Lumbar Spine Injuries: Primary Prevention in Amateur and Professional Golf Players.

Sports medicine international open Pub Date : 2018-11-16 eCollection Date: 2018-11-01 DOI:10.1055/a-0748-5443
Dietmar Goebel, Frank Drollinger, Andrea Drollinger
{"title":"Lumbar Spine Injuries: Primary Prevention in Amateur and Professional Golf Players.","authors":"Dietmar Goebel,&nbsp;Frank Drollinger,&nbsp;Andrea Drollinger","doi":"10.1055/a-0748-5443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the sport of golf, there is no standard teaching method or swing technique even though golf is known for overuse injuries. This prospective study was to analyze classic swing kinematics in comparison with the Free-Release <sup>®</sup> method and to define a physiological golf swing. Two hundred eighty-three players, age 50-59 years, were included in the study. For both swing techniques, examination addressed swing visualization, center of pressure (COP), center of mass (COM), as well as pelvic movement in relationship to different standing widths. The position of the spine was evaluated in the frontal and lateral planes. Using the classic technique, no golfer was able to describe his swing parameters, which would be necessary for visualization and to tolerate physiological range of movement, whereas players using the Free-Release method <sup>®</sup> were able to provide such a description. COP and COM showed pathological swing mechanics for the classic technique, whereas for the Free-Release method mechanics were physiological. We conclude that to prevent lumbar spine injury, the classic swinging technique, which is characterized by lateral shear forces, static and dynamic pelvic side bending while rotating with high force against the spine, and an unbalanced COM and COP, should be substituted by the Free-Release technique as a new physiological guideline.</p>","PeriodicalId":74857,"journal":{"name":"Sports medicine international open","volume":"2 6","pages":"E179-E184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/a-0748-5443","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports medicine international open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0748-5443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In the sport of golf, there is no standard teaching method or swing technique even though golf is known for overuse injuries. This prospective study was to analyze classic swing kinematics in comparison with the Free-Release ® method and to define a physiological golf swing. Two hundred eighty-three players, age 50-59 years, were included in the study. For both swing techniques, examination addressed swing visualization, center of pressure (COP), center of mass (COM), as well as pelvic movement in relationship to different standing widths. The position of the spine was evaluated in the frontal and lateral planes. Using the classic technique, no golfer was able to describe his swing parameters, which would be necessary for visualization and to tolerate physiological range of movement, whereas players using the Free-Release method ® were able to provide such a description. COP and COM showed pathological swing mechanics for the classic technique, whereas for the Free-Release method mechanics were physiological. We conclude that to prevent lumbar spine injury, the classic swinging technique, which is characterized by lateral shear forces, static and dynamic pelvic side bending while rotating with high force against the spine, and an unbalanced COM and COP, should be substituted by the Free-Release technique as a new physiological guideline.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

腰椎损伤:业余和职业高尔夫球手的初级预防。
在高尔夫运动中,没有标准的教学方法或挥杆技术,即使高尔夫是众所周知的过度使用伤害。这项前瞻性研究是分析经典挥杆运动学与自由释放®方法的比较,并定义一个生理高尔夫挥杆。283名年龄在50-59岁之间的球员参与了这项研究。对于这两种挥拍技术,检查涉及挥拍可视化,压力中心(COP),质心(COM),以及骨盆运动与不同站立宽度的关系。脊柱的位置在正位面和侧位面进行评估。使用经典技术,没有高尔夫球手能够描述他的挥杆参数,这是可视化和容忍生理运动范围所必需的,而使用自由释放方法®的球员能够提供这样的描述。经典方法的COP和COM表现为病理摆动力学,而自由释放法的力学表现为生理摆动力学。我们认为,为了防止腰椎损伤,经典的摇摆技术应该被自由释放技术取代,该技术的特点是侧向剪切力,骨盆侧静态和动态弯曲同时对脊柱施加大力,COM和COP不平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信