Mark Armitage
Stuart A. McErlain-Naylor
Gavin Devereux1
Marco Beato
Matthew Buckthorpe- 1School of Health and Sports Sciences, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, United Kingdom
- 2Performance Services Department, Norwich City Football Club, Norwich, United Kingdom
- 3Faculty of Sport, Allied Health and Performance Science, St Mary's University Twickenham, London, United Kingdom
- 4School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom
Introduction
Injury reduction remains a hot topic in professional football due to the economic and competitive implications of time lost (1, 2). Current strategies to reduce injury burden involve either reducing primary injuries through prevention-based strategies or lowering the risk of secondary injuries when they occur. It appears that primary injury reduction strategies are largely effective (3, 4), and might have supported reduced incidence across the past two decades (5, 6). Strategies concerning re-injury risk, however, are less than optimal, particularly when concerning recurrent and/or high-grade muscle and ligament injuries (1, 5). Whilst return to play (RTP) rates for such injuries are high in elite football, players often return with heightened risk of re-injury and may experience lower performance levels, especially after severe injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures (7–14). Injuries are thought to occur due to a complex web of determinants (15), with previous injury remaining one of the most reported risk factors (16). Re-injuries (i.e., to the same location) or subsequent injuries (i.e., in a different location) typically occur early in the RTP process, suggesting players might be returned too quickly for sufficient tissue healing, or they are inadequately prepared for RTP demands (6, 16–18). The role of previous injury as a risk factor for future injury can be mitigated through effective rehabilitation (19). As such, improving RTP practice and processes appears warranted to improve outcomes after certain injuries (e.g., high-grade muscle/severe ligament injuries).
There is a lack of consensus on effective rehabilitation for such injuries, with current evidence suggesting that players should embark on a criterion-based process through a series of stages (20). These typically include early-, mid- and late-stage rehabilitation, followed by a RTP continuum, involving on-field rehabilitation (OFR), return to team training, return to competitive match-play and finally a return to performance (Figure 1) (21–26). Recently, there has been an increase in translational research published to support football medicine departments with their late-stage rehabilitation processes, specifically that of OFR (21, 22, 26, 27). OFR as a service is not new with numerous practitioners establishing unpublished frameworks before evidence-based practice and load monitoring technologies existed. Scientific developments however have facilitated two separate published frameworks for OFR, which use competency-based continua to provide evidential structures to support long-established practices (21, 22, 26). Despite improving clarity, such research is currently restricted to expert opinion and/or case studies. Although this is a complex topic with numerous inherent challenges, future research should attempt validation of such frameworks.
Figure 1. A return to sport process involving a gradual transition from rehabilitation to performance training along a continuum of OFR, RTT, RTC, and RTPer. ORF, on-field rehabilitation; RTT, return to training; RTC, return to competition; RTPer, return to performance. Modified and re-printed with permission from Buckthorpe et al. (21).
The purpose of this article is to (i) review injury incidence literature to assess the prevalence of re-injuries and postulate OFR as a potential tool to mitigate future risk, (ii) consider injury aetiology and the complexity of OFR, (iii) describe existing OFR frameworks, and (iv) offer future directions related to the development of OFR in professional football.
Injury outcomes, (re-) injury epidemiology, and the importance of on-field rehabilitation
Understanding injury occurrence, healing timeframes and RTP rates are vital when designing, implementing, and evaluating OFR frameworks. When injuries occur, they are often categorised based on their severity, or the potential for time loss. Most injuries are mild (≤7 days), and overall RTP rates from all injuries are high, however those returning from severe injuries (>28 days) such as ACL ruptures often face long absence, elevated re-injury risk and reduced performance levels (1, 9). Overall, injuries have reduced by ~3% per year over the past 18 years, with muscle injury rates remaining unchanged (5). Although this should be considered in the context of greater frequencies and intensities of matches nowadays, muscle injuries remain a concern given their susceptibility to re-injury (17, 28). Indeed, injuries involving musculature of the lower limbs remain notable (~15%) (1).
Ekstrand et al. (1) reported ACL re-injury rates at 6.6%, which is in-keeping with others (29), but less than the 18% reported by Della Villa et al. (9). However, it is perhaps severity and not incidence which is of concern for ACL injuries, with a mean absence of 205 days (1). Although, re-injury rates were low in the study of Waldén et al. (29), five out of the nine re-ruptures occurred during the final phase of rehabilitation or before the first match, and all others were within the first 3 months after the first match. The timing of these re-injuries suggests an increased risk during on-field activities and reinforces the importance of effective OFR frameworks.
Injury aetiology and the complex nature of on-field rehabilitation
All injuries are related to an overload of some type, whether they involve trauma (i.e., contact), mechanical failure (i.e., non-contact) or a combination of both (i.e., indirect contact) (30, 31). They occur when the stress and/or strain on the body tissue exceeds the maximal strength or failure strain of that tissue (32). Injury prevention models have traditionally been based on a reductionist view (15, 33) that simplifies multifaceted components into units, attempting to identify relationships and sequence events (e.g., isolating the mechanism, site, type, and treatment of injury) (34, 35). In reality, injury involves complex interactions between numerous factors, and so seemingly comparable situations may yield different outcomes (15). Contributing factors might include any combination of neural inhibition, selective muscle atrophy, alterations in fascicle length, strength deficits and/or increased susceptibility to fatigue, amongst others (36). A holistic approach to rehabilitation is therefore required to accommodate the complex and individual nature of the process. OFR is considered a vital component, due to the ecological validity offered by manipulating various training stimuli to stimulate tissue loading in a manner which more closely resembles that experienced during training and competition (37).
Football matches are now played at a greater frequency and intensity than ever before, which increases the physiological and mechanical demands on players (5, 38). This emphasises the need for players to be appropriately re-conditioned to RTP (18). Despite research warning that an imbalance in “load” between rehabilitation and match-play might increase the risk of re-injury (17), specific information is sparse (18). Whilst any relationship between “training load” and injury is likely to be associative and not definitively causative (39), clear aetiology is yet to be established (40). Researchers and practitioners are interested in exercise volume and intensity, and the external and internal “loads” associated to these (41, 42). To improve understanding, there is need for agreement over terms and technology used to describe and measure discrete outputs. For now, multiple independent metrics are required during OFR (e.g., running distance and velocity; step frequency, intensity, and symmetry; heart rate; and rating of perceived exertion), considering both the psycho-physiological and mechanical aspects of load-adaptation pathways (38, 40, 43).
Existing return to play frameworks and the developing role of on-field rehabilitation
To aid decision-making during rehabilitation, Creighton et al. (44) developed a three-step model: Step 1—evaluation of health status in consideration with medical factors; Step 2—evaluation of participation risk in consideration with sport risk modifiers; and Step 3—decision modification in consideration with decision modifiers. Step 1 is arguably the most clinically important because it indicates the state of healing and thus enables risk-assessment decision-making. These decisions are also task-specific (Step 2). For example, the risk associated with an upper limb injury for an outfield player will differ to that posed by the same injury to a goalkeeper. Finally, non-medical factors (Step 3), such as time in season, external influences, and conflicts of interest, need to be considered to provide context to decision-making (44). Whilst this model provided a framework to inform decisions based on the assessment of multiple risk factors, concerns were raised with regards to limitations and implementation (45).
The model was modified accordingly to form the Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT) framework (45). The structure remained the same, but the terminology was updated alongside the ordering of contributing factors. Although the StARRT framework was included in the 2016 consensus statement on RTP (46), the statement suggested combining biopsychosocial factors with continued application and evaluation of the framework. Where possible, shared decision-making between the player, practitioner and appropriate others should also take place (47). Practitioners should use the available evidence and their own experiences, combined with knowledge of the individual, specific scenario, and club philosophy, to shape their RTP protocols (48). An evidence-based approach to decision-making has recently been enhanced for football through the development of two specific OFR frameworks (21, 22, 26).
Buckthorpe et al. (21) offer a four-pillar structure for practitioners to plan their on-field progressions: 1—movement quality; 2—physical conditioning; 3—sport-specific skills; 4—training load. Restoration of movement patterns should be addressed first, before increasing metabolic and mechanical demands and then integrating neurocognitive and perceptual challenges to enhance specificity. Once the player has increased confidence in the injury site, often in one-to-one environments, they can begin re-introduction to team-based interactions and the club's conditioning model. The four pillars have been additionally described as contributing to a five stage OFR process (after ACL injury): 1—linear movement; 2—multidirectional movement; 3—soccer-specific technical skills; 4—soccer-specific movements; and 5—practice simulation (22). Whilst this framework was designed as an educational piece to support practitioners in structuring their OFR processes, currently there is little evidence of usage or effectiveness.
Taberner et al. (26) offer a similar five stage framework, eloquently titled the control-chaos continuum: 1—high control; 2—moderate control; 3—control to chaos; 4—moderate chaos; 5—high chaos. Progressing sport-specific physical conditioning, technical skills and movement qualities, practitioners are encouraged to systematically manipulate volume and intensity whilst increasing uncertainty of action. This framework has been applied through a series of elite player case studies including a male tibia-fibula fracture (49), female ACL reconstruction (50), and male semimembranosus reconstruction (51). Whilst the stages remained the same for each case, durations were altered to reflect the specific needs of each injury.
Both frameworks position OFR as competency-based and not just time dependent (21, 22, 26). However, there remains a lack of validated competency criteria for RTP protocols (1). Whilst both frameworks act as a reference guide for practitioners and facilitate future research processes, they are based on existing theory, experience, and inductive reasoning (52). Experimental studies utilising hypothesis testing to promote validation are now needed (53).
Jimenez-Rubio and colleagues attempt to provide some evidence by using an expert panel to gain agreement for an on-field readaptation programme following a hamstring injury (54), and a rehabilitation and reconditioning programme following an adductor longus injury (55). These authors performed a follow-up study with those who completed the hamstring protocol and reported that not only had the injury site fully recovered, but following rehabilitation players could withstand greater match and training demands, with a reduced risk of future injury (56). Whilst this highlights the importance of OFR and improving evidential structures, the 13-item OFR programme (54) is quite prescriptive and could be challenged given the individual nature of injuries and responses to interventions. Conceptual frameworks such as the control-chaos continuum and four-pillars of on-field rehabilitation may offer greater flexibility. In essence, frameworks should support and not dictate decision-making, with practitioners and researchers empowered to continually evolve their practice and understanding.
Regardless of which conceptual framework is used, it is recommended that players progress systematically to develop load tolerance of the injury site and restore sport specific qualities (21, 22, 26). Whilst the control-chaos continuum places a greater emphasis on cognitive demands as progressions become more “chaotic”, both frameworks promote “load” progression/management. Improved understanding of the “load” requirements of specific drills/activities within each stage and potential progression targets between stages, would support the development of either framework.
Areas for future research
Although the frameworks use different terminology, they both offer stepwise OFR progressions to practitioners. Agreement in terminology would be useful to enhance application, as would research into specific “load” responses to explore which drills typically fall into which stages. Currently, there is no substantial advice on how to specifically measure and progress OFR (57). Whilst progressions within and between sessions and stages in the available frameworks appear rational, they are yet to be empirically established. Training “load” appears to be a key determinant in effective OFR (18, 21, 22, 26, 58), therefore the development of specific sessional content (i.e., drill level analysis) should further support practitioners in their decision-making (59). As OFR is not a new concept, current practice with regards to drill/activity selection (including input from technical coaches who should be active drill designers) should be explored to identify potential gaps and enhance application of future findings (27). These drills/activities can then be investigated using a range of monitoring techniques (e.g., heart rate, global position systems, inertial measurement units, and rating of perceived exertion, amongst others) to measure some of the psycho-physiological and mechanical demands. Currently, knowledge of causality between training “load” application and successful RTP outcomes is lacking. Future research can use the conceptual frameworks mentioned within this article to generate testable hypotheses relating to the outcomes of specific OFR drills/activities associated with the specified stages.
Summary and implications for practice
Injuries in football, particularly involving muscles and ligaments of the lower limbs, remain problematic, with the risk of secondary (re- or subsequent) injury remaining high. Whilst these often occur within the first few months, risk can remain elevated for years to come. Although epidemiological data are supporting practitioners in targeting injury reduction strategies, previous injury remains one of the largest risk factors for future injury. This highlights the importance of effective rehabilitation protocols when injuries occur, with OFR promoted as a vital bridge between clinical rehabilitation and return to performance. Two conceptual frameworks offer progressive stages for OFR. Whilst these frameworks appear conceptually sound, empirical evidence in this area is lacking. Researchers should work together to find agreement and improve scientific understanding. Drill level analysis, using a range of monitoring techniques to reflect psycho-physiological and mechanical demands, would offer greater insights into within and between session progressions, in turn improving understanding and application of current OFR protocols. Findings should be critically appraised and applied by practitioners to facilitate continued development of evidence-based practice.
Author contributions
MA was responsible for the concept and writing of this paper. SM-N, GD, MBe, and MBu provided supervision and feedback throughout. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Ekstrand J, Krutsch W, Spreco A, van Zoest W, Roberts C, Meyer T, et al. Time before return to play for the most common injuries in professional football: a 16-year follow-up of the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54:421–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100666
2. López-Valenciano A, Ruiz-Pérez I, Garcia-Gómez A, Vera-Garcia FJ, Ste Croix de Myer M, et al. Epidemiology of injuries in professional football: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54:711–18. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099577
3. Harøy J, Clarsen B, Wiger EG, Øyen MG, Serner A, Thorborg K, et al. The Adductor Strengthening Programme prevents groin problems among male football players: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. (2019) 53:145–52. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098937
4. Petersen J, Thorborg K, Nielsen MB, Budtz-Jørgensen E, and Hölmich P. Preventive effect of eccentric training on acute hamstring injuries in Men's soccer: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. American J Sports Med. (2011) 39:2296–303. doi: 10.1177/0363546511419277
5. Ekstrand J, Spreco A, Bengtsson H, and Bahr R. Injury rates decreased in men's professional football: An 18-year prospective cohort study of almost 12 000 injuries sustained during 1.8 million hours of play. Br J Sports Med. (2021) 55:1084–91 doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103159
6. Pieters D, Wezenbeek E, Schuermans J, and Witvrouw E. Return to play after a hamstring strain injury: it is time to consider natural healing. Sports Med. (2021) 51:2067–77. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01494-x
7. Arundale AJH, Silvers-Granelli HJ, and Snyder-Mackler L. Career length and injury incidence after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in major league soccer players. Orthopaedic J Sports Med. (2018) 6:2325967117750825. doi: 10.1177/2325967117750825
8. Barth KA, Lawton CD, Touhey DC, Selley RS, Li DD, Balderama ES, et al. The negative impact of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in professional male footballers. Knee. (2019) 26:142–8. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2018.10.004
9. Della Villa F, Hägglund M, della Villa S, Ekstrand J, and Waldén M. High rate of second ACL injury following ACL reconstruction in male professional footballers: An updated longitudinal analysis from 118 players in the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study. Br J Sports Med. (2021) 55:1350–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103555
10. Grassi A, Rossi G, D'Hooghe P, Aujla R, Mosca M, Samuelsson K, et al. Eighty-two per cent of male professional football (soccer) players return to play at the previous level two seasons after Achilles tendon rupture treated with surgical repair. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54:480–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100556
11. Grindem H, Engebretsen L, Axe M, Snyder-Mackler L, and Risberg MA. Activity and functional readiness, not age, are the critical factors for second anterior cruciate ligament injury—the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54:1099–102. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100623
12. Lai C, Ardern C, Feller J, and Webster K. Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes return to preinjury sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis of return to sport rates, graft rupture rates and performance outcomes. Br J Sports Med. (2018) 52:128–38. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096836
13. Niederer D, Engeroff T, Wilke J, Vogt L, and Banzer W. Return to play, performance, and career duration after anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a case–control study in the five biggest football nations in Europe. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2018) 28:2226–33. doi: 10.1111/sms.13245
14. Paterno MV, Rauh M, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, and Hewett TE. Incidence of second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Orthopaedic J Sports Med. (2013) 1:1562–73. doi: 10.1177/2325967113S00002
15. Bittencourt NFN, Meeuwisse WH, Mendonça LD, Nettel-Aguirre A, Ocarino JM, Fonseca ST, et al. Complex systems approach for sports injuries: Moving from risk factor identification to injury pattern recognition—Narrative review and new concept. Br J Sports Med. (2016) 50:1309–14. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095850
16. Hägglund M, Waldén M, and Ekstrand J. Injury recurrence is lower at the highest professional football level than at national and amateur levels: Does sports medicine and sports physiotherapy deliver? Br J Sports Med. (2016) 50:751–8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095951
17. Bengtsson H, Ekstrand J, Waldén M, and Hägglund M. Few training sessions between return to play and first match appearance are associated with an increased propensity for injury: a prospective cohort study of male professional football players during 16 consecutive seasons. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54:427–32. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100655
18. Stares J, Dawson B, Peeling P, Drew M, Heasman J, Rogalski B, et al. How much is enough in rehabilitation? High running workloads following lower limb muscle injury delay return to play but protect against subsequent injury. J Sci Med Sport. (2018) 21:1019–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.03.012
19. Tyler TF, Schmitt BM, Nicholas SJ, and McHugh MP. Rehabilitation after hamstring-strain injury emphasizing eccentric strengthening at long muscle lengths: Results of long-term follow-up. J Sport Rehabil. (2017) 26:131–40. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2015-0099
20. Draovitch P, Patel S, Marrone W, Grundstein MJ, Grant R, Virgile A, et al. The return-to-sport clearance continuum is a novel approach toward return to sport and performance for the professional athlete. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. (2022) 4:e93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.10.026
21. Buckthorpe M, Della Villa F, Della Villa S, and Roi GS. On-field Rehabilitation Part 1, 4 Pillars of high-quality on-field rehabilitation are restoring movement quality, physical conditioning, restoring sport-specific skills, and progressively developing chronic training load. J Orthopaedic Sports PhysTher. (2019) 49:565–9. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8954
22. Buckthorpe M, Della Villa F, Della Villa S, and Roi GS. On-field Rehabilitation Part 2: a 5-stage program for the soccer player focused on linear movements, multidirectional movements, soccer-specific skills, soccer-specific movements, and modified practice. J Orthopaedic Sports Phys Ther. (2019) 49:570–5. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8952
23. van Melick N, van Rijn L, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, Hoogeboom TJ, and van Cingel REH. Fatigue affects quality of movement more in ACL-reconstructed soccer players than in healthy soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. (2019) 27:549–55. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5149-2
24. Ardern C, Bizzini M, and Bahr R. It is time for consensus on return to play after injury: five key questions. Br J Sports Med. (2016) 50:506–8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095475
25. Buckthorpe M, Frizziero A, and Roi GS. Update on functional recovery process for the injured athlete: Return to sport continuum redefined. Br J Sports Med. (2019) 53:265–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099341
26. Taberner M, Allen T, and Cohen D. Progressing rehabilitation after injury: consider the ‘control-chaos continuum.' Br J Sports Med. (2019) 53:1132–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100157
27. Dunlop G, Ardern C, Andersen TE, Lewin C, Dupont G, Ashworth B, et al. Return-to-play practices following hamstring injury: a worldwide survey of 131 premier league football Teams. Sports Med. (2020) 50:829–40. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01199-2
28. van der Horst N, Backx FJG, Goedhart EA, and Huisstede BMA. Return to play after hamstring injuries in football (soccer): a worldwide Delphi procedure regarding definition, medical criteria and decision-making. Br J Sports Med. (2017) 51:1583–91. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097206
29. Waldén M, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, and Ekstrand J. ACL injuries in men's professional football: a 15-year prospective study on time trends and return-to-play rates reveals only 65% of players still play at the top level 3 years after ACL rupture. Br J Sports Med. (2016) 50:744–50. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095952
30. Della Villa F, Buckthorpe M, Grassi A, Nabiuzzi A, Tosarelli F, Zaffagnini S, et al. Systematic video analysis of ACL injuries in professional male football (soccer): Injury mechanisms, situational patterns and biomechanics study on 134 consecutive cases. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 1423–32. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101247
31. Edwards W. Modeling overuse injuries in sport as a mechanical fatigue phenomenon. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. (2018) 46:224–31. doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000163
32. Benson LC, Räisänen AM, Volkova VG, Pasanen K, and Emery CA. Workload a-wear-ness: Monitoring workload in team sports with wearable technology. A scoping review. J Orthopaed Sports Phys Ther. (2020) 50:549–63. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2020.9753
33. Mendiguchia J, Alentorn-Geli E, and Brughelli M. Hamstring strain injuries: are we heading in the right direction? Br J Sports Med. (2012) 46:81–5. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2010.081695
34. Meeuwisse WH, Tyreman H, Hagel B, and Emery C. A dynamic model of etiology in sport injury: The recursive nature of risk and causation. Clin J Sport Med. (2007) 17:215–9. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3180592a48
35. Quatman CE, Quatman CC, and Hewett TE. Prediction and prevention of musculoskeletal injury: a paradigm shift in methodology. Br J Sports Med. (2009) 43:1100–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.065482
36. Roe M, Malone S, Blake C, Collins K, Gissane C, Büttner F, et al. A six stage operational framework for individualising injury risk management in sport. Injury Epidemiol. (2017) 4:26. doi: 10.1186/s40621-017-0123-x
37. Taberner M, Allen T, O'keefe J, and Cohen DD. Contextual considerations using the ‘control-choas continuum' for return to sport in elite football—Part 1: load planning. Phys Ther Sport. (2022) 53:67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.10.015
38. Vanrenterghem J, Nedergaard NJ, Robinson MA, and Drust B. Training load monitoring in team sports: a novel framework separating physiological and biomechanical load-adaptation pathways. Sports Med. (2017) 47:2135–42. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0714-2
39. McCall A, Fanchini M, and Coutts AJ. Prediction: the modern-day sport-science and sports-medicine “Quest for the Holy Grail”. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2017) 12:704–6. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0137
40. Kalkhoven J, Watsford M, Coutts A, Edwards WB, and Impellizzeri F. Training load and injury: causal pathways and future directions. Sports Med. (2021) 51:1137–50. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01413-6
41. Drew MK, and Finch CF. The relationship between training load and injury, illness and soreness: a systematic and literature review. Sports Med. (2016) 46:861–83. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0459-8
42. Impellizzeri F, Marcora S, and Coutts A. Internal and external training load: 15 years on. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2019) 14:270–3. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2018-0935
43. Delaney JA, Duthie GM, Thornton HR, and Pyne DB. Quantifying the relationship between internal and external work in team sports: development of a novel training efficiency index. Sci Med Football. (2018) 2:149–56. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2018.1432885
44. Creighton DW, Shrier I, Shultz R, Meeuwisse WH, and Matheson GO. Return-to-play in sport: a decision-based model. Clinical J Sports Med. (2010) 20:379–85. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181f3c0fe
45. Shrier I. Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT) framework for return-to-play decision-making. Br J Sports Med. (2015) 49:1311–5. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094569
46. Ardern C, Glasgow P, Schneiders A, Witvrouw E, Clarsen B, Cools A, et al. Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. Br J Sports Med. (2016) 50:853–64. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278
47. Dijkstra HP, Pollock N, Chakraverty R, and Ardern C. Return to play in elite sport: a shared decision-making process. Br J Sports Med. (2017) 51:419–20. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096209
48. McCall A, Lewin C, O'Driscoll G, Witvrouw E, and Ardern C. Return to play: the challenge of balancing research and practice. Br J Sports Med. (2017) 51:702–3. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096752
49. Taberner M, van Dyk N, Allen T, Richter C, Howarth C, Scott S, et al. Physical preparation and return to sport of the football player with a tibia-fibula fracture: applying the control-chaos continuum'. BMJ Open Sport Exer Med. (2019) 5:1–7. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000639
50. Taberner M, van Dyk N, Allen T, Richter C, Drust B, Cohen D, et al. Physical preparation and the return to performance of an elite female soccer player following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a journey to the FIFA Women's World Cup. J Orthopaed Sports Phys Ther. (2020) 6. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000843
51. Taberner M, Haddad F, Dunn A, Newall A, Parker L, Betancur E, et al. Managing the return to sport of the elite footballer following semimembranosus reconstruction. BMJ Open Sport Exer Med. (2020) 6. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000898
52. Jeffries AC, Marcora SM, Coutts AJ, Wallace L, McCall A, Impellizzeri FM, et al. Development of a revised conceptual framework of physical training for use in research and practice. Sports Med. (2021) 52:709–24. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01551-5
53. Impellizzeri F, Ward P, Coutts A, Bornn L, and McCall A. Training load and injury part 2: questionable research practices hijack the truth and Mislead Well-Intentioned Clinicians. In J Orthopaed Sports Phys Ther. (2020) 50:577–84. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2020.9211
54. Jiménez-Rubio S, Navandar A, Rivilla-García J, and Paredes-Hernández V. Validity of an on-field readaptation program following a hamstring injury in professional soccer. J Sport Rehabil. (2019) 28:1–7. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2018-0203
55. Jiménez-Rubio S, Estévez Rodríguez JL, and Navandar A. Validity of a rehab and reconditioning program following an adductor longus injury in professional soccer. J Sport Rehabil. (2021) 30:1224–9. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2020-0360
56. Jiménez-Rubio S, Navandar A, Rivilla-García J, Paredes-Hernández V, and Gómez-Ruano MÁ. Improvements in match-related physical performance of professional soccer players after the application of an on-field training program for hamstring injury rehabilitation. J Sport Rehabil. (2020) 29:1145–50. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0033
57. Fanchini M, Impellizzeri F, Silbernagel K, Combi F, Benazzo F, Bizzini M, et al. Return to competition after an Achilles tendon rupture using both on and off the field load monitoring as guidance: a case report of a top-level soccer player. Phys Ther Sport. (2018) 29:70–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2017.04.008
58. Zambaldi M, Beasley I, and Rushton A. Return to play criteria after hamstring muscle injury in professional football: a Delphi consensus study. Br J Sports Med. (2017) 51:1221–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097131
Keywords: field-based, rehab, soccer, injury, re-conditioning, prevention
Citation: Armitage M, McErlain-Naylor SA, Devereux G, Beato M and Buckthorpe M (2022) On-field rehabilitation in football: Current knowledge, applications and future directions. Front. Sports Act. Living 4:970152. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.970152
Received: 15 June 2022; Accepted: 24 October 2022;
Published: 05 December 2022.
Edited by:
Chris J. Bishop, Middlesex University, United KingdomReviewed by:
Mo Gimpel, Red Bull Soccer, AustriaLasse Ishøi, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark
Copyright © 2022 Armitage, McErlain-Naylor, Devereux, Beato and Buckthorpe. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mark Armitage, mark.armitage@canaries.co.uk