See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317663595

Balance and postural control in basketball players Equilíbrio e controle

postural em atletas de basquetebol

Article in Fisioterapia em Movimento · June 2017

DOI: 10.1590/1980-5918.030.002.AO12

CITATIONS READS

2 177

1 author:

Liu Chiao Yi
Universidade Federal de São Paulo
60 PUBLICATIONS 535 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conservative and Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis View project

Técnicas manuais para dor miofascial e ponto gatilho View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Liu Chiao Yi on 19 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN 0103-5150
Fisioter. Mov., Curitiba, v. 30, n. 2, p. 319-328, Apr./June 2017
Licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-5918.030.002.AO12

[T]

Balance and postural control in basketball players

Equilíbrio e controle postural em atletas de basquetebol

Murilo Curtolo, Helga Tatiana Tucci, Tayla P. Souza, Geiseane A. Gonçalves, Ana C. Lucato, Liu C. Yi*

Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Santos, SP, Brazil

[R]

Abstract
Introduction: Basketball is one of the most popular sports involving gestures and movements that require
single-leg based support. Dorsiflexion range of motion (DROM), balance and postural control may influence
the performance of this sport. Objective: To compare and correlate measures of balance, postural control and
ankle DROM between amateur basketball athletes and non-athletes. Methods: Cross-sectional study, com-
posed by 122 subjects allocated into one control group (CG = 61) and one basketball group (BG = 61). These
groups were subdivided into two other groups by age: 12-14 years and 15-18 years. The participants were all
tested for postural balance with the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), postural control with the Step-down
test and DROM with the Weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT). Between-groups differences were compared using
repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance. Normalized reaching distances were analyzed and cor-
related with the WBLT and Step-down test. Results: There was no difference in the scores of WBLT (P = .488)
and Step-down test (P =. 916) between the groups. Scores for the anterior reach (P = .001) and total score
of SEBT (P = .030) were higher in BG. The values for the posterolateral (P = .001) and posteromedial reach
(P = .001) of SEBT were higher in BG at the age of 15-18. The correlation between the anterior reach of the
SEBT and WBLT was significant in BG between 12-14 years (r = 0.578, P = .008), and in the CG between 15-18
years (r = 0.608, P=.001). Conclusion: The balance was better in the BG, although adolescents between 15-18
years have better balance control for the posteromedial and posterolateral reaches of the SEBT.

Keywords: Adolescent. Postural Balance. Proprioception. Ankle.

*
MC: MS, email: [email protected]
HTT: PhD, email: [email protected]
TPS: MS, email: [email protected]
GAG: MS, email: [email protected]
ACL: BS, email: [email protected]
LCY: PhD, email: [email protected]

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Curtolo M, Tucci HT, Souza TP, Kamonseki DH, Gonçalves GA, Lucato AC, Yi LC.
320

Resumo

Introdução: O basquetebol é um dos esportes mais praticados na atualidade, o qual envolve gestos e movimen-
tos que exigem apoio unipodal. Amplitude de movimento de dorsiflexão (ADMD), equilíbrio e controle postural
podem influenciar o desempenho deste esporte. Objetivo: Comparar e correlacionar medidas de equilíbrio,
controle postural e ADMD de tornozelo entre atletas de basquetebol amadores e não-atletas. Métodos: Trata-
se de um estudo transversal, composto por 122 participantes. Estes foram distribuídos em grupo controle (GC =
61) e grupo basquete (GB = 61). Cada grupo foi subdivido em outros dois, de acordo com a idade: 12-14 e 15-18
anos. Todos foram avaliados para equilíbrio postural com Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), controle postur-
al com Step-down teste e ADMD foi testada com Weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT). As diferenças entre os gru-
pos foram comparadas pelo teste de medidas repetidas e análise de variância multivariada. Distâncias normal-
izadas dos alcances no SEBT foram analisadas e correlacionados com o WBLT e Step-down test. Resultados:
Não houve diferença entre os grupos nos escores do WBLT (P = .488) e Step-down test (P = .916). A pontuação
para alcance anterior (P = .001) e escore total de SEBT (P = .030) foram maiores no GB. Os valores para alcance
posterolateral (P = .001) e posteromedial (P = .001) do SEBT foram maiores no GB de 15-18 anos. A correlação
entre distância anterior do SEBT e WBLT foi significativa no GB de 12-14 anos (r = 0.578, P = .008) e no GC de
15-18 anos (r = 0.608, P = .001). Conclusão: O equilíbrio foi melhor no GB, embora adolescentes de 15-18 anos
possuam melhor controle de equilíbrio para alcances posteromedial e posterolateral do SEBT.

Palavras-chave: Adolescente. Equilíbrio Postural. Propriocepção. Tornozelo.

Introduction result in a major reduction in expenses on rehabilita-

tion. Thus, one of the main objectives of the evalu-
Basketball is one of the most popular sports ations of postural balance in LL is the guidance on
among high school students, which includes chang- treatment and sports training, aiming to prevent LL
ing direction, jumping and running, promoting a great injuries (8). Research related to prevention is based
deal of overload in the lower limbs (LL) (1). The in- on the identification of the causes and risk factors,
fluence of balance and neuromuscular control with but there is a lack of the information related to court
overload seems related to injuries in the structures sports (10).
involved, such as ligaments and articular capsule, Until date, only the study by Hoch et al. (11) corre-
which may put an early end to the athlete’s career (2). lated the measures of balance and ankle dorsiflexion
Ankle sprain is the most frequent injury in bas- range of motion (DROM) in healthy non-athletes, not-
ketball. Fong et al. (3) reported that ankle sprain was ing the need to verify if such correlations would also
the main type of injury in athletes in 33 out of the be found in basketball players, who constantly suffer
43 sports investigated in their study, which included from injuries such as ankle sprains, compromising
basketball, volleyball and team handball. The loss of postural balance.
afferent signals from the joint that suffers from joint Given the above, studies intended to investigate
functional instability is due to damage to the joint the causes and risk factors that may withdraw bas-
capsule and ligaments, producing delayed and dimin- ketball players from their activities are important
ished reflex responses of the ankle evertor muscles to further clarify this issue, contributing to help and
(4). After injury, these muscles would not be able to design specific rehabilitation exercise and prevention
respond with an activation time suitable to any unex- programs. Therefore, the aims of this study were: (1)
pected disturbance, making the ankle joint vulnerable to compare the measures of balance, postural con-
to repeated inversion injuries (5, 6, 7, 8, 9). trol and ankle dorsiflexion range of motion between
Therefore, the development of effective strategies amateur basketball players and non-athletes, (2) to
for the prevention of injuries to the lower limbs can correlate the tests applied in the study population.

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Balance and postural control in basketball players
321

Methods To promote up right balance during the test, the op-

posite limb was positioned at approximately one foot
One hundred and twenty two male adolescents length behind the test foot in a comfortable tandem
between 12 and 18 years of age were evaluated. stance and subjects placed their hands on the wall.
The subjects were divided into two groups: Control While maintaining this position, subjects were in-
Group (CG = 61) and Basketball Group (BG = 61). structed to perform a lunge, in which the knee was
Subjects’ demographic characteristics are shown in flexed with the goal of making contact between the
Table 1. The groups were subdivided into two other anterior knee and the wall of the wooden structure
groups: the Control Group 12-14 years (CG 12-14 while keeping the heel firmly planted on the floor
= 30) and Control Group 15-18 years (CG 15-18 = (Figure 1) (11). When subjects were not able to
31), composed of non-athletes; Basketball Group 12 maintain heel and knee contact, the test foot was
to 14 years (BG 12-14 = 31) and Basketball Group progressed away from the wall and the subjects re-
15-18 years (BG 15-18 = 30), composed of amateur peated the modified lunge (15). Subjects were pro-
basketball players. This division was made for the dif- gressed in 1 cm increments until the first lunge in
ferences found in the maturation of the sensorimotor which the heel and knee contact could be maintained.
system in children and adolescents (12, 13). Maximum lunge distance on the WBLT was measured
Using the variable SEBT Final Score as the main to the nearest 0.5 cm by a tape measure secured to
variable of the study, compared between the four the floor. Previous research indicates that every 1 cm
groups, the ANOVA test was used to calculate the away from the wall is equivalent to approximately
sample size needed for the experiment. Considering 3.6º of ankle dorsiflexion. Maximum lunge distance
an 83% power, a 5% significance level, and based on was defined as the distance of the second toe from
previous studies, a difference of ten units on aver- the wall, based on the furthest distance the foot could
age for the SEBT final score and four units between be placed without the heel lifting from the ground
groups, a sample size of thirty subjects in each group while the knee was able to touch the wall (15). The
was set (14). same investigator administered the WBLT across all
Inclusion criteria for basketball group were ama- subjects (Figure 2).
teur basketball practicing subjects, training with a
frequency greater than or equal to two times per
week and, for the control group, only subjects who Star excursion balance test (SEBT)
practiced physical activities less frequently than twice
a week were included. We excluded all subjects with Each subject also completed a modified SEBT
a history of lower limb injury in the past six months, modeled, following the method described by Plisky
self-reported disability in foot and ankle, surgery or et al. (16) and used by Filipa et al. (17) Subjects re-
balance disorder history and lower limb discrepancy ceived verbal instruction and visual demonstration
greater than 1.25 cm. All volunteers agreed to sign of the SEBT from the same examiner. The subjects
the term of assent and their parents accepted signing stood on the dominant lower extremity, with the
the consent form. This study received approval from most distal aspect of their great toe on the center
the Research Ethics Committee under number 19627. of the grid. The subjects were then asked to reach
in the anterior, posteromedial and posterolateral
direction, while maintaining their single-limb stance
Weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT) (Figure 1). Six practice trials were performed on
each limb for each of the 3 reach directions prior
To perform the WBLT, an "L-shaped" wooden struc- to official testing (18). On the seventh trial, the ex-
ture was built, using the knee-to-wall principle de- aminer visually recorded the most distal location
scribed by Vicenzino et al. (9) Subjects performed only of the reach foot as it contacted the grid in the 3
one trial of the WBLT on each limb. Subjects were in a directions. The trial was discarded and the subject
standing position facing the structure wall with the test repeated the testing trial if (1) the subject was un-
foot parallel to a tape measure secured to the bottom able to maintain single-limb stance, (2) the heel of
of the wooden structure, with the second toe, center the stance foot did not remain in contact with the
of the heel and knee perpendicular to the wall (11). floor, (3) weight was shifted on to the reach foot in

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Curtolo M, Tucci HT, Souza TP, Kamonseki DH, Gonçalves GA, Lucato AC, Yi LC.
322

any of the 3 directions, or (4) their each foot did not first the dominant and then the non-dominant. The
return to the starting position prior to reaching in subject’s limb length measures, from the most distal
another direction. The process was then repeated end of the anterior superior iliac spine to the most
while standing on the non-dominant lower extrem- distal end of the lateral malleolus on each limb, were
ity. The order of limb testing was always the same: taken and recorded.

Figure 1 - Star excursion balance test reaches - A: Posterolateral. B: Anterior. C: Posteromedial

Figure 2 - A: Weight-bearing lunge test (view from above). B: Weight-bearing lunge test (view from the side)

Step-down test of a 20 cm high step; (2) the contralateral leg was

positioned over the floor adjacent to the step and is
The Step-down test was performed using a maintained with the knee in extension; (3) the subject
standardized protocol described by Piva et al. (19) then bends the tested knee until the contralateral leg
First (1) the patient was asked to stand in single- gently contacts the floor and then extends the knee
limb support with the hands on the waist, the knee to the start position; (4) this maneuver was repeated
straight, and the foot positioned close to the edge 5 times. A tripod with a camera was positioned at

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Balance and postural control in basketball players
323

3.5 meters of distance from the step to record the three tests were correlated taking into consideration
movement. The examiner faces the subject and scores Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), considering
the test based on 5 criteria: (1) Arm strategy: If the r > 0.3 as a weak correlation, r > 0.5 as a moderate
subject used an arm strategy in an attempt to recover correlation and r > 0.7 as an excellent correlation.
balance, 1 point is added. (2) Torso movement: If the
torso leaned to any side, 1 point is added. (3) Pelvis
plane: If pelvis rotated or elevated one side compared Statistical Analysis
with the other, 1 point is added. (4) Knee position: If
the knee deviates medially and the tibial tuberosity To compare the basketball and control groups re-
crosses an imaginary vertical line over the second garding the variables weight, height and Body Mass
toe, add 1 point or, if the knee deviates medially and Index (BMI), considering age as an independent vari-
the tibial tuberosity crosses an imaginary vertical able, we used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
line over the medial border of the foot, 2 points are two factors.
added. (5) Maintain steady unilateral stance: If the In order to compare the variables between the
subjects stepped down on the non-tested side, or if groups, we used the ANOVA with repeated measures.
the subject's tested limb became unsteady (i.e. wa- After the analysis, the Bonferroni post-hoc test was
vered from side to side on the tested side), add 1 performed for interactions with a significance level
point (19). lower than or equal to 5% (p ≤.05). The correlations
The evaluations were conducted by three senior between the variables in each group were calculated
physiotherapists, each responsible for one assess- using the Pearson correlation coefficient, considering
ment, to avoid potential interference with the results. only moderate correlations with r > 0.5. The signifi-
The evaluators were trained and had prior knowledge cance level adopted was 5% (p ≤.05).
of the tests, which were performed in random order
according to the order of arrival of the volunteers.
All tests were performed in both lower limbs, always Results
starting with the dominant limb.
The LL dominance was determined by asking the The results of the anthropometric data analysis
participant to kick a ball thrown in his direction by showed that the weight (P = .03), height (P = .009)
the evaluator. The lower limb that performed the kick and lower limb length (P = .001) in the BG were
was considered the dominant limb (20). higher than in the CG. Regarding the BMI variable
(P = 0.533), the groups did not differ. The data are
shown in Table 1.
Data Analysis The results showed no differences between the
groups BG and CG for the Weight-bearing lunge test
One single attempt to WBLT was used, using a (P = .488) and Step-down test (P = .916). The basket-
single measure to analyze the results. The SEBT ball group presented higher values than the control
composite score was calculated by dividing the sum group for the anterior reach of SEBT (P = .001) and
of the maximum reach distance in the anterior (A), the SEBT final score (P = .030), independently of side
posteromedial (PM), and posterolateral (PL) direc- dominance and age. The non-dominant side showed
tions by 3 times the limb length (LL) of the individual, higher values than the dominant side for anterior
then multiplied by 100 {[(ANT + PM + PL) / (LL x reach of SEBT (P = .018). In both groups, the reach
3)] x 100}. The data analysis of the step-down test of the SEBT PM and PL are higher at the age of 15-18
was done if any of the criteria repeated in either five years, compared with the ages 12-14 and, in BG these
attempts, and only one was deemed an error. A total values are higher at the age 15-18 when compared
score of 0 or 1 is classified as good quality of move- with CG. The data are presented in Table 2.
ment, a total score of 2 or 3 is classified as medium Table 3 shows that there was a moderate cor-
quality, and a total score of 4 or higher is classified relation between the variables anterior reach and
as poor quality of movement (20). Weight-bearing lunge test in the BG for the age groups
For all tests, the dominant and non-dominant 12-14 years old (r = 0.578, P = .008) and in the CG
intra-group sides were compared. In addition, the for the group 15-18 years old (r = 0.608, P = .001).

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Curtolo M, Tucci HT, Souza TP, Kamonseki DH, Gonçalves GA, Lucato AC, Yi LC.
324

Table 1 - Participant characteristics

Control Group (n = 61) Basketball Group (n=61) P Value
Age, y 14.39 ± 1.75 14.36 ± 1.74 Paired
Height, m 1.66 ± .12 1.80 ± .15 .009*
Weight, kg 60.82 ± 13.92 72.10 ± 18.16 .003*
BMI, kg/m2 21.52 ± 3.23 21.85 ± 3.18 .533
LL (cm) 89.99 ± 6.45 95.31 ± 9.43 .001*
Note: m, meters; kg, kilogram: BMI, Body Mass Index; LL, Limb Length; cm, centimeters.
Source: Research data.

Table 2 - Comparation between groups

Groups
BG 12-14 BG 15-18 CG 12-14 CG 15-18
Non Non Non Non
Dominant Dominant Dominant Dominant
Dominant Dominant Dominant Dominant
13.42 13.05 ± 11.73 ± 11.95 ± 12.87 ± 13.12 ± 12.73 ± 13.23 ±
WBLT
±2.96 2.77 3.61 3.60 3.22 3,24 4.27 4.67
Step-down
3.81 ±.87 4.00 ± 1.13 4.00 ± 1.08 3.97 ± 1.16 4.07 ±.94 4.23 +.77 3.84 ±.82 3.71 ± 1.10
Test
58.56 ± 60.77 ± 66.62 ± 67.65 ± 52.72 ± 54.55 ± 58.95 ± 61.58 ±
SEBT Ant
5.46* 6.39† 6.03‡ 5.56§ 6.63* 6.37† 4.94‡ 5.03§
74.34 ± 72.26 ± 87.77 ± 87.17 ± 78.83 ± 70.67 ± 77.79 ± 75.29
SEBT PL
9.95 9.61 12.9║ 7.79║ 11.10 13.03 11.27║ ±10.60║
80.23 ± 82.81 ± 93.25 ± 92.87 ± 76.00 ± 77.92 ± 81.92 ± 83.24 ±
SEBT PM
7,41 7.56 7.87# 13.24# 8.90 10.05 9.25# 9.55#
Score final 80.10 ± 81.18 ± 80.48 ± 81.49 ± 78.50 ± 78.68 ± 77.60 ± 78.10 ±
SBET 6.52** 7.26** 7.47†† 6.91†† 7.00** 7.86** 6.45†† 7.07††
Note: CG, Control Group; BG, Basketball Group; WBLT, Weight-bearing lunge test; SEBT, Star Excursion Balance Test A, anterior; PL, pos-
terolateral; PM, posteromedial; *, Statistically significant difference from the dominant side for anterior reach of the SEBT between BG 12-14
GB and GC 12-14; †, Statistically significant difference from the non-dominant side for anterior reach of the SEBT between BG 12-14 and CG
12-14; ‡ , statistically significant difference between the dominant side for anterior reach of the SEBT between 15-18 BG and CG 15-18; §,
statistically significant difference between the non-dominant side for anterior reach of the SEBT between BG 15-18 and CG 15-18; ║and #,
statistically significant difference for the variable PL and PM of the SEBT, respectively, between the BG 15-18 and CG 15-18 for the dominant
and non-dominant sides; **, Statistically significant difference for the variable final score of SEBT, between BG 12-14 and CG 12-14, for the
dominant and non-dominant sides; ††, Difference statistically significant for the variable final score of SBET, between BG the 15-18 and CC
15-18 for the dominant and non-dominant sides.
Source: Research data.

Table 3 - Pearson’s correlation coefficient for basketball and control groups according to age
Basketball Group Control Group
AGE Correlations r CI r CI
Weight-bearing lunge test × Step-Down Test - 0.313 - 0.522 - 0.069 - 0.267 - 0.488 - 0.014
Weight-bearing lunge test × SEBT A 0.578* 0.383 0.723 0.451 0.223 0.633
Weight-bearing lunge test × SEBT PL 0.143 - 0.111 0.379 0.400 0.162 0.593
Weight-bearing lunge test × SEBT PM 0.130 - 0.124 0.368 0.345 0.100 0.551
12 to 14
Weight-bearing lunge test × Score total SEBT 0.249 - 0.001 0.469 0.229 - 0.026 0.457
years old
Step-Down test × SEBT A - 0.222 - 0.447 0.029 - 0.203 - 0.435 0.053
Step-Down test × SEBT PL - 0.007 - 0.256 0.243 - 0.051 - 0.301 - 0.051
Step-Down test × SEBT PM 0.037 - 0.215 0.284 - 0.176 - 0.412 0.081
Step-Down test × Score total SEBT - 0.144 - 0.380 0.110 - 0.166 - 0.403 0.091
(To be continued)

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Balance and postural control in basketball players
325

Table 3 - Pearson’s correlation coefficient for basketball and control groups according to age
(Conclusion)
Basketball Group Control Group
AGE Correlations r CI r CI
Weight-bearing lunge test × Step-Down Test - 0.167 - 0.404 0.090 - 0.419 - 0.606 - 0.190
Weight-bearing lunge test × SEBT A 0.228 - 0.027 0.456 0.608† 0.422 0.745
Weight-bearing lunge test × SEBT PL 0.001 - 0.254 0.254 0.168 - 0.085 0.401
Weight-bearing lunge test × SEBT PM - 0.032 - 0.283 0.224 0.347 0.107 0.549
15 to 18
Weight-bearing lunge test × Score total SEBT 0.181 - 0.076 0.416 0.096 - 0.157 0.338
years old
Step-Down test × SEBT A - 0.026 - 0.278 0.229 - 0.295 - 0.507 - 0.048
Step-Down test × SEBT PL - 0.129 -0.371 0.129 0.058 - 0.195 0.303
Step-Down test × SEBT PM - 0.075 -0.323 0.183 - 0.081 - 0.324 0.173
Step-Down test × Score total SEBT - 0.327 -0.536 -0.079 0.099 - 0.154 0.341
Note: SEBT: Star excursion balance test; A: Anterior; PL: posterolateral; PM: posteromedial; * P value = .008; † P value= .001.
Source: Research data.

Discussion In sports and physical activities, the athlete should

have a single-leg support base for gestures and move-
Our study compared and correlated reach mea- ments that occur. Given this situation, the use of tests
sures on the SEBT, the Step-down test and the Weight- with single-leg support with the objective of measur-
bearing lunge test between amateur basketball play- ing postural stability becomes important and justi-
ers and non-athletes. We observed that there was fied, either at the clinic or in the sports research area
no difference between the groups BG and CG for (27).
Weight-bearing lunge test and Step-down test. On Besides the functional applicability of such tests,
the other hand, the SEBT final score was higher for there is also a reduction in the number of peripheral
the BG when compared with the CG, regardless of sensory sources and muscular strategies that com-
the side of dominance and age. This result demon- pensate for peripheral deficiencies (4). In a clinical
strates that the BG has a better balance during the scenario, the convenience of clinical tests when com-
SEBT when compared with the CG, which confirms paring or examining bilateral differences in cases of
that basketball athletes have a better neuromuscu- unilateral orthopedic injury contributes further to
lar control than non-athletes. This is justified by the the applicability of the single-leg tests to determine
fact that this group performs an activity that requires the capacity of postural control.
changing directions, jumping and running (21, 22). Our results also showed a significant difference in
The non-dominant side showed higher values than the SEBT posterolateral and posteromedial reaches
the dominant side, regardless of group and age, for between the age groups 12-14 and 15-18, supporting
the SEBT anterior reach. This result may have been the difference in the maturation of the SSM found in
obtained by a learning effect, since all SEBT evalu- the literature. A possible explanation may be the fact
ations were performed initially with the dominant that the sensory system develops at different rates
leg to standardize the evaluation. One of the possible in children and teenagers (12, 13). In the literature,
explanations is that the majority of jumping move- studies have reported that the somatosensory func-
ments performed during the throws occur in one foot tion matures between 3-4 years old (28 -30), but oth-
on the contralateral leg to the dominant upper limb, er authors report between 9-12 years old. For vision
thus providing a better neuromuscular control in the (31), maturing time also varies according to the lit-
non-dominant leg (23). The prevalent use of one of erature. Cherng et al. (32) has found out that children
the lower limbs may be related to the type of task between 7-10 years old had the same efficiency in
being performed, either holding, kicking or maintain- the use of vision for balance, while standing on both
ing the standing posture (24, 25). This implies that feet, when compared to an adult (32, 33). However,
there are different behaviors between the dominant Hirabayashi & Iwasaki (29) and Cumberworth et al.
and non-dominant limbs when performing motor (28) have reported that visual function matures later,
actions (26). at 15 years of age.

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Curtolo M, Tucci HT, Souza TP, Kamonseki DH, Gonçalves GA, Lucato AC, Yi LC.
326

Previous studies agree that vestibular function like the Weight-bearing lunge test, or laboratory mea-
has a slower development among the three sensory sures like three-dimensional motion analysis.
systems, and its maturing time varies. Some research-
ers reported that it is developed at the age of seven
(34), while others reported that it is fully developed at Conclusion
15 -16 (28, 30, 35). Thus, the maturation time of the
three sensory systems for balance remains uncertain. The study showed that the balance is better in
According to the above mentioned, postural con- individuals who practice basketball when compared
trol is under development in the two age groups to people who do not practice this sport. Older teens
analyzed in this study but, due to the fact that the have a better balance control of the SEBT posterome-
basketball group performs an activity that requires dial and posterolateral reach.
more of that system, it presents a better performance
when compared to the control group.
Our study found correlation between the Weight- Acknowledgements
bearing lunge test and the SEBT anterior reach dis-
tance in the BG at the ages of 12-14 and in the CG at The authors thank CAPES (Coordination for the
the ages of 15-18. This shows that, the higher the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) for
ankle dorsiflexion in closed kinetic chain, the better the financial support that enabled the development
the performance on the SEBT anterior reach. Previous of this study and Felipe Filomeno for allowing data
studies using goniometry as an assessment for the collection at Club Athletico Paulistano.
ankle dorsiflexion, and not Weight-bearing lunge test,
had demonstrated that ankle ROM is not related to
the SEBT (36). Ours and Hoch et al.’s findings (11) References
contradict these studies, because the correlation be-
tween the SEBT and goniometry is not appropriate, 1. NFHS ASSOCIATIONS. 2011-2012 High school athlet-
since the latter is performed in an open kinetic chain, ics participation survey [cited 2013 Mar 27]. Available
while SEBT in a closed kinetic chain. from: http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3282.
Therefore, our results provide evidence that me-
2. Hoang QB, Mortazavi M. Pediatric overuse injuries in
chanical deficiencies in ankle function are probably
sports. Adv Pediatr. 2012;59(1):359-83.
related to changes in the functional movement pat-
terns and may influence the occurrence of injuries in 3. Fong DT, Hong Y, Chan LK, Yung PS, Chan KM. A sys-
basketball. Furthermore, there is evidence that the tematic review on ankle injury and ankle sprain in
dorsiflexion ROM is an important factor in the landing sports. Sports Med. 2007;37(1):73-94.
mechanisms and in the functional movement patterns
4. Riemann BL, Lephart SM. The Sensorimotor System,
(37), making its evaluation extremely important.
Part I: The Physiologic Basis of Functional Joint Stabil-
ity. J Athl Train.2002;37(1):71-9.

Limitations of the Study 5. Delahunt E. Peroneal reflex contribution to the de-

velopment of functional instability of the ankle joint.
The kinematic analysis in our study was made Phys Ther Sport. 2007;8(2):98-104.
observing movements in the sagittal plane only. There
6. Hoch MC, McKeon PO. Peroneal reaction time and an-
are combinations of multiplanar movements that may
kle sprain risk in healthy adults: a critically appraised
occur during the three SEBT reaches which could not
topic. J Sport Rehabil. 2011;20(4):505-11.
be quantified in this study. Rotations of the hip and
trunk may have influenced the test. 7. Holmes A, Delahunt E. Treatment of common deficits
We suggested that future studies continue to associated with chronic ankle instability. Sports Med.
investigate changes in motor strategies during the 2009;39(3):207-24.
SEBT, through analysis of the contributions of the
proximal and distal joints' ROM, by using clinical tests

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Balance and postural control in basketball players
327

8. Vaes P, Duquet W, van Gheluwe B. Peroneal reaction 19. Piva SR, Fitzgerald K, Irrgang JJ, Jones S, Hando
times and eversion motor response in healthy and BR, Browder DA, et al. Reliability of measures of im-
unstable ankles. J Athl Train. 2002;37(4):475-80. pairments associated with patellafemoral pain syn-
drome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:33.
9. Vicenzino B, Branjerdporn M, Teys P, Jordan K. Initial
changes in posterior talar glide and dorsiflexion of the 20. Harput G, Soylu AR, Ertan H, Ergun N. Activation of
ankle after mobilization with movement in individuals selected ankle muscles during exercises performed
with recurrent ankle sprain. J Orthop Sports PhysTher. on rigid and compliant balance platforms. J Orthop
2006;36(7):464-71. Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(8):555-9.

10. Gabbe BJ, Finch CF, Wajswelner H, Bennell KL. Pre- 21. Bressel E, Yonker JC, Kras J, Heath EM. Comparison of
dictors of lower extremity injuries at the commu- static and dynamic balance in female collegiate soc-
nity level of Australian football. Clin J Sport Med. cer, basketball, and gymnastics athletes. J Athl Train.
2004;14(2):56-63. 2007;42(1):42-6.

11. Hoch MC, Staton GS, McKeon PO. Dorsiflexion range of 22. Gerbino PG, Griffin ED, Zurakowski D. Comparison of
motion significantly influences dynamic balance. J Sci standing balance between female collegiate dancers
Med Sport. 2011;14(1):90-2. and soccer players. Gait Posture. 2006;26(4):501-7.

12. Woollacott MH, Shumway-Cook A. Changes in posture 23. Marchetti, PH. Investigações sobre o controle motor
control across the life span – a systems approach. Phys e postural nas assimetrias em membros inferiores
Ther. 1990;70(12):799-807. [dissertation]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo;
2009. Portuguese.
13. Woollacott MH, Shumway-Cook A. Maturation of feed-
back control of posture and equilibrium. In: Fedrizzi 24. Gabbard C, Hart S. A question of foot dominance. J Gen
E, Avanzini G, Crenna P, editors. Motor development Psychol. 1996;123(4):289-96.
in children. London: John Libbey & Co.; 1994.
25. Maupas E, Paysant J, Martinet N, André J. Asymmetric
14. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environ- leg activity in healthy subjects during walking, de-
ment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation tected by electrogoniometry. Clin Biomech (Bristol,
for Statistical Computing. [cited 2012 Nov 1]. Avail- Avon). 1999;14(6):403-11.
able from: http://tinyurl.com/ne2wkgm.
26. Zverev YP. Spatial parameters of walking gait and foot-
15. Bennell KL, Talbot RC, Wajswelner H, Techovanich edness. Ann Hum Biol. 2006;33(2):161-76.
W, Kelly DH, Hall AJ. Intra-rater and inter-rater reli-
27. Riemann BL, Schmitz R. The relationship between
ability of a weight-bearing lunge measure of ankle
various modes of single leg postural control assess-
dorsiflexion. Aust J Physiother. 1998;44(3):175-80.
ment. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(3):257-66.
16. Plisky PJ, Gorman PP, Butler RJ, Kiesel KB, Underwood
28. Cumberworth VL, Patel NN, Rogers W, Kenyon GS. The
FB, Elkins B. The reliability of an instrumented device
maturation of balance in children. J Laryngol Otol.
for measuring components of the star excursion bal-
2007;121(5):449-54.
ance test. N Am J Sports PhysTher. 2009;4(2):92-9.
29. Hirabayashi S, Iwasaki Y. Developmental perspective
17. Filipa A, Byrnes R, Paterno MV, Myer GD, Hewett TE.
of sensory organization on postural control. Brain Dev.
Neuromuscular training improves performance on
1995;17(2):111-3.
the star excursion balance test in young female ath-
letes. J Orthop Sports PhysTher. 2010;40(9):551-8. 30. Steindl R, Kunz K, Schrott-Fischer A, Scholtz AW.
Effect of age and sex on maturation of sensory sys-
18. Kinzey SJ, Armstrong CW. The reliability of the star-
tems and balance control. Dev Med Child Neurol.
excursion test in assessing dynamics balance. J Orthop
2006;48(6):477-82.
Sports PhysTher. 1998;27(5):356-60.
31. Riach CL, Hayes KC. Maturation of postural
sway in young children. Dev Med Child Neurol.
1987;29(5):650-8.

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

 Curtolo M, Tucci HT, Souza TP, Kamonseki DH, Gonçalves GA, Lucato AC, Yi LC.
328

32. Cherng RJ, Chen JJ, Su FC. Vestibular system in per- 36. Gribble PA, Hertel J. Considerations for normalizing
formance of standing balance of children and young measures of the Star Excursion Balance Test. Meas
adults under altered sensory conditions. Percept Mot Phys Educ Exer Sci. 2003;7(2):89-100.
Skills. 2001;92(3 Pt 2):1167-79.
37. Fong CM, Blackburn JT, Norcross MF, McGrath M,
33. Cherng RJ, Lee HY, Su FC. Frequency spectral charac- Padua DA. Ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion and
teristics of standing balance in children and young landing biomechanics. J Athl Train. 2011;46(1):5-10.
adults. Med Eng Phys. 2003;25(6):509-15.

34. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Development of Received in 05/23/2014

postural control. In: Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH, Recebido em 23/05/2014
editors. Motor control translating research into clini-
cal practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams Approved in 07/28/2016
and Wilkins; 2007. Aprovado em 28/07/2016

35. Ionescu E, Morlet T, Froehlich P, Ferber-Viart C. Ves-

tibular assessment with Balance Quest Normative
data for children and young adults. Int J Pediatr Oto-
rhinolaryngol. 2006;70(8):1457-65.

Fisioter Mov. 2017 Apr/June;30(2):319-28

View publication stats