EFFECTIVENESS OF PRE-SEASON PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE TESTS IN IDENTIFYING IN-SEASON LOWER EXTREMITY INJURIES IN ADOLESCENT GYMNASTS

BACKGROUND: Artistic competitive gymnastics results in a wide, unique spectrum of injuries. Due to the high number of injuries and the current lack of research related to pre-competitive testing in adolescent gymnasts, it is crucial to find a method to predict the likelihood of an athlete sustaining an in-season injury. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to 1) describe the frequency and type of pre-season and in-season injuries, 2) determine if there were differences in physical performance tests between those who had a lower extremity (LE) injury in-season and those who did not, and 3) determine if there were differences in age, level, sex, BMI, sport modifications, previous injury, and current injury between those who had a LE injury and those who didn’t. METHODS: Thirty-seven adolescent gymnasts (average age: 12.81 years) were included with levels ranging from 5 (novice) to 10 (elite). Participants (15 males and 22 females) were surveyed for previous and current injury. The athletes completed a performance battery before the competition season including: Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test (LQYBT), Closed Kinetic Chain dorsiflexion (CKCDF), single hop (SH), triple hop (TH), and the Functional Movement Screen (FMS). Follow-up data was collected at the end of the competitive season for comparison. The data was analyzed using descriptive methods and comparative analyses including chi-square and independent t-tests with an alpha level set at .05. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent reported an injury in the last year and seventy-eight percent reported pre-season injuries at testing day. The most common location for pre-season injury was the ankle/foot (24% and 31% respectively). There were no differences between injured and non-injured athletes when comparing asymmetries in CKCDF, LQYBT posteromedial or posterolateral reach, hop testing, or FMS. The LQYBT-anterior scores were significantly different at p=.049 between the injured versus uninjured groups, with 91% of the in-season injury group having a difference <4cm. Similarly, the LQYBT-composite score using a cut-off of 95% was significant at p=.043 with those >95% category being more likely to get injured. There were no significant differences in demographic information comparing injury occurrence. CONCLUSION: The tested physical performance battery may be useful in tracking gymnasts over time, but may not be beneficial in forecasting injuries in a sport with high percentages of acute injuries. The collected injury volume may not be reflective of a standard season as COVID-19 decreased the number of competitions. Additional research to identify athletes at risk for injury requires further investigation.