4.6 Article

Static and dynamic balance ability, lumbo-pelvic movement control and injury incidence in cricket pace bowlers

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 19-25

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.10.245

关键词

Lumbo-pelvic movement control; Balance; Injury; Cricket; Pace bowler

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study aimed to establish the difference in lumbo-pelvic movement control, static and dynamic balance at the start and at the end of a cricket season in pace bowlers who sustained an injury during the season and those who did not. Design: This is a longitudinal, observational study. Methods: Thirty-two, healthy, injury free, male premier league fast, fast-medium and medium pace bowlers between the ages of 18 and 26 years (mean age 21.8 years, standard deviation 1.8 years) participated in the study. The main outcome measures were injury incidence, lumbo-pelvic movement control, static and dynamic balance ability. Results: Fifty-three percent of the bowlers (n=17) sustained injuries during the reviewed cricket season. Lumbo-pelvic movement control tests could not discriminate between bowlers who sustained an injury during the cricket season and bowlers who did not. However, performance in the single leg balance test (p = 0.03; confidence interval 4.74-29.24) and the star excursion balance test (p = 0.02; confidence interval 1.28-11.93) as measured at the start of the season was better in bowlers who did not sustain an injury during the season. Conclusions: The improvement in the lumbo-pelvic movement control and balance tests suggests that the intensity and type of physical conditioning that happens throughout the season may have been responsible for this improvement. Poor performance in the single leg balance test and the star excursion balance test at the start of the cricket season may be an indication that a bowler is at heightened risk of injury. (C) 2013 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据