The Relationship Between Functional Movement Screening Scores and Injury History Of U20 Elite Male Soccer Players

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 127 - 132, 15.06.2020

Serdar Arslan Gökmen Yapalı

Öz

Objective: To investigate the relationship between functional movement screening and injury history in elite academy players under the age of twenty-one.
Material-Method: U21 athletes who athletes of soccer academy that a soccer club which competing in the Turkey Football Federation Super League were included the study. The injury history of the participants was questioned and recorded. Each participant was evaluated according to functional movement screening test protocol. Functional movement screen scores of athletes with injury in the history of injury and functional movement screen scores of athletes without injury in the history of injury were compared.
Results: The age, body weight and height of the participants who reported injury in the injury history were 17.46±0.52 years, 177.23±4.92 cm and 71.00 ± 4.60 kg, respectively. The age, body weight and height of the participants who did not report any injury in the injury history were 17.29 ± 0.49 years, 175.14 ± 4.49 cm and 65.86 ± 5.21 kg, respectively. The participants were divided into two groups according to their injury history. There was no statistically significant difference between the participants who reported injuries in their past and those who did not have injuries in the past (p˃0.05).
Conclusion: The quality of movement of elite youth male soccer academy players under the age of 20 is low and the rate of asymmetrical movement patterns is high. Injury history of elite youth male soccer academy players under the age of twenty does not affect the composite FMS score, FMS subgroup scores, individual test score and distribution of asymmetric scores.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Soccer, injuries, functional movement screen

U20 Elit Erkek Futbolcuların Fonksiyonel Hareket Taraması Skorları ile Yaralanma Geçmişi Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Amaç: Yirmi bir yaş altı elit akademi futbolcularında fonksiyonel hareket taraması ile yaralanma geçmişi arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir.
Materyal-Metot: Türkiye Futbol federasyonu Süper Ligi’nde yarışan bir futbol kulübünün futbol akademisi U21 takımı sporcuları çalışmaya dahil edildi. Katılımcıların yaralanma geçmişi sorgulanıp kaydedildi. Her bir katılımcı fonksiyonel hareket taraması test protokolüne göre değerlendirildi. Yaralanma geçmişinde yaralanma bildiren sporcuların test sonuçları ile yaralanma geçmişinde yaralanma bildirmeyen sporcuların fonksiyonel hareket taraması skorları karşılaştırıldı.
Bulgular: Yaralanma geçmişinde yaralanma bildiren katılımcıların yaş, vücut ağırlığı ve boy uzunlukları sırasıyla 17,46±0,52 yıl, 177,23±4,92 cm ve 71,00±4,60 kg idi. Yaralanma geçmişinde herhangi bir yaralanma bildirmeyen katılımcıların yaş, vücut ağırlığı ve boy uzunlukları sırasıyla 17,29±0,49 yıl, 175,14±4,49 cm ve 65,86±5,21 kg idi. Katılımcılar yaralanma geçmişlerine göre iki gruba ayrıldı. Geçmişlerinde yaralanma bildiren katılımcılar ile geçmişlerinde yaralanma olmayan katılımcıların fonksiyonel hareket taraması skorları arasında istatistiksel olarak fark bulunmadı (p˃0.05).
Sonuç: Yirmi yaş altı elit genç erkek futbol akademi sporcularının hareket kaliteleri düşük ve asimetrik hareket paternlerinin oranı yüksektir. Yirmi yaş altı elit genç erkek futbol akademi sporcularının yaralanma geçmişi her bir FHT testinden alınan skorları (ındividual test score, ) toplam FHT skorunu, FHT subgrup skorlarını ve asimetrik skorların dağılımının etkilememektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Futbol, yaralanmalar, fonksiyonel hareket taraması

Kaynakça

• 1. Fuller CW, Ekstrand J, Junge A, Andersen TE, Bahr R, Dvorak J, et al. Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16(2):83-92.
• 2. Klein C, Luig P, Henke T, Platen P. Injury burden differs considerably between single teams from German professional male football (soccer): surveillance of three consecutive seasons. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019:1-9.
• 3. van Beijsterveldt AM, Krist MR, Schmikli SL, Stubbe JH, de Wit GA, Inklaar H, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an injury prevention programme for adult male amateur soccer players: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Inj Prev. 2011;17(1):e2-e.
• 4. O’Brien J, Finch CF, Pruna R, McCall A. A new model for injury prevention in team sports: The Team-sport Injury Prevention (TIP) cycle. Science and Medicine in Football. 2019;3(1):77-80.
• 5. Pereira R, Andrade R, Rebelo-Marques A, Espregueira-Mendes J. Sport Injury Primary and Secondary Prevention. The Sports Medicine Physician: Springer; 2019. p. 121-47.
• 6. Emery CA, Pasanen K. Current trends in sport injury prevention. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2019;33(1):3-15.
• 7. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2006;1(2):62-72.
• 8. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2006;1(3):132-9.
• 9. Minick KI, Kiesel KB, Burton L, Taylor A, Plisky P, Butler RJ. Interrater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(2):479-86.
• 10. Onate JA, Dewey T, Kollock RO, Thomas KS, Van Lunen BL, DeMaio M, et al. Real-time intersession and interrater reliability of the functional movement screen. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(2):408-15.
• 11. Wright MD, Chesterton P. Functional Movement ScreenTM total score does not present a gestalt measure of movement quality in youth athletes. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(12):1393-402.
• 12. Mitchell UH, Johnson AW, Vehrs PR, Feland JB, Hilton SC. Performance on the Functional Movement Screen in older active adults. J Sport Health Sci. 2016;5(1):119-25.
• 13. Letafatkar A, Hadadnezhad M, Shojaedin S, Mohamadi E. Relationship between functional movement screening score and history of injury. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(1):21.
• 14. Yeung J, Cleves A, Griffiths H, Nokes L. Mobility, proprioception, strength and FMS as predictors of injury in professional footballers. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2016;2(1):e000134.
• 15. Kraus K, Schütz E, Taylor WR, Doyscher R. Efficacy of the functional movement screen: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(12):3571-84.
• 16. Mokha M, Sprague PA, Gatens DR. Predicting musculoskeletal injury in national collegiate athletic association division II athletes from asymmetries and individual-test versus composite functional movement screen scores. J Athl Train. 2016;51(4):276-82.
• 17. Warren M, Smith CA, Chimera NJ. Association of the functional movement screen with injuries in division I athletes. J Sport Rehabil. 2015;24(2):163-70.
• 18. Shimoura K, Nakayama Y, Tashiro Y, Hotta T, Suzuki Y, Tasaka S, et al. Association between functional movement screen scores and injuries in male college basketball players. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;1(aop):1-5.
• 19. Marques VB, Medeiros TM, de Souza Stigger F, Nakamura FY, Baroni BM. The Functional Movement Screen (FMS™) in elite young soccer players between 14 and 20 years: Composite score, individual-test scores and asymmetries. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12(6):977.
• 20. Cook G. Movement: Functional movement systems: Screening, assessment, corrective strategies: On Target Publications; 2010.
• 21. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ, Voight M. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 1. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(3).
• 22. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom BJ, Voight M. Functional movement screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function-part 2. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014;9(4).
• 23. Kiesel K, Plisky P, Butler R. Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off‐season intervention program in professional football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(2):287-92.
• 24. O’CONNOR FG, Deuster PA, Davis J, Pappas CG, Knapik JJ. Functional movement screening: predicting injuries in officer candidates. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(12):2224-30.
• 25. Jones S, Almousa S, Gibb A, Allamby N, Mullen R, Andersen TE, et al. Injury incidence, prevalence and severity in high-level male youth football: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2019:1-21.
• 26. Ergün M, Denerel HN, Binnet MS, Ertat KA. Injuries in elite youth football players: a prospective three-year study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2013;47(5):339-46.
• 27. Emery CA. Risk factors for injury in child and adolescent sport: a systematic review of the literature. Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(4):256-68.
• 28. Koutures CG, Gregory AJ. Injuries in youth soccer. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):410-4.
• 29. Moore E, Chalmers S, Milanese S, Fuller JT. Factors influencing the relationship between the functional movement screen and injury risk in sporting populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2019:1-15.
• 30. Chalmers S, Fuller JT, Debenedictis TA, Townsley S, Lynagh M, Gleeson C, et al. Asymmetry during preseason Functional Movement Screen testing is associated with injury during a junior Australian football season. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(7):653-7.