CONTEXT: Preseason functional performance test measures have been associated with noncontact time-loss injury in some athletic populations. However, findings have been equivocal with many studies consisting of heterogeneous populations. OBJECTIVE: To determine if preseason standing long jump and/or single-leg hop test scores are associated with a noncontact time-loss injury to the lower quadrant (LQ = low back or lower-extremities) in female Division III college volleyball (VB) players. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III female VB teams. PATIENTS: A total of 82 female college VB players (age = 18.9 [1.0] y). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standing long jump and single-leg hop test measures were collected at the start of the official preseason. Athletic trainers tracked all time-loss injuries and their mechanisms. Athletes were categorized as at risk if their preseason standing long jump <80% height, bilateral single-leg hop <70% height, and had a SLH side-to-side asymmetry >10%. RESULTS: The noncontact time-loss overall injury rate for the LQ region in at-risk athletes was 13.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3-31.5) per 1000 athletic exposures. At-risk athletes were significantly more likely to experience a noncontact time-loss injury than VB players in the referent group (rate ratio = 6.2; 95% CI, 1.9-17.2; P = .008). The relative risk of sustaining a noncontact time-loss injury to the LQ was 4 times greater in the at-risk group (relative risk = 4.6; 95% CI, 2.1-10.1; P = .01). At-risk athletes were 6 times more likely to experience a foot or ankle injury (relative risk = 6.3; 95% CI, 2.1-19.2; P = .008). CONCLUSION: Suboptimal performance on a battery of functional performance tests is associated with a significantly greater risk of noncontact time-loss injury to the LQ in female Division III college VB players.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brumitt et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: