Isokinetic dynamometry assessment of the transition period between eccentric and concentric hamstring contractions in athletes with a history of hamstring injury.
Barbier Vincent, Francois Perla, Jeremy Neuillet and 3 others
PMID 42136988WHAT IT FOUND
The pause between slow lengthening and fast shortening hamstring contractions did not differ between athletes with prior hamstring injury and healthy controls.
Injured athletes had higher fast shortening strength and a higher ratio of fast shortening to slow lengthening strength.
Key findings
01The transition period between eccentric and concentric hamstring contractions did not differ between injured athletes and healthy controls.
02Injured athletes had higher concentric hamstring peak torque at 240°/s and 60°/s than healthy controls.
03During plyometric testing, injured athletes had higher concentric hamstring peak torque at 240°/s and a higher plyometric ratio than healthy controls.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was observational and retrospective, so it compared existing groups rather than assigning treatment, and it cannot show that injury caused the measured differences. The groups were not comparable in sport intensity: 10 of 26 injured athletes practiced high-intensity sport, while none of 31 controls did. Healthy controls were staff at the rehabilitation center and were slightly older than injured athletes, so background differences may have affected the comparisons. The injured athletes were tested a mean 9.2 months after injury, which is longer than the average recovery time of about 6 weeks, so some may have fully recovered. The transition period was calculated from recordings spaced at 3.9 ms, and the authors said measurement precision may have limited certainty. The sample was small, with 57 participants, which limits statistical power.
Declared interests
The authors declared no financial support for this work or its publication.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the transition period is a useful clinical marker. It did not differ between injured athletes and controls, and the authors said measurement precision may have limited certainty.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →