Search

Context: Arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) is a common neurophysiological response to joint injury. While athletic trainers (ATs) are constantly treating patients with AMI, it is unclear how clinicians are using the available evidence to treat the condition. Objective: To investigate ATs' general knowledge, clinical practice, and barriers for treating AMI. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was utilized. The survey was distributed to a random sample of 3000 ATs from the National Athletic Trainers' Association and through social media. 143 board certified ATs (age: 34.6 [10.3] y; experience: 11.7 [9.8] y) from various clinical settings and educational backgrounds were included in the analysis. Results: One hundred one respondents were able to correctly identify the definition of AMI. The majority of these respondents correctly reported that joint effusion (n = 95, 94.1%) and abnormal activity from joint receptors (n = 91, 90.1%) resulted in AMI. Of the 101 respondents, only 58 (57.4%) reported using disinhibitory interventions to treat AMI. The most frequently used evidence supported interventions were transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (n = 38,65.5%), neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 33,56.9%), and focal joint cooling (n = 25, 43.1 %). The interventions used correctly most often based on current evidence were neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 29/33, 87.9%) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (n = 26/38, 68.4%). Overall, difficulty quantifying AMI (n = 62, 61.24%) and lack of education (n = 71, 76.2%) were most frequently perceived as barriers. Respondents that did not use disinhibitory interventions perceived lack of experience treating AMI, understanding the terminology, and access to therapeutic modalities more often than the respondents that reported using disinhibitory interventions. Conclusion: Further education about concepts and treatment about AMI is warranted for ATs. Continued understanding of ATs' clinical practice in regard to AMI may help identify gaps in athletic training clinical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Central activation ratio (CAR) is a common outcome measure used to quantify gross neuromuscular function of the quadriceps using the superimposed burst technique, yet this outcome measure has not been validated in the gluteal musculature. Objective: To quantify gluteus medius (GMed) and gluteus maximus (GMax) CAR in a healthy population and evaluate its validity and reliability over a 1-week period. Design: Descriptive. Setting: Laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 20 healthy participants (9 males and 11 females; age 22.2 [1.4] y, height 173.4 [11.1] cm, mass 84.8 [25.8] kg) were enrolled in this study. Interventions: Participants were assessed at 2 sessions, separated by 1 week. Progressive electrical stimuli (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%) were delivered to the GMed and GMax at rest, and 100% stimuli were delivered during progressive hip abduction and extension contractions (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% maximal voluntary isometric contraction). Main Outcome Measures: GMed and GMax CAR, and hip abduction and hip extension maximal voluntary isometric contraction torque. Line of best fit and coefficient of determination (r²) were used to assess the relationship between torque output and CAR at varying levels of stimuli. Intraclass correlation coefficients, ICCs(3,k), were used to assess the between-session reliability. Results: GMed CAR was 96.1% (3.4%) and 96.6% (3.2%), on visits 1 and 2, respectively, whereas GMax CAR was 86.5% (7.5%) and 87.2% (10.7%) over the 2 sessions. A third-order polynomial demonstrated the best line of fit between varying superimposed burst intensities at rest for both GMed (r² = .156) and GMax (r² = .602). Linear relationships were observed in the CAR during progressive contractions with a maximal superimposed burst, GMed (r² = .409) and GMax (r² = .639). Between-session reliability was excellent tor GMed CAR, ICC(3,k) = .911, and moderate for GMax CAR, ICC(3,k) = .704. Conclusion: CAR appears to be an acceptable measure of GMed and GMax neuromuscular function in healthy individuals. Gluteal CAR measurements are reliable measures over a 1-week test period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]