Groin Injury Screening In Gaelic Football
The role of musculoskeletal screening has been a hot topic in recent time, see here, with the debate on the validity and efficacy of some tools. It can cause serious confusion for some clinicians on whats the most effective strategies to put into place, what is worth measuring etc. The past 10 years clinicians have been sold false promises on the role of the FMS and other such tools in predicting and preventing injuries. And while we shouldn’t abandon the screening process to reduce injuries, we need to be a bit more aware on what they actually measure and does it even help the clinician?
A recent paper by the group led by Dr. Eamonn Delahunt has looked at the adductor squeeze test and the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) questionnaire to assess its ability to identify Gaelic Football players at risk of developing groin injury. There was 55 players within the cohort and they where followed over a 9 month period. The chartered Physiotherapist during pre-season as part of an injury screening evaluation included both the adductor squeeze test and HAGOS. No groin injuries or other injuries where found during the pre-season testing.
Results revealed a significant difference in pre-season adductor squeeze test scores between those players who did (median = 210 mmHg, n = 10) and did not (median = 260 mmHg, n = 45) sustain a groin injury, U= 107.5, z = 2.58, p = 0.01, r = 0.35. The optimal cut point for the squeeze test to discriminate between players who did and did not sustain a groin injury, to be 225 mmHg.
Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test revealed a significant difference in pre-season HAGOS function,sport and recreation subscale scores between those players who did (median=76.56, n=10) and did not (median=96.87, n=45) sustain a groin injury, U=114.5, z=2.48, p=0.01, r=0.33. With regard to the HAGOS function,sport and recreation subscale score, the cut point with maximal sensitivity (0.70) and specificity (0.73) to discriminate between players who did and did not sustain a groin injury was 87.50.
What should be of great interest to clinicians when reading this study is both the ease to administer of both tests and the cost-effectiveness. Unlike many studies which look at expensive and time-heavy methods, these are available to all clinicians with no heavy burden also. While the relative sample size was small, it does give clinicians both some normative data and cut off points to make some meaningful decisions within the team setting. It may also allow the clinicians to individualise both Strength and Conditioning programs and injury prevention methods within a group setting.