Clinical Updates from ISHA 2015 (International Society for Hip Arthroscopy) Conference – Ben Matthew

We are delighted to host a blog from fellow physiotherapist and twitter geek, Ben Mathew (@function2fitnes) who discusses his take home messages from last years International Hip Conference in Cambridge. Ben discusses some brilliant considerations for when conservative treatment just doesn’t work, which compliments nicely with a recent blog we wrote on trying to manage hip pathology in-season (here). Some of the points I particular like relate to the rehab after surgery. Thats enough from me…Thanks very much to Ben.

 

Clinical Updates from ISHA 2015 (International Society for Hip Arthroscopy) Conference – September 2015, Cambridge

 

Conditions like Femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI) and Acetabular Labral tears (ALT) are being recognised as the leading cause of hip and groin pain in the active population and has gained increasing attention over the past decade. In the past, these pathological process simply went undiagnosed. Surgical management, especially hip arthroscopy, can be a viable treatment option, especially when conservative management has failed.

Leading hip surgeons, researchers, health economists and expert physiotherapists came together for the ISHA conference at Cambridge (24 – 26 September, 2015) to discuss the latest developments and research findings in this rapidly evolving clinical speciality. I was fortunate to be there and to gain the up-to-date understanding of the complex hip and groin area, and also to listen to some top speakers. It is difficult to summarise a 3 day seminar in a short post. However, I have tried to cover some key clinical points, which might be useful for therapists, involved in hip and groin rehab. I have divided this post in three areas

 

1. Clinical Examination of Hip Related Groin Pain
2. Management of Post-op Hip Arthroscopy Patient
3. Key References which were mentioned in the lectures

 

Clinical Examination of Hip Related Groin Pain

1. Examination of Chronic hip and groin pain is challenging. It is important to have a thorough subjective assessment as part of the screening process. Some of the key subjective questions specific to the hip region are

• Childhood hip disease like Perthes, SUFE, Dysplasia (These patients are at a high Risk of secondary Osteoarthritis)
• Lower Limb Fractures and History of Stress Fractures
• Mechanical Symptoms like Clicking, Locking and Catching with pain (Highly indicative of ALT)
• History of Steroid Use (linked with Red flag Pathology like Avascular necrosis)
• Multi-joint Pain and Presence of Generalised Ligamentous Laxity (linked with capsular laxity and ligamentum teres injuries)

 

2. Use of Patient reported Scales such as the HAGOS Scale and iHOT 33 were encouraged to be used as part of the screening process, to assess the physical, functional and psychological effect of chronic hip pain.

 

3. The most provocative movements for FAI and ALT are prolonged sitting, deep squat, getting in and out of car, kicking and twisting movement. Movements which involve deep squatting or loaded rotation are usually painful in this cohort. If the patients have significant early morning stiffness, there could be an element of early osteoarthritis.

 

4. Functional testing is an important part of the objective examination. Tests such as Overhead squat, Lateral step-down and Single leg squat are impaired in chronic hip and groin pain. The most common compensation is excessive hip adduction and hip internal rotation. These impairments could be due to pain, motor control deficits or weakness. If the patient can consciously correct it, it is most likely to be motor control deficit.

 

5. It is very common to have co-existing pathologies with chronic hip pain. Some common conditions are low back pain, SIJ pain and Pubic overload syndrome

 

6. There is no specific tests to diagnose for FAI or ALT. A combination of the FAIR (Impingement test) and FABER is useful to rule out articular hip pathology. The FAIR test is not specific for FAI, but indicates internal derangement of the hip.

 

7. Strength deficits are very common in chronic articular hip pathologies. It can be bilateral. The most affected groups are hip abductors and hip external rotators.

 

8. A very useful tip to differentiate between hip related groin pain and adductor related groin pain is by isometric strength testing, using hand held dynamometer. There is reduced adductor to abductor ratio in the adductor related groin pain group than hip related groin pain.

 

9. The most important objective marker is the range of medial rotation. Generally, patients with FAI tend to have internal rotation less than 15 degrees. Patients who have less than 10 degrees of internal rotation tend to do poorly with conservative management.

 

10. Excessive ROM in internal rotation and external rotation can be indicative of structural variations such as dysplasia or capsular laxity, which is very common in the dancing and martial arts population.

 

Post-op Hip Arthroscopy Hip Patients Management 

1. There is lack of consensus on these variables following hip arthroscopy (Weight bearing status, Use of CPM, timing for manual techniques, guidance of soft tissue work, Use of brace). Therefore, it is important to liaise with the surgeon on clear guidance and precaution for optimal rehab following hip arthroscopy.

 

2. Some suggested time-lines for different types of procedures in hip arthrscopy in the conference were

• Bone Reshaping / Osteoplasty   –   Immediate WB with crutches as tolerated
• Labral Debridement / Repair       –   Immediate WB with crutches as tolerated
• Cartilage Procedures / Microfracture – 6 Weeks NWB
• Capsule Procedures / Plication          – 6 Weeks NWB

 

3. The incidence of post-op complications are very low, around 0.5% for major complications. Most post-op issues are soft tissue inflammation such as psoas tendinitis.

 

4. Most patients symptoms tend to flare-up after 3-4 weeks, following hip arthroscopy, when they start weaning off crutches and increasing activity. It is important that patient are informed that it is a very slow process of rehab and loading should be gradual.

 

5. Hydrotherapy is a very useful adjunct and can be started within 8- 14 days, once the sutures are out and the wound is healed.

 

6. Exercises such as CLAM and Active SLR are best avoided in this cohort since it irritates the hip flexors and can lead to psoas tendinits which can be very painful and limit rehab progression. (See Sams thoughts on CLAM’s here)

 

7. Regaining Hip extension is paramount in the initial stage. Manual techniques are best avoided in the first 3-4 weeks. Avoid excessive passive stretches during this period, when the capsule and labrum is vulnerable.

 

8. Local stability of the small rotators of the hip is encouraged, in the initial stage, along with hip abductor training. Global movement training such as squats, step-ups and dead-lifts are not appropriate in the initial stages.

 

9. Progression of patients should be criteria based, rather than time based. It is important to have a clear return to play screening process, before returning to contact sports. In this regard, it is similar to ACL rehab.

 

• Around 82-87% of athletic patients are able to return to playing full sports following hip arthroscopy. The average time is between 6months – 8 months. The sport with the lowest success rate is rowing (not surprising, considering the excessive flexion in the sport)

 

I hope you found this summary of the conference useful and thanks for reading.

Any thoughts/comments very welcome.

 

Ben is MSK Extended Scope Practitioner in the NHS and also in private practice. He has a special interest in lower limb, running injuries and chronic hip and groin conditions. He is passionate about application of research in clinical practice and is involved in regular teaching nationwide on multiple lower limb courses. You can follow ben on Twitter@function2fitnes

Key References

1. Adler(2015)- Current Concepts in Rehabilitation following Hip Preservation Surgery: Part 2. Sports Health. Published online – July 2015
2. Agricola(2015)- What is Femoroacetabular Impingement? BJSM, Published Online – June 2015
3. Bleakley et al (2015)- Hip Joint Pathology as a Leading Cause of Groin Pain in the Sporting Population: A 6-Year Review of 894 Cases
 Am J Sports Med published online May 11, 2015
4. Elias- Jones et al (2015)- Inflammation and Neovascularization in Hip Impingement. Not just wear and tear. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 43, No.8
5. Frank et al (2015)- Prevalence of Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging Findings in Asymptomatic Volunteers: A Systematic Review, Arthroscopy, Vol 31, No 6 (June), 2015
6. Hammoud et al (2014))- The Recognition and Evaluation of Patterns of Compensatory Injury in Patients with Mechanical Hip Pain. Sports Health. Mar/Apr 2014
7. Mosler(2015)- Which factors differentiate athletes with hip/groin pain from those without? A systematic review with meta-analysis, BJSM, Published online – July 2015
8. Nepple at al (2015)- What is the association between sports participation and the development of proximal cam deformity? The American Journal of Sports Medicine
9. Ross et al (2014)- Effect of changes in pelvic Tilt on range of motion to Impingement and radiographic parameters of acetabular Morphologic Characteristics. Am J Sports Med, originally published online July 24, 2014
10. Zadpoor (2015)- Etiology of Femoroacetabular Impingement in Athletes: A Review of Recent Findings, Sports Med, Published Online: 22 May 2015

 

 

 

“Has the athlete trained enough to return to play safely?” Acute:Chronic workloads and rehabilitation – a guest blog by Jo Clubb

We are delighted to have the excellent Jo Clubb agree to write a blog for us. Admittedly, this blog is a little more high-brow than our usual ramblings, so thanks to Jo for adding some class to our library. Jo has recently broken into the American sports scene, working as a sports scientist with the Buffalo Sabres NHL, bringing with her expertise from her years in football (..soccer) in the UK (previously with Chelsea & more recently with Brighton & Hove Albion FC). What makes this blog extra special to us is that Jo already has an excellent blog page of her own that is read and commended worldwide (Sports Discovery – here). Jo demonstrates how & why sports science plays a massive part in return from injury in professional sport…

Introduction:

Training Stress Balance and the Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio are real buzz words in Sports Science at the moment. They also have important implications for the Physiotherapy and Conditioning communities in terms of rehabilitation and Return To Play.

This concept is derived from Banister’s modelling of human performance back in the 1970s (and then later added to by Busso in the 1990s) that put forward an impulse-response model to predict training load induced changes in performance. If we consider a single block of training, this stimulus will have a temporary negative influence represented as ‘fatigue’ but over a longer time frame will have a positive influence, represented as ‘fitness’. Performance will consequently be a product of the Fitness Fatigue relationship (see Figure 1). Within this theoretical model of Training Theory, it is suggested that with regular training stimuli we can manipulate these processes of fitness and fatigue via training load, recovery and overcompensation, to have a positive influence on performance (see Figure 2).

Figure 1: Used with permission from Professor Aaron Coutts

 

Figure 2: Used with permission from Professor Aaron Coutts

The Acute:Chronic Workload

Whilst this concept of training stress balance has been cited since these early, groundbreaking days, it has recently been developed into the acute:chronic workload ratio by Tim Gabbett and colleagues, which they suggest is the best practice predictor of training-related injuries (Gabbett, 2015).

It has previously been represented as a % for Training Stress Balance, but the focus now seems to be on utilising it in a ratio form, for example:

= Acute workload / Chronic workload

= 3000 (Au) / 4000 (Au) = 0.75

In this example acute workload is represented as the total load over the previous one week and chronic workload is the average weekly load for the previous four weeks, both utilising an arbitary unit (Au) such as session RPE.

So a ratio below 1, as per the above example, suggests the athlete is more likely to be in a state of “freshness”; their load over the past week has been less than their average weekly load over the past four weeks.

On the other hand a ratio above 1 represents that the workload over the past week has been greater than the average weekly load over the past four weeks, so they may be more likely to be in a state of “fatigue” and potentially less prepared for that workload. Recent research has suggested a ratio greater than 1.5 represents a “spike” in workload that is related to a significantly higher risk of injury (Blanch and Gabbett, 2015 here).

Training and Game Loads and Injury Risk

Tim Gabbett and his colleagues have collected consistent data within the training environment, statistically modelled the relationships between workload and injury risk, applied their model to help reduce injury risk in the training environment and published this data – for me this is the gold standard process of Sports Science and a method we should strive to replicate within each of our own environments. The relationship between workloads and injury risk has included just some of the following research:

• Running loads and soft tissue injury in rugby league (Gabbett and Ullah, 2012)
• Training and game loads and injury risk in Australian football (Rogalski et al, 2013; Colby et al, 2014)
• Pitching workloads and injury risk in youth baseball (Fleisig et al, 2011)
• Spikes in acute workload and injury risk in elite cricket fast bowlers (Hulin et al, 2014)
• Acute:chronic workload ratio and injury risk in elite rugby league players (Hulin et al, 2015)

I can talk about this all day (and probably will in a number of other blogs); however the focus of this specific blog is on the application in the rehabilitation environment so I will leave it at that for now. If you do want to read more of this topic, I highly recommend reading the following OPEN ACCESS paper:

The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? (Gabbett, 2016) Br J Sports Med doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788

 

Rehabilitation

There is plenty of application to this approach in the training environment however; it is just as important in the rehabilitation setting as highlighted in the following paper:

Has the athlete trained enough to return to play safely? The acute:chronic workload ratio permits clinicians to quantify a player’s risk of subsequent injury (Blanch and Gabbett, 2015).

Rehabilitation is without doubt a very complex continuum in which medical staff assist the athlete through early stage rehabilitation to the multifaceted return to train, play and performance decisions, which I have tried to tackle previously (here)  and specifically for hamstring injuries (here). Previous to the paper by Peter Blanch and Tim Gabbett much of the literature on Return to Play failed to acknowledge the consideration of the progression of load in the RTP decision.

Often the evaluation of health status that directly influences the Return To Play decision may incorporate instantaneous physical testing results such as isokinetics or force plate assessment, as well as functional on pitch activity profile targets such as peak speeds, distances, high intensity running and velocity changes. Whilst there is no doubt these have their place, there also needs to be consideration for the loading achieved throughout the rehabilitation continuum in preparation for the acute and chronic loading demands of training and matchplay.

Blanch and Gabbett present a real world example from rugby league (Figure 3) in which a player suffered a hamstring injury after an acute:chronic workload ratio of 1.6 in training week 15. After two low-minimal weeks of high speed running due to the injury, the acute:chronic workload three weeks later spiked to 1.9 (presumably as high speed running was reincorporated into the rehabilitation phase in week 18) and then suffered a reinjury. This example also reminds us to consider which measure(s) of load is most relevant to each sport, injury and individual. High speed running is no doubt important to a hamstring injury but may be of less importance with other sports and injuries. The acute:chronic workload ratio can be applied to any of the variables you collect and may represent a different picture across different metrics.

Figure 3: From Blanch and Gabbett (2015), p2.

Rod Whiteley recently gave an excellent presentation at the Aspire Monitoring Training Loads conference entitled “The conditioning-medical paradox: should service teams be working together or as enemies on the training load battlefield?” He applied Tim Gabbett’s work to rehabilitation workloads and related it to the “chronic rehabber”; s/he who never gets to build a consistently high base of chronic workload to prepare themselves for returning to the training environment, so suffers a spike in acute:chronic workload and then a reinjury (Figure 4). He called upon us to “fundamentally rethink how we’re reintroducing the athletes” as well as breaking down the traditional silo structure between medical staff and conditioning staff.

Figure 4: Presented by Rod Whiteley, Aspire Monitoring Training Load Conference February 2016

Now we obviously cannot keep athletes away from the training environment forever and nor would we want to. However, it seems avoiding spikes in acute:chronic workloads with returning athletes may help the transition into return to training and competition, and to reduce reinjury risk. This may be achieved via further progressing the load achieved prior to RTP and/or reducing the load from reintegration by using modified training (or a mixture of both). In reality it may not be as simple as that – a major challenge for the Science and Medicine team is to manage expectations of both the athlete and the coaches. I’m sure if the athlete is looking good and undergoing a substantial training load there will be pressure to incorporate them into training.

I believe this paper highlights the need firstly to consider and plan (where possible) the progression of load throughout rehabilitation, end stage and continued into training and games. Whilst the athlete may be physically prepared for the demands of a one off training session, we must also pay attention to the demands in terms of acute and chronic load. It also highlights the need to consider the consequences of each decision relating to loading of the athlete; whether that is the decision to offload the athlete for a day (which may of course be truly necessary based on the clinical presentation) or the decision of how much load to put the athlete through day to day. In another example from the Blanch and Gabbett paper the authors put forward a representation of an injured player’s Return to Play and demonstrate how the variations in load in that week directly influence the likelihood of injury – i.e. 90% acute load would return an 11% likelihood of injury, compared to 120% which would be related to 15% risk.

Whilst injuries are undoubtedly complex, multifaceted and influenced by many factors, and statistical modelling of the risk has its own limitations, it seems the evidence is strong enough to suggest that the interaction of acute and chronic load through rehabilitation and RTP is another piece of the puzzle that is worthwhile considering.

Jo Clubb (@JoClubbSportSci)

 

References

Banister EW & Calvert TW. (1975) A systems model of training for athletic performance. Aust J Sports Med; 7: 57-61.

Blanch P & Gabbett TJ. (2015) Has the athlete trained enough to return to play safely? The acute:chronic workload ratio permits clinicians to quantify a player’s risk of subsequent injury. Br J Sports Med;0:1–5. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095445

Busso T, Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, et al. (1990) A systems model of training responses and its relationship to hormonal responses in elite weight-lifters. Eur J Appl Physiol; 61: 48-54.

Colby MJ, Dawson B, Heasman J, et al. (2014) Accelerometer and GPS-dervied running loads and injury risk in elite Australian footballers. J Strength Cond Res; 28: 2244-52.

Fleisig GS, Andrews JR, Cutter GR, et al. (2011) Risk of serious injury for young baseball pitchers: a 10-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med; 39: 253-7.

Gabbett, TJ. (2016) The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788

Gabbett TJ & Ullah S. (2012) Relationship between running loads and soft-tissue injury in elite team sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res; 26:953-60.

Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Blanch P, et al. (2014) Spikes in acute workload are associated with increased injury risk in elite cricket fast bowlers. Br J Sports Med; 48: 708-12.

Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Lawson DW, et al. (2015) The acute:chronic workload ratio predicts injury: high chronic workload may decrease injury risk in elite rugby league players. Br J Sports Med; Published Online First: 28 Oct 2015. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094817doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094817

Rogalski B, Dawson B, Heasman J, et al. (2013) Training and game loads and injury risk in elite Australian footballers. J Sci Med Sport; 16: 499-503.

 

Recovery from concussion – a guest blog by Kate Moores

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.

This is part 2 of Kates guest blog (part 1 here).

 

Recovery

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.

“They said something about no computer games”

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?

This doesn’t even make sense

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

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.

Following a severe head injury (skull fractures), Peter Cech has become synonomous with this head gear. It provides him with the confidence to play – but what does it do?

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:

Symptoms	Consequences
Headache (97%)	Persistent headache (93%)
Dizzyness (93%)	Catastrophic (haemorrhage, coma, death) (60%)
Confusion (90%)	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.

Concussion Assessment – a guest blog by Kate Moores

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)

Conor McGoldricks first day at school

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”

Assessment

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.

We educate people about how robust their body is, but should we be more cautious with brain injuries?

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hamstring Injury – What are we missing? by Jonny King

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?

More brain training before RTP?

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 1^st half & throughout the 2^nd 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.

Are we doing too much?

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 =)

 

Jonny