Range of Ankle Dorsiflexion in a Group of Adults with Ligamentous Laxity

Ankle Joint Dorsiflexion Reference Values in Non-Injured Youth Federated Basketball Players: A Cross-Sectional Study

(1) Background: The aim of the present study was to establish ankle joint dorsiflexion reference values among youth federated basketball players. (2) Methods: Cross-sectional study. The participants were basketball players who belonged to youth basketball developmental teams (female and male) from under-12 (U12) to under-17 (U17) categories. Ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion was evaluated with the weight-bearing lunge test through the Leg Motion system. The distance achieved was recorded in centimeters. (3) Results: 693 basketball players who met the eligibility criteria and volunteered to participate were included in the study. The mean (SD) of ankle joint dorsiflexion was 10.68 (2.44) cm and the reference values were: excessive hypomobility < 6.09 (0.54) cm; hypomobility 6.09 (0.88) cm-8.43 (0.77) cm; normal 8.44 (0.77)-13.11 (0.79) cm; hypermobility 13.11 (0.74)-15.44 (0.86) cm; and excessive hypermobility >15.44 (0.86) cm. (4) Conclusions: This study provides ankle joint dorsiflexion reference values in youth basketball players from 12 to under 17 years old.

The Beighton Score as a measure of generalised joint hypermobility

The Beighton Score (BS) is a set of manoeuvres in a nine-point scoring system, used as the standard method of assessment for Generalised Joint Hypermobility (GJH). It was originally developed as an epidemiological tool used in screening large populations for GJH, but later adopted as a clinical tool for diagnostic purposes. Its ability to truly reflect GJH remains controversial, as joints within the scoring system are predominantly of the upper limb and disregard many of the major joints, preventing a direct identification of GJH. Furthermore, a consistent finding in the literature whereby the BS failed to identify hypermobility in joints outside the scoring system suggests its use as an indirect indicator of GJH is also not viable. As such, the collective findings of this review demonstrate a need for a change in clinical thinking. The BS should not be used as the principle tool to differentiate between localised and generalised hypermobility, nor used alone to exclude the presence of GJH. Greater emphasis should be placed on a clinician’s judgement to identify or exclude GJH, according to its full definition.