Erschienen in:
19.09.2014 | Sports Medicine
Comparison of tensiomyographic neuromuscular characteristics between muscles of the dominant and non-dominant lower extremity in male soccer players
verfasst von:
Pedro Alvarez-Diaz, Eduard Alentorn-Geli, Silvia Ramon, Miguel Marin, Gilbert Steinbacher, Marta Rius, Roberto Seijas, Jordi Ballester, Ramon Cugat
Erschienen in:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
|
Ausgabe 7/2016
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Purpose
Tensiomyography (TMG) has been used to assess neuromuscular characteristics of muscles of the lower extremity in soccer players. However, the effects of lower extremity dominance on TMG characteristics in this population have not been reported to date. The purpose of this study was to compare the TMG neuromuscular characteristics between the dominant and non-dominant lower extremity in male soccer players.
Methods
Thirty-eight consecutive healthy male soccer players underwent resting TMG assessment of vastus medialis (VM), vastus lateralis (VL), rectus femoris (RF), semitendinosus (ST), biceps femoris (BF), gastrocnemius medialis (GM), and gastrocnemius lateralis (GL) in both lower extremities. The maximal displacement, delay time, contraction time, sustained time, and half-relaxation time were obtained and compared between both sides.
Results
There were no significant differences in the vast majority of the TMG parameters between both lower extremities. The dominant side demonstrated higher VM contraction time (p = 0.008), RF sustained time (p = 0.009), RF half-relaxation time (p = 0.01), and BF sustained time (p = 0.04), but lower VL contraction time (p = 0.03) and VL delay time (p = 0.02) compared to the non-dominant side.
Conclusion
In general, TMG-assessed neuromuscular characteristics of the VM, VL, RF, ST, BF, GM, and GL were not affected by lower extremity dominance in male soccer players. Therefore, there is no need to assess both sides when using TMG to monitor the response to training or muscles at risk of injury in soccer players unless there is a specific reason.
Level of evidence
Prognostic study, Level II.