1.Avoid bedrest, stay in work and gradually resume normal activities
Prolonged rest and avoidance of activity for people with low back pain actually leads to higher levels of pain, greater disability, poorer recovery and longer absence from work. In the first few days of a new episode of low back pain, avoiding aggravating activities may help to relieve pain. However, staying as active as possible and returning to all usual activities gradually is actually important in aiding recovery. While it is normal to move differently and more slowly in the first few days of having back pain, this can be unhealthy if continued in the long-term.
2.You should not fear bending or lifting
Bending and lifting are often portrayed as causes of back pain and while an injury can occur if something is picked up in an awkward or unaccustomed way, it’s most likely to just be a sprain or strain.
3.Exercise and activity reduce and prevent back pain
Exercise is shown to be very helpful for tackling back pain and is also the most effective strategy to prevent future episodes.Start slowly and build up both the amount and intensity of what you do and don’t worry if it’s sore to begin with – you won’t be damaging your spine.
4.Painkillers will not speed up your recovery
There is no strong evidence on the benefits of painkillers and they do not speed up recovery.They should only be used in conjunction with other measures, such as exercise, and even then just as a short-term option as they can have side effects.
5.Get good quality sleep
The importance of sleep in tackling back pain has become increasingly clear in recent years. This is because it reduces stress and improves your overall feeling of wellbeing, making you less susceptible to the triggers of pain in the first instance and helping you to cope when it does occur.
Our 10 page report is packed full of more information that will help you get back to living an active outdoor lifestyle without having to rely on painkillers or having to bother your GP.
Kendal Physiotherapy Centre now has it’s own YouTube channel! Our first offering is a short clip on the benefits of strength training for runners and some examples of exercises and how to progress them.
By Richard Clarke 16.02.2016
Despite what runners read & hear every day, studies have yet to discover what causes most running related injuries (RRIs). Well actually that’s not entirely true the thing that causes most running related injuries is surprise surprise… RUNNING!
So now we have got that one out of the way what other factors may also be involved?
A recent study by Saragiotto (2014) asked runners what they thought contributed to injuries in runners. The most common answers were:
• Not stretching
• Wearing the wrong shoes
• Foot-type changes
• Excess of training
• Not warming up
• Lack of strength
• Not respecting the body’s limitations
So time to examine what evidence there is for some of these commonly held beliefs.
Not stretching, a recent systematic review by Lauersen et al (2013) found no evidence to support stretching before or after sport to reduce injury risk. An earlier study by Wilson (2010) actually found that stretching may decrease endurance performance & increase the energy cost of running.
A good example of this is Paula Radcliffe who in 2003 set the still unbeaten world record for the women’s marathon record of 2:14:25. As part of her training for this she saw her sit and reach test decrease by 4cm. This was in part due to a specialised strength and conditioning program that also saw her maximum vertical jump test increase by 10cm giving her increased power in her stride
Wearing the wrong shoes, over pronation is not a diagnosis. It seems likely that marketing from shoe companies labelling pronation as harmful and providing a solution (in the shape of an expensive shoe) is to blame for this widely held belief. A systematic review by Richards (2009) titled “Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based?” concluded that there was no evidence base for the prescription of running shoes for distance runners. A more recent study by Malisoux et al (2013) found that using a variety of different running shoes may help to reduce running injuries by helping to vary loading patterns. Antoher study be Nielsen et al (2014) found that foot pronation was not associated with injury risk.
A good example is Haile Gebrselassie the legend is an over pronator. He won two Olympic gold medals over 10,000 metres and four World Championship titles in the event and set 27 world records, and is widely considered the greatest distance runner in history. …Geb races in Adidas Adizero Adios.
Another commonly held belief is that heel striking is bad and the root of all evil and that forefoot or mid foot striking is the answer to all running injury woes. This belief became popular following the rise of the famous “Born to run” book. Again when we examine the evidence this does not stand up to scrutiny, Larson (2010) examined foot strike patterns in recreational marathon runners during the 2009 Manchester city marathon. They found that the majority 88.9% of runners at 10km heel striked only 3.4% landed on their forefoot. By 32km the percentage heel striking had increased to 93%.
Not all heel strikes are equal as shown in a recent study by Davis et al (2015) where the researchers found that those runners who landed with less impact force had reduced rates of injury and many of these were heel strikers. What may be more important is whether you land with a slightly flexed or a straighter knee and how far four foot lands in front of your hips. Generally a small increase (5-10%) in your step cadence (the number of steps you take per minute) can help to reduce impact loading and has been shown to help reduce impact loading and may help reduce running related injuries (Heiderscheit 2011).
Excess of training, now were getting somewhere. Estimates suggest 60-70% of running injury is due to training error but some papers suggest it may be as much as 80%. Overuse injury occurs when load exceeds tissue capacity, if time for adaptation is too short or volume of running too high, an overuse injury can occur. The major causes of most overuse RRIs are due to training errors.
Not warming up, warming up has shown some evidence of reducing injury risk in some sports, there is little evidence to suggest it significantly reduces risk of running injury.
Lack of strength, again some research from non-running sports suggest strength training can reduce sports injuries to less than a 1/3 and reduce overuse injuries by almost 50% Lauersen (2013).
Not respecting the body’s limitations, now we have to remember that we are all individuals and what may constitute a normal running load for a highly trained elite athlete may be completely unachievable for the average recreational fell or marathon runner. A higher body mass index (BMI>25) has also been linked to an increase risk of injury as has a previous history of injury especially in the last 12 months (Malisoux et al. 2014, Saragiotto et al. 2014b).
An analogy from a previous lecturer that epitomises this is that of donkey from the film Shrek. Donkey dreams of being a noble steed much like many of us might dream we are the next Paula Radcliffe or Mo Farah but what donkey needs to remember is that he is not a noble steed he’s a donkey and if he tries to train and run like a noble steed he’s probably going to end up lame and looking like an ass.
In summary, the main causes of running related injuries that are backed by the research literature are training errors, a high BMI and a previous history of injury. Things that can help to reduce injury risk are improving lower limb muscular strength, improving co-ordination and proprioception and trying to run with less impact either by landing with a slightly flexed knee or trying to increase your running cadence.
Information for this blog was gathered from an article by Tom Goon the running physio he’s on twitter @tomgoon and check out his blog at http://www.running-physio.com/
and from a presentation at Therapy Expo from Matt Phillips again you can find him on twitter @sportinjurymatt or check out his blog at http://www.sportinjurymatt.co.uk/
Both sites have some excellent evidence based running injury advice and articles
Richard Clarke & Lennard Funk
Rock climbing has become a professional competitive sport with its own bi-annual international world cup and an estimated 25 million climbers involved in the sport in 140 countries (Danger 2013). The International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) has been officially recognised by the International Olympic Committee and has been shortlisted alongside eight other sports as a possible new event for the 2020 Olympics (Danger 2013). Recreational rock climbing continues to grow in popularity in the UK with five million visits to indoor climbing walls every year (Gardner 2013). Membership of the British mountaineering council (BMC) has grown from 25,000 in 1990 to over 75,000 in 2014 and the number of indoor climbing walls has increased from 40 in 1988 to over 350 in 2013 (Giles et al. 2006, Gardner 2013).
Injuries are common and between 30% and 67% of climbers have sustained a climbing related injury. 33% to 93% of these are overuse injuries and the majority involve the upper limb (Backe et al. 2009, Paige et al. 1998, Maitland 1992, Wright et al. 2001, Pieber et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2008).
Repetitive loading of the shoulder in overhead positions combined with dynamic and static loads involving full body weight means climbers are prone to developing shoulder pathologies including shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) rotator cuff tendinopathy, rotator cuff tears, labral tears and biceps tendinopathy (Peters 2001, Schweizer 2012). Epidemiological studies have shown that the increased risk of injury is associated with:
(Backe et al. 2009, Wright et al. 2001, Pieber et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2008).
Several studies have examined physiological properties of rock climbers and have shown associations between strength and endurance of the hand, finger and shoulders and high levels of climbing performance. None of these variables have been associated with an increased injury risk. A study of climbers specialising in bouldering found that injuries were associated with a previous history of injury but were unrelated to climbing experience, gender or body mass index (Josephsen et al. 2007)
Rotator cuff tendinopathy, rotator cuff tears, SIS, labral lesions and biceps tendinopathy are common patho-anatomical diagnoses for shoulder pain reported in the climbing literature (Peters 2001, Schweizer 2012). Rotator cuff tendinopathy is proposed to develop through compressive and tensile loading of the tendons at a level exceeding their physiological capacity (Lewis 2010). A continuum of tendinopathy has been proposed where tendon overload leads to a reactive tendon characterised by a non-inflammatory proliferative response, acute pain, thickening and increased activity of tendon cells. If overload continues a state of tendon disrepair develops with collagen fibre changes followed by irreversible tendon degeneration with partial or full thickness rotator cuff tears (Lewis 2010, Cook 2009).
Internal impingement involves compression of the articular side of the rotator cuff tendons between the humeral head and the glenoid labrum (Kibler et al. 2013). Internal impingement was first observed in throwing athletes during the late cocking stage of throwing when the gleno-humeral joint is in end range abduction and external rotation (Heyworth & Williams 2009). Since then internal impingement has been recognised in non-athletic populations who regularly participate in overhead activities (Castagna et al. 2010). The exact aetiology of internal impingement remains unclear although several factors including gleno-humeral instability and gleno-humeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) caused by increased posterior shoulder tightness and scapula dyskinesia have been implicated (Heyworth & Williams 2009). Gleno-humeral internal rotation deficits (GIRD) have been reported in overhead throwing athletes with and without shoulder symptoms (Mihata et al. 2013). The restriction of internal rotation is usually accompanied by an increase in external rotation and increased tightness of the posterior shoulder capsule and rotator cuff musculature (Thomas et al. 2010, Michener et al. 2003). Simulated GIRD in a cadaver study has been shown to cause altered scapula mechanics of decreased upward rotation and increased inward rotation (Mihata et al. 2013) which are also commonly seen in patients with SIS (Ludewig & Cook 2000). SLAP Lesions:
Superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesions are common in climbers (Haddock & Funk 2006). SLAP lesions can be caused by compression as in a fall onto an outstretched arm or through traction to the long head of biceps. Traction in a superior direction is commonly seen during normal climbing movements especially on overhanging routes if the climber loses their footing and has to take their full body weight through one arm. The repetitive nature of sport climbing and bouldering involves high climbing loads with relatively short rest periods in-between routes. Inadequate rest periods between episodes of tendon loading may not allow a tendon time to adapt and could lead to rotator cuff or biceps tendinopathy in climbers (Cook 2009).
Clinically subjects with shoulder and arm symptoms are commonly observed with poor dynamic scapulo-thoracic and gleno-humeral control (Kibler et al. 2013). Scapula positioning on the thorax is important in order to create a stable base for shoulder movement and maintain the humeral head in the centre of the glenoid (Mottram 1997). The lateral tip of the acromium has been shown to upwardly rotate, posteriorly tilt and externally rotate during elevation in the scapula plane in asymptomatic subjects (McClure et al. 2001). This pattern of scapula movement is thought to help maintain the size of the sub-acromial space and prevent impingement of the sub-acromial bursa and rotator cuff (Michener et al. 2003). This viewpoint is supported by ultrasound and MRI studies that have shown increased anterior scapula tilt reduces the sub-acromial space in healthy individuals altered scapula kinematics (Silva et al. 2010, Solem-Bertoft et al. 1993). Altered scapula kinematics have also been linked with decreased isometric shoulder elevation and rotational strength in subjects with SIS and healthy individuals (Smith et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2006, Tate et al. 2008, Akyol et al. 2013, Wassinger et al. 2012). Roseborough & Lebec (2007) measured end of range static positions of the scapula and humerus to determine gleno-humeral to scapulo-thoracic ratios for climbers and non-climbers. Climbers had a significantly higher gleno-humeral to scapulo-thoracic ratio (3.6:1) compared to non-climbers (2.8:1). The authors concluded that this increased ratio may represent an increased risk of rock climbers developing SIS (Roseborough, Lebec 2007).
Altered thoracic posture has also been linked with changes in scapula kinematics and alterations in shoulder ROM and strength (Kebaetse et al, 2003). The fact that changes in thoracic position affect scapula kinematics and shoulder strength is not surprising given the extensive muscle attachment between the thoracic spine and scapula (Mottram 1997). Increases in thoracic kyphosis have been linked with increased age (Culham, Peat 1993) and shortened pectoral muscles (Borstad 2006).
Poor performance during movement control tests has been associated with an increased risk of future injury (Roussel et al. 2009, O’Connor et al. 2011, Kiesel et al. 2007). Several studies have been able to identify differences in movement patterns between patients with lumbo-pelvic pain and healthy controls during movement control tests and functional positions (Luomajoki et al. 2008, Dankaerts et al. 2009, O’Sullivan et al. 2003), but nothing similar has been done for the shoulder.
As part of an MSc Dissertation, Richard Clark, undertook a study to examine movement dysfunction of the shoulder and trunk in recreational rock climbers with and without a previous history of shoulder injury using low and high load movement control tests.
We found that there were significant differences between injured and uninjured climbers for low load movement control tests. Climbers with a history of shoulder injury displayed movement dysfunctions of scapula anterior tilt and internal rotation (winging). Self-reported injury severity was significantly correlated with poor performance during the movement control tests. Therefore, rock climbers with a history of shoulder injury display patterns of movement dysfunction during the performance of low load movement control tests.
Shoulder injuries are common in rock climbers, with the majority being overuse and fatigue injuries. Rotator cuff pathology is most common with SLAP tears also being common in younger climbers. Chronic scapula and trunk dysfunction can develop and can increase the risk of injury. Movement control tests may be beneficial in screening and identifying shoulder dysfunction and pathology in rock climbers.