies. Retear rates were significantly lower for double-row repairs when compared with TO or SA for all tears greater than 1 cm and ranged from 7% for tears less than 1 cm to 41% for tears greater than 5 cm, in comparison with retear rates for single-row techniques (TO and SA) of 17% to 69% for tears less than 1 cm and greater than 5 cm, respectively. There was no significant difference in retear rates between TO and SA repair methods or between arthroscopic and nonarthroscopic approaches for any tear size.

Conclusion Double-row repair methods lead to significantly lower retear rates when compared with single-row methods for tears greater than 1 cm. Surgical approach has no significant effect on retear rate.