Mechanical lower back pain and sacroiliac joint dysfunction in golfers at two golf clubs in Durban, South Africa

Prevalence and risk factors for back pain in sports: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) in sport, and what risk factors were associated with LBP in athletes.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Literature searches from database inception to June 2019 in Medline, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and Scopus, supplemented by grey literature searching.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies evaluating prevalence of LBP in adult athletes across all sports.

RESULTS

Eighty-six studies were included (30 732, range 20-5958, participants), of which 45 were of 'high' quality. Definitions of LBP varied widely, and in 17 studies, no definition was provided. High-quality studies were pooled and the mean point prevalence across six studies was 42%; range 18%-80% (95% CI 27% to 58%, I2=97%). Lifetime prevalence across 13 studies was 63%; range 36%-88% (95% CI 51% to 74%, I2=99%). Twelve-month LBP prevalence from 22 studies was 51%; range 12%-94% (95% CI 41% to 61%, I2=98%). Comparison across sports was limited by participant numbers, study quality and methodologies, and varying LBP definitions. Risk factors for LBP included history of a previous episode with a pooled OR of 3.5; range 1.6-4.0 (95% CI 1.9 to 6.4). Statistically significant associations were reported for high training volume, periods of load increase and years of exposure to the sport.

CONCLUSION

LBP in sport is common but estimates vary. Current evidence is insufficient to identify which sports are at highest risk. A previous episode of LBP, high training volume, periods of load increase and years of exposure are common risk factors.

Comparing the Effectiveness of the Muscle Energy Technique and Kinesiotaping in Mechanical Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Non-blinded, Two-Group, Pretest-Posttest Randomized Clinical Trial Protocol

STUDY DESIGN

Two-group, pretest-posttest randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of the muscle energy technique (MET) and Kinesiotaping (KT) in addition to conventional physiotherapy among patients with mechanical sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD).

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Patients with SIJD suffer from lower back and gluteal pain, as well as stiffness, due to restricted pelvic joint movement. To restore function and reduce pain among individuals with mechanical SIJD, the MET and KT may be helpful. However, a limited number of studies have compared MET and KT in mechanical SIJD.

METHODS

A total of 40 male and female participants aging between 30 and 50 years experiencing unilateral pain around the gluteal area, groin area, and lower limbs for more than 4 weeks but less than 1 year will be selected. Patients will then be randomized into two groups: METCp (n=20) and KTCp groups (n=20). The METCp group will receive MET along with conventional physiotherapy, while the KTCp group will receive conventional physiotherapy with KT. Both groups will receive three alternating days of treatment per week that will continue for 4 weeks. The modified Oswestry Disability Index, a digital pressure algometer, and sacroiliac joint motion testing will be used for evaluation. Between- and within-group pre- and post-intervention results for mechanical SIJD were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test/paired t-test and Mann-Whitney U -test/independent t -test.

RESULTS

Modified Oswestry Disability Index, digital pressure algometer, and sacroiliac joint motion will be measured at baseline, 2nd week during intervention, and 4th week at the end of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study will provide data regarding the effects of MET and KT among patients with mechanical SIJD.

Rehabilitation approaches to anterior knee pain among runners: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Many athletes complain of anterior knee pain (AKP) which is the most common clinical problem, with a prevalence of 15% - 45%, posing a threat to their quality of life. Owing to a lack of consensus among clinicians and researchers, the causes and management of AKP remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to map the range of non-surgical and non-pharmaceutical rehabilitation approaches to AKP among runners.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted in five stages: (1) defining the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting a topic, (4) charting and collecting data and (5) summarising and reporting the results. Included in the study were English original articles on AKP rehabilitation strategies for runners prior to November 2019. Six electronic databases were searched: EBSCOHOST, CINAHL, SPORTDISCUS, PUBMED, COCHRANE and SCOPUS.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of 1334 articles met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently participated in the screening and extraction of articles. The identified articles included four randomised controlled trials, one systematic review, four observational studies, one cohort study, two case studies and one quasi-experimental study. The following rehabilitation strategies were found to be useful: education, gait re-education, exercise, foot orthoses and multimodal rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

This study provided a range of rehabilitation strategies that were found useful in the rehabilitation of AKP. More comprehensive intervention studies are needed to address all physical and non-physical features of AKP.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The outcomes of this study make explicit the usefulness of the identified rehabilitation strategies among runners with AKP. These will guide clinicians in the development of rehabilitation programmes for runners.