4.6 Article

A comparative study of whole body vibration training and conventional training on knee proprioception and postural stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.038554

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the effect of a whole body vibration training (WBVT) programme with a conventional training (CT) programme on knee proprioception and postural stability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods: Twenty athletes with unilateral ACL reconstruction were randomly assigned to the WBVT or CT group; all participants received 12 sessions of WBVT or conventional training. Absolute error in joint repositioning for two target angles (30 degrees and 60 degrees) was measured with the Biodex dynamometer; bilateral dynamic postural stability ( anteroposterior, mediolateral and overall stability indices) was measured with the Biodex Stability System pre-intervention and post-intervention. Results: The improvement in postural stability in the WBVT group was significantly greater than that in the CT group ( p <= 0.05). The p values of the changing scores of open overall, open anteroposterior, open mediolateral, closed overall, closed anteroposterior and closed mediolateral stability indices were 0.002, 0.010, 0.0001, 0.001, 0.0001 and 0.046, respectively. In addition, there were significant differences in all averages of absolute angular error at 60 degrees and 30 degrees between the WBVT and CT groups in both knees (p=0.001 in healthy knees and p=0.001 and p=0.0001 in reconstructed knees), apart from the healthy knees at the 30u target position, which was not significant (p=0.131). Conclusions: Whole body vibration training improved proprioception and balance in athletes with reconstructed ACL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available