Comparison of dynamic balance in adolescent male soccer players from rwanda and the United States.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Dynamic balance is an important component of motor skill development. Poor dynamic balance has previously been associated with sport related injury. However, the vast majority of dynamic balance studies as they relate to sport injury have occurred in developed North American or European countries. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare dynamic balance in adolescent male soccer players from Rwanda to a matched group from the United States. METHODS: Twenty-six adolescent male soccer players from Rwanda and 26 age- and gender-matched control subjects from the United States were screened using the Lower Quarter Y Balance Test during their pre-participation physical. Reach asymmetry (cm) between limbs was examined for all reach directions. In addition, reach distance in each direction (normalized to limb length, %LL) and the composite reach score (also normalized to %LL) were examined. Dependent samples t-tests were performed with significant differences identified at p<0.05. RESULTS: Twenty-six male soccer players from Rwanda (R) were matched to twenty-six male soccer players from the United States (US). The Rwandan soccer players performed better in the anterior (R: 83.9 ± 3.2 %LL; US: 76.5 ± 6.6 %LL, p<0.01), posterolateral (R: 114.4 ± 8.3 %LL ; US: 106.5 ± 8.2 %LL, p<0.01) and composite (R: 105.6 ± 1.3 %LL; US: 97.8 ± 6.2 %LL, p<0.01) reach scores. No significant differences between groups were observed for reach asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent soccer players from Rwanda exhibit superior performance on a standardized dynamic balance test as comparison to similar athletes from the United States. The examination of movement abilities of athletes from countries of various origins may allow for a greater understanding of the range of true normative values for dynamic balance. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 3b.

Comparison of extramedullary versus intramedullary referencing for tibial component alignment in total ankle arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The majority of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) systems use extramedullary alignment guides for tibial component placement. However, at least 1 system offers intramedullary referencing. In total knee arthroplasty, studies suggest that tibial component placement is more accurate with intramedullary referencing. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of extramedullary referencing with intramedullary referencing for tibial component placement in total ankle arthroplasty. METHODS: The coronal and sagittal tibial component alignment was evaluated on the postoperative weight-bearing anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of 236 consecutive fixed-bearing TAAs. Radiographs were measured blindly by 2 investigators. The postoperative alignment of the prosthesis was compared with the surgeon's intended alignment in both planes. The accuracy of tibial component alignment was compared between the extramedullary and intramedullary referencing techniques using unpaired t tests. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Eighty-three tibial components placed with an extramedullary referencing technique were compared with 153 implants placed with an intramedullary referencing technique. The accuracy of the extramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.5 ± 1.4 degrees and 4.1 ± 2.9 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. The accuracy of intramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.4 ± 1.1 degrees and 2.5 ± 1.8 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < .001) between the 2 techniques with respect to the sagittal plane alignment. Interrater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high (0.81 and 0.94, respectively). Intrarater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high for both investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Initial sagittal plane tibial component alignment was notably more accurate when intramedullary referencing was used. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of this difference on clinical outcomes and long-term survivability of the implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.