METHODS AND DESIGN: A randomised, single blind controlled trial will be conducted. Twenty-eight patients aged 18 years and above with a recent grade-2 hamstring injury will be invited to take part. Participants will be randomised to receive either autologous PRP injection with rehabilitation programme, or rehabilitation programme only. Participants will be followed up at day three of study and then weekly for 16 weeks. At each follow up visit, participants will be assessed on readiness to return-to-play using a set of criteria. The primary end-point is when participants have fulfilled the return-to-play criteria or end of 16 weeks.The main outcome measure of this study is the duration to return-to-play after injury.
CONCLUSION: This study protocol proposes a rigorous and potential significant evaluation of PRP use for grade-2 hamstring injury. If proven effective such findings could be of great benefit for patients with similar injuries.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISCRTN66528592.
OBJECTIVE: This study was carried out to identify important parameters in designing tasks that efficiently assess hand function of stroke patients and to quantify potential benefits of robotic assessment modules to predict the conventional assessment score with iRest.
METHODS: Twelve predictive variables were explored, relating to movement time, velocity, strategy, accuracy and smoothness from three robotic assessment modules which are Draw I, Draw Diamond and Draw Circle. Regression models using up to four predictors were developed to describe the MAS.
RESULTS: Results show that the time given should be not too long and it would affect the trajectory error. Besides, result also shows that it is possible to use iRest in predicting MAS score.
CONCLUSION: There is a potential of using iRest, a non-motorized device in predicting MAS score.
Methods: Eighteen male subjects ran on three different surfaces (i.e., concrete, artificial grass, and rubber) in both heeled running shoes (HS) and minimal running shoes (MS). Both these shoes had dissimilar sole profiles. The heeled shoes had a higher sole at the heel, a thick base, and arch support, whereas the minimal shoes had a flat base sole. Indeed, the studied biomechanical parameters responded differently in the different footwear during running. Subjects ran in recreational mode speed while 3D foot kinematics (i.e., joint rotation and peak medial longitudinal arch (MLA) angle) were determined using a motion capture system (Qualysis, Gothenburg, Sweden). Information on stance time and plantar fascia strain (PFS) was also collected.
Results: Running on different surface stiffness was found to significantly affect the peak MLA angles and stance times for both HS and MS conditions. However, the results showed that the joint rotation angles were not sensitive to surface stiffness. Also, PFS showed no relationship with surface stiffness, as the results were varied as the surface stiffness was changed.
Conclusion: The surface stiffness significantly contributed towards the effects of peak MLA angle and stance time. These findings may enhance the understanding of biomechanical responses on various running surfaces stiffness in different shoe conditions.