Font Size: a A A

Effects Of Different Loads Of Blood Flow Restriction Training On Lower Limb Function Of Football Players With Chronic Ankle Instability

Posted on:2022-11-30Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:J Q ZhouFull Text:PDF
GTID:2507306788476574Subject:Physical Education
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different loads of blood flow restriction training(BFRT)on ankle muscle strength,balance,functional performance,proprioception and rehabilitation efficacy of football players with chronic ankle instability.To provide reference for the development of rehabilitation training programs for patients with chronic ankle instability.Methods: According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,35 football players with chronic ankle instability were selected as research subjects.35 subjects were randomly divided into: control group(n=11,no pressure),high load blood flow restriction(H-BFR)group(n=12,with 300 mm Hg pressure),low load Blood flow restriction(L-BFR)group(n=12,with 200 mm Hg pressure).Control group received 6weeks of regular strength training and balance training while BFR groups(H-BFR group and L-BFR group)received 6 weeks of blood flow restriction training and balance training.The subjects’ strength,balance function,functional performance,ankle proprioception,and Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool(CAIT)scores were evaluated before and after the intervention.Data processing was performed with IBM SPSS 26.0 for statistical analysis.The significance level was α=0.05,and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: 1.CAIT score: comparison within the group: the scores of the affected side of each group and the healthy side of the H-BFR group increased,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).There was no statistical difference in the scores before and after the healthy side of the group(P>0.05).Comparison between groups: there was no significant difference in subtracted values before and after intervention(P>0.05).2.Y balance test: comparison within groups: the control group and the BFR groups increased in all directions,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Comparison between groups: there was no significant difference in subtracted values before and after intervention(P>0.05).3.Three functional performance test: comparison within groups: all three functional performance test results of H-BFR group and control group and cocontraction test results of L-BFR group were all improved,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Comparison between groups: There was no significant difference in subtracted values before and after intervention(P>0.05).4.Results of vertical jump touch height test: comparison within groups: there was significant difference in H-BFR group(P<0.05),and there was no significant difference in other groups(P>0.05).Comparison between groups: There was no significant difference in subtracted values before and after intervention(P>0.05).5.Isokinetic muscle strength test: comparison within the affected side groups:there were significant differences in peak torque in each direction in each group(P>0.05).Comparison between the affected side groups: There were significant differences in the difference of peak moment of plantar flexion and valgus between the H-BFR group and L-BFR group(P<0.05).Comparison within the healthy groups:the peak moment of dorsiflexion and plantar flexion in the H-BFR group were significantly different(P<0.05).There was a significant difference in valgus peak torque in the L-BFR group(P<0.05).Comparison between the healthy groups: there was no significant difference in subtracted values before and after intervention(P>0.05).6.Proprioceptive test: comparison within groups: there were statistically significant differences in the difference in position sense of varus and valgus in the control group,flexion and extension in the H-BFR group,and varus and valgus in the L-BFR group(P<0.05).Comparison between groups: There was no significant difference in subtracted values before and after intervention(P>0.05).Conclusion: 1.6 weeks of strength training combined with balance training can improve the CAIT score on the affected side of CAI football players,while BFRT with higher blood flow restriction pressure can also improve the CAIT score on the healthy side.2.6 weeks of regular strength training and BFRT with different pressure combined with balance training can improve the balance ability,motor function,muscle strength and proprioception of CAI football players,while BFRT can improve muscle strength on the healthy side.3.6 weeks of higher-pressured BFRT combined with balance training can improve the explosive power of CAI football players..
Keywords/Search Tags:football player, rehabilitation, chronic ankle instability, blood flow restriction training
PDF Full Text Request
Related items