How do neuromuscular characteristics of the peroneal muscles differ in adults with and without chronic ankle instability? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Chronic ankle instability (CAI) has been associated with neuromuscular control dysfunction, particularly of the peroneal musculature. How do neuromuscular characteristics of the peroneal muscles, including corticospinal excitability, strength, proprioception (force sense) and electromyographic measures differ in individuals with CAI compared to healthy control counterparts aged 18-45? A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted by retrieving relevant articles from electronic databases including EBSCOhost (CINAHL Complete, AMED, SPORTDiscus), Ovid (MEDLINE, Embase), Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library as well as Grey literature sources. The eligibility and methodological quality of the included case-control and cross-sectional studies were assessed by two reviewers. The random effects model and the standard mean difference with a 95 % confidence interval were utilised to calculate pooled estimates of the overall effect size. Of the total 13,670 studies retrieved, 42 were included in the systematic review. Of these, 25 were eligible for the meta-analyses. Two of the meta-analyses, each consisting of two studies, showed less evertor force sense accuracy at 10 % (d=0.50, p = 0.03) and 20 % of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (d=1.14, p < 0.00001) in individuals with CAI than the control group. In addition, another meta-analysis of two studies showed that the CAI population had longer peroneus longus latency (d=1.69, p < 0.0001) than the control group during single-leg landing inversion perturbation test under unexpected conditions. Individuals with CAI showed specific sensorimotor impairments in evertor force sense accuracy and peroneus longus latency, which may indicate that neuromuscular dysfunction of the peroneal muscles is associated with the underlying mechanisms of the CAI pathogenesis. However, the meta-analyses are limited by the inclusion of only two studies with small sample sizes. Therefore, these findings should be cautiously interpreted, and further research is required to validate them.