Comparing the Effects of Differential and Visuo-Motor Training on Functional Performance, Biomechanical, and
Fatemeh Gholami1, Amir Letafatkar1, Yousef Moghadas Tabrizi2
1Department of Biomechanics and Sport Injury, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran 1571914911, Iran.
Abstract:
Variation during practice is widely accepted to be advantageous for motor learning and is, therefore, a valuable strategy to effectively reduce high-risk landing mechanics and prevent primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Few attempts have examined the specific effects of variable training in athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Thereby, it is still unclear to what extent the variations in different sensor areas lead to different effects. Accordingly, we compared the effects of versatile movement variations (DL) with variations of movements with emphasis on disrupting visual information (VMT) in athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction. Forty-five interceptive sports athletes after ACL reconstruction were randomly allocated to a DL group (n = 15), VT group (n = 15), or control group (n = 15). The primary outcome was functional performance (Triple Hop Test). The secondary outcomes included dynamic balance (Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT)), biomechanics during single-leg drop-landing task hip flexion (HF), knee flexion (KF), ankle dorsiflexion (AD), knee valgus (KV), and vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), and kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK)) assessed before and after the 8 weeks of interventions. Data were analyzed by means of 3 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA followed by post hoc comparison (Bonferroni) at the significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Significant group × time interaction effects, main effect of time, and main effect of group were found for the triple hop test and all eight directions, SEBT, HF, KF, AD, KV, VGRF, and TSK. There was no significant main effect of group in the HF and triple hop test. Additionally, significant differences in the triple hop test and the seven directions of SEBT, HF, KF, KV, VGRF, and TSK were found between the control group and the DL and VMT groups. Between group differences in AD and the medial direction of SEBT were not significant. Additionally, there were no significant differences between VMT and the control group in the triple hop test and HF variables. Both motor learning (DL and VMT) programs improved outcomes in patients after ACL reconstruction. The findings suggest that DL and VMT training programs lead to comparable improvements in rehabilitation.
