Motor control and strength as predictors of hamstring injury in elite players of Australian football
Introduction
Hamstring strain injuries are common in all football codes and sports involving sprinting, and are the most frequently occurring and recurring of all injuries in Australian football. At the elite level, hamstring injuries occur at a rate of 6.2 injuries per club per season, and result in 21.2 missed player games per club per season (Orchard and Seward, 2002). These rates are the highest of all the elite level football codes in Australia (Seward et al., 1993). Hamstring injuries have the highest recurrence rate of all football injuries and notwithstanding the best rehabilitation attempts, more than one in three (34%) injuries recur within the same season (Orchard and Seward, 2002). Risk has been shown to be increased following previous hamstring injury (Bennell et al., 1998, Garrett, 1996, Orchard, 2001), calf strain injury (Orchard, 2001), and serious knee and groin injuries (Verral et al., 2001). Risk has also been shown to be increased in players of Australian football older than 23 years of age (Orchard, 2001).
Despite the magnitude of this problem in Australian football, the aetiology of such injuries is unclear. Factors that have been suggested to predispose an athlete to hamstring muscle strain injury include muscle weakness, muscle imbalance, poor flexibility, fatigue, inadequate warm-up, poor neuromuscular control and poor running technique (Agre, 1985). There is little evidence for poor flexibility as a hamstring injury predictor (Bennell et al., 1999), and apart from muscle weakness there is no empirical support for any of the other suggested factors (Orchard, 2001).
The hamstring muscle group reaches peak elongation and acts eccentrically at the hip and knee during the late swing phase of the running cycle (Frigo et al., 1979, Simonsen et al., 1985). Kinetic and EMG studies reveal that the hamstrings are most active and develop the greatest torques at the hip and knee during late swing through to the mid-stance phase of running (Mann and Sprague, 1980, Montgomery et al., 1994). It is during these parts of the running cycle that the hamstrings are under the greatest demands and injury most likely (Mann and Sprague, 1980, Stanton and Purdam, 1989). Given the high forces involved, it would seem that hamstring weakness might predispose an athlete to injury, however, to date, there have not been adequate findings to support either hamstring muscle weakness or hamstring-quadriceps strength imbalance as risk factors (Orchard, 2001).
Muscle weakness has been the most extensively investigated of all proposed predisposing factors for hamstring injury. Retrospective studies have suggested a relationship between muscle weakness and hamstring injury (Crosier and Crielaard, 2000, Crosier et al., 2002, Heiser et al., 1984), however, retrospectivity can confound the causes and effects of injury. The literature also contains a small number of prospective studies, which allow firmer conclusions to be drawn regarding the factors involved in the prediction of injury, but the results to date are inconsistent. Two studies using isometric hamstring strength assessment demonstrated an association between injury and a side-to-side deficit of 10% (Burkett, 1970) and a lower hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio (Yamamoto, 1993). The latter finding was supported by a study using isokinetic dynamometry at 60 °/s, which linked injury to a hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio below 0.60 (Orchard et al., 1997). In contrast, Liemohn (1978) did not find any relationship between injury and isometric hamstring-to-quadriceps strength ratio, nor did a larger study examining concentric and eccentric isokinetic strength reveal any association between injury and similar strength ratios (Bennell et al., 1998).
One possible causative factor of hamstring injury, that has not been previously examined, is the accuracy of neuromuscular control of the leg during running. Throughout the running cycle there are many challenging neuromuscular events in which the hamstring acts, for example, to control hip and knee motion in late swing and to provide hip extensor torque in early stance. During sprinting, these events occur over a very short period of time, and if the control and coordination are inadequate, then muscle strain injury may result (Agre, 1985, Bennell et al., 1999). Control of a limb requires that information be obtained and integrated from proprioceptors of the entire limb, and that control will be influenced in part by activity in the opposite limb. Joint or single segment proprioception has been assessed by various techniques that employ joint position testing, kinesthaesia testing or sense of effort testing, often in non-weight-bearing postures (Lephart and Fu, 2000). Waddington and Adams (1999) assessed movement discrimination (MD) at the ankle based on functional movement principles, whereby subjects performed ankle inversion movements in standing and made judgments regarding the extent of these movements without visual input about the movement. This requires the processing of both afferent and efferent information about the lower limb being tested, and performance reflects a subject's ability to do this accurately. An association was demonstrated between poor discrimination ability and previous ankle sprain injury. This task was later extended to enable assessment of MD of the knee during weight-bearing flexion (Waddington et al., 2000).
Utilising the same functional movement principles for the current study on hamstring function, a similar apparatus may be employed to assess the discrimination of movement extent using the backward swinging leg, whilst weight-bearing on the other side, in order to create a functional movement as close as possible to the movement at injury. The position of the player while being tested is selected to recreate the proposed movement region in which hamstring injury occurs: between the late swing to mid-stance phases of the running cycle (Fig. 1). Ability to accurately discriminate swinging leg movements can be seen as reflecting use of proprioception from the lower limbs, and is integral to the motor control of the leg in this region of the running cycle where hamstring injury is likely to occur.
The aim of this study was to assess swinging leg MD, isokinetic hamstring and quadriceps strength, and history of previous hamstring injury, in order to determine any association these factors have with respect to subsequent hamstring injuries in a group of elite Australian football players.
Section snippets
Participants
Twenty players of Australian football were recruited for this study from the training squad of one professional Australian Football League (AFL) team. All subjects were male and the mean (SD) age was 23.6 years (3.2), height 185.5 cms (8.5), weight 87.8 kg (9.1), and the mean number of AFL training years was 4.7 (3.34). Subjects were excluded if any significant lower limb injury was sustained in the twelve weeks immediately prior to assessment. Approval for the study was obtained from the
Results
In the two seasons following testing, six subjects sustained one or more significant hamstring muscle strains. In the two seasons prior to testing, seven subjects had experienced hamstring muscle strains, and two of these subjects were in the group of six injured in the subsequent period. There was no past history of hamstring injury in 4 of the 6 subsequently injured subjects.
Mean MD scores and thigh concentric strength variables for the groups are given in Table 1. With respect to the
Discussion
Three measures—backward leg swing MD, hamstring strength relative to quadriceps strength and quadriceps strength relative to body weight—were found to predict hamstring injury in a subsequent two-season period. The number of players sustaining a hamstring injury in this study was equivalent to a seasonal rate of 15% and is similar to the rate of 14% described by a previous study of injuries in Australian football at this level (Seward et al., 1993).
First, on a test utilizing a movement similar
Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest that poor leg neuromuscular control may be a significant contributor to hamstring injury. Data in this study has also supported the injury risk of a low hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio. Investigations into only a single contributing factor are likely to lack agreement due to the multi-factorial nature of hamstring strain injury. This study has linked two variables—poor leg MD and thigh muscle strength imbalance—with an increased risk of hamstring injury. At this
References (38)
- et al.
Does the toe-touch test predict hamstring injury in Australian Rules footballers?
Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
(1999) - et al.
A psychophysical evaluation of manual stiffness discrimination
Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
(1995) - et al.
Discrimination of active plantarflexion and inversion movements after ankle injury
Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
(1999) - et al.
Comparing wobbleboard and jump-landing training effects on knee and ankle movement discrimination
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
(2000) - et al.
Isokinetic hamstring/quadriceps strength ratio: influence from joint angular velocity, gravity correction and contraction mode
Acta Physiologia Scandinavia
(1995) Hamstring injuries
Sports Medicine
(1985)- et al.
Isokinetic strength testing does not predict hamstring injury in Australian Rules footballers
British Journal of Sports Medicine
(1998) Comparing diagnostic tests: a simple graphic using likelihood ratios
Statistics in Medicine
(2000)Causative factors in hamstring strains
Medicine and Science in Sports
(1970)- et al.
Hamstring muscle tear with recurrent complaints: an isokinetic profile
Isokinetics and Exercise Science
(2000)
Hamstring muscle strain recurrence and strength performance disorders
American Journal of Sports Medicine
A correlation between muscle length and EMG activities during running
Muscle strain injuries
American Journal of Sports Medicine
Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics
A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases
Radiology
Prophylaxis and management of hamstring muscle injuries in intercollegiate football players
American Journal of Sports Medicine
Isokinetic evaluation of muscular performance: implications for muscle testing and rehabilitation
International Journal of Sports Medicine
Proprioception and Neuromuscular Control in Joint Stability
Factors related to hamstring strains
Journal of Sports Medicine
Cited by (104)
Acute effects of Nordic hamstring exercise on hip and knee joints proprioception
2024, Journal of Bodywork and Movement TherapiesIs hamstrings-to-quadriceps torque ratio useful for predicting anterior cruciate ligament and hamstring injuries? A systematic and critical review
2023, Journal of Sport and Health ScienceThe measurement of proprioceptive accuracy: A systematic literature review
2023, Journal of Sport and Health ScienceSprinting technique and hamstring strain injuries: A concept mapping study
2022, Journal of Science and Medicine in SportLower limb joint position sense and prospective hamstring injury
2021, Musculoskeletal Science and PracticeCitation Excerpt :Comparison between results of our study and other studies is difficult due to inclusion of different injuries studied, different JPS testing positions adopted (Namazi et al., 2019) as well as different proprioceptive tests used. For example, Cameron et al. (2003) demonstrated significantly worse movement discrimination (MD) scores in players who sustained a hamstring injury but comparing MD and JPS results is difficult. Although they are thought to be similar measures in some other areas of the body, direct relationships between these measures have not been identified at other joints such as the ankle (Yang et al., 2020).
Effects of flexibility and strength training on peak hamstring musculotendinous strains during sprinting
2021, Journal of Sport and Health Science