Sports-related muscle injury in the lower extremity.

Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Clinics in sports medicine (Impact Factor: 2.58). 11/2006; 25(4):803-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.csm.2006.06.011
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Douglas D Robertson, Jul 04, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Muscle injuries are one of the most common traumas occurring in sports. Despite their clinical importance, few clinical studies exist on the treatment of these traumas. Thus, the current treatment principles of muscle injuries have either been derived from experimental studies or been tested only empirically. Although nonoperative treatment results in good functional outcomes in the majority of athletes with muscle injuries, the consequences of failed treatment can be very dramatic, possibly postponing an athlete's return to sports for weeks or even months. Moreover, the recognition of some basic principles of skeletal muscle regeneration and healing processes can considerably help in both avoiding the imminent dangers and accelerating the return to competition. Accordingly, in this review, the authors have summarized the prevailing understanding on the biology of muscle regeneration. Furthermore, they have reviewed the existing data on the different treatment modalities (such as medication, therapeutic ultrasound, physical therapy) thought to influence the healing of injured skeletal muscle. In the end, they extend these findings to clinical practice in an attempt to propose an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis and optimal treatment of skeletal muscle injuries.
    The American Journal of Sports Medicine 06/2005; 33(5):745-64. DOI:10.1177/0363546505274714 · 4.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We analyzed muscle injuries collected from an Italian major-league soccer team during the period 1995-2000. We considered all the muscle accidents that had required a player to stand down for three or more days. Among the overall injuries, muscle accidents were the most frequent, representing 30% (103 cases), followed by contusions (28%), sprains (17%) and tendinopathies (9%). There was one recurrence involving the hamstring. Lack of training was one of the causes of such injuries; in fact the training/match ratio of those seasons (3.6 to 1) show that there was little time for training compared to the number of matches.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 10/2004; 12(5):482-5. DOI:10.1007/s00167-003-0478-0 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigates the biomechanical failure properties of five architecturally different skeletal muscles and examines the role muscle structure plays in the passive extension characteristics of musculotendinous units. The muscles used in this study fall into four morphologic categories: fusiform, unipennate, bipennate, and multipennate. Each muscle was pulled to failure at three different rates of strain (1, 10, and 100 cm/min). Specimens of fusiform, unipennate, and bipennate muscles were pulled from their proximal as well as distal attachments. The relationship of elongation to failure of the entire musculotendinous unit to resting muscle fiber length was examined to determine the effect of angle of pennation and fiber length on the failure properties. Our results demonstrate that all four muscle types tested show injury and rupture at the musculotendinous junction whether pulled from proximal or distal attachment, regardless of muscle structure and rate of strain. There was a statistically significant difference (P less than 0.005) in the degree of elongation to failure relative to resting muscle fiber length, with a tendency to greater elongation relative to fiber length for muscles with more pennate structure (tibialis anterior, 72.7% +/- 1.0%; extensor digitorum longus, 113.1% +/- 3.5%; rectus femoris, 225.5% +/- 3.7% elongation in percent resting fiber length).
    The American Journal of Sports Medicine 01/1988; 16(1):7-12. DOI:10.1177/036354658801600102 · 4.70 Impact Factor