Clinical Health Updates

Proprioceptive training decreases recurrent ankle sprains

Clinical Question:
Do male soccer players with previous inversion ankle sprains have fewer sprains if they engage in proprioceptive training, strength training, or if they use an orthotic?

Bottom Line:
In this small unblinded study, proprioceptive training, compared with no intervention, was an effective strategy to reduce the rate of ankle sprains among male soccer players who suffered ankle sprain.

Reference:
Mohammadi F. Comparison of 3 preventive methods to reduce the recurrence of ankle inversion sprains in male soccer players. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:922-926.

Study Design:
Randomized controlled trial (nonblinded)

Synopsis:
Ankle sprains are frequent injuries in soccer. Several strategies can be used to prevent further ankle sprains in athletes: the most common are proprioceptive training, strength training, and orthoses. The authors were kin to investigate which of these 3 interventions is the most effective in preventing ankle sprains in athletes with previous ankle inversion sprain. They did a randomized controlled trial. Eighty male soccer players (age, 24.6 +/- 2.63 years; height, 175.60 +/- 4.36 cm; weight, 64.26 +/- 8.37 kg) in the first division of a men’s league who had experienced previous ankle inversion sprain were randomly selected from an original population of 120 players. The subjects were individually and randomly assigned to 4 study groups: group 1 (n = 20) followed the proprioceptive program, group 2 (n = 20) followed the strength program, group 3 (n = 20) used orthoses, and group 4 (n = 20) was the control group. Data on the frequency of ankle sprain reinjury were collected at the end of the session. There were no significant differences among the groups in the number of exposures. The incidence of ankle sprains in players in the proprioception training group was significantly lower than in the control group (relative risk of injury, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.003-0.93; P = .02). The findings with respect to the strength and orthotic groups in comparison with the control group were not significant (relative risk of injury, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-1.87; P = .27 for strength; relative risk of injury, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.25; P = .06 for orthotic group).