RESULTS & DISCUSSIONREFERENCES

An initial investigation into the influence of Sacroiliac belt application on groin injury related

clinical measures Neil Light and Danielle Ritson Neil Light and Danielle Ritson

University Of Chichester, West Sussex, UKUniversity Of Chichester, West Sussex, UK

METHODS

CONCLUSION

Five participants (age 25.4 ± 4.1 years, height 1.66 ± 0.10m, mass 70.72 ± 12kg ) performed a series of tests with and without application of an S.I belt (Serola Biomechanics, USA). Hip movement peak torque and functional strength ratios (Add Concentric : Abd Eccentric) were measured by a Biodex Isokinetic machine (fig.1). Dynamic hip adduction during drop landing was analysed using a Vicon Motion Capture Systems (fig.3). Hip add tone was measure via bent knee fallout (BKFO) test (fig.4) and passive rotation range using hand-held goniometry. The Y-balance test was used to assess functional lower limb stability (fig.2).

Table.1. Mean average strength (R & L) related measures with and without S.I belt application.

No S.I Belt S.I Belt DifferenceAdductor Peak torque (Nm)

73.1 ± 22.4 78.7 ± 26.9 + 5.6

Abductor Peak torque (Nm)

54.9 ± 18.5 61.9 ± 22.0 + 7.0

Adductor : Abductor Functional Ratio (%)

75.2 ± 12.5 73.2 ± 14.3 - 2.0

Fig. 3. Vicon motion analysis

Initial analysis showed S.I belt application improved both peak torque and functional strength ratio of adductor and abductor muscles. (Table .1). S.I belt application also reduced dynamic hip adduction upon drop landing (>@100 m/s contact) and improved composite Y-balance scores (Table.2).

Table.2. Mean dynamic valgus angles and composite Y-balance scores (R&L) with and without belt application.

No S.I Belt S.I Belt DifferenceDynamic hip add angle (>100 m/s) (°)

- 4.81 ± 5.17 - 3.51 ± 4.38 - 1.30

Y-balance composite scores (cm)

92.5 ± 6.10 94.6 ± 6.0 + 2.1

Whilst analyses showed positive affect upon the strength and dynamic movement measures, both passive hip rotation range and BKFO measures were reduced with belt application (Table. 3).

Table.3. Mean passive hip int & ext rotation ROM and BKFO measures (R & L) with and without belt application

No S.I Belt S.I Belt DifferenceHip Int ROM (°) 33.4 ± 5.05 32.2 ± 5.51 - 1.2

Hip Ext ROM (°) 38.0 ± 7.49 34.2 ± 8.1 - 3.8

Total Hip ROM (°) 71.4 ± 7.90 66.4 ± 10.51 - 5.0

BKFO (°) 16.6 ± 5.89 16.1 ± 8.32 - 0.5

Mens, J., Inklaar, H., Koes, B.W. and Stam, H.J. (2006). A new view on adduction-related groin pain. Clin J Sport Med, 16 (1): 15-19.

Mens, J.M.A., Damen,L., Snijders, C.J. and Stam, H.J Henk. (2006). Clinical Biomechanics, 21 (2): 122–127

Sawle, L., Freeman, J., Matthews, M. and Marsden, J. (2013). Managing the grumbling groin: a novel approach. Sport Ex medicine, 55: 20-24

Fig. 4. Bent Knee Fall Out (BKFO)

Fig. 1. Isokinetic testing Fig. 2. Y-balance test

Sacroiliac belts: Useful in the management and prevention

of Hip / Groin pain?

Athletes often report increased “comfort” and “stability” wearing Sacroiliac (S.I) belts.

Application has been shown to reduce pain and improve function in athletes with adductor related groin pain (Mens et al. 2006). The aim of this pilot

study was to examine the influence of S.I belt application on clinical, biomechanical and

functional measures, related to hip / groin injury risk factors.

S.I belt application may provide structural compression, reducing passive hip joint range and associated myofascial tone. Interestingly, S.I belt application improved dynamic movement stability and hip muscle strength. The clinical effects of S.I belt application warrants further investigation.