J Bodyw Mov Ther. Jan;13(1) doi: / Epub Jun The ‘Bunkie’ test: assessing functional strength to restore function. Get to know the Bunkie Test and learn how it benefits your athletic performance. The ‘Bunkie’ test was developed over a period of 12 years to measure the function of the specific fascia lines in athletes. Numerous athletes from various sports.
To receive news and publication updates for Rehabilitation Research and Practice, enter your email address in the box below. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Twstwhich permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Buknie Bunkie test, a functional performance test consisting of 5 test positions performed bilaterallyhas been used to assess aspects of muscular function.
Current performance measures are based on clinical recommendations. The purpose of this study was to report normative data for a healthy population. One hundred and twelve subjects mean age years were recruited from a university setting.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
Subjects completed a demographic questionnaire prior to testing. Hold times for each position was measured in seconds. Subjects were able to hold many of the positions for a mean score of approximately 40 seconds. There were no side-to-side differences in test position hold times per gender.
The ‘Bunkie’ test: assessing functional strength to restore function through fascia manipulation.
Males were able to hold some positions significantly longer than their female counterparts. Bunkie test scores in subjects with a prior history bunkiee musculoskeletal injury were similar to those with no history of injury.
The normative data presented in this study may be used by rehabilitation professionals when assessing and rehabilitating their patients. Rehabilitation professionals assess muscular endurance and strength in patients and clients utilizing a variety of tests and measures e.
FPTs also known as functional tests have gained popularity for assessing risk of injury, identifying dysfunction, tracking progress during a rehabilitation program, and clearing an athlete to return to sport [ 3 — 7 ].
Rehabilitation professionals utilize FPTs to assess hunkie endurance or strength in patients and clients that cannot be easily assessed with other clinical tests [ 289 ]. Assessing muscular endurance of the core e. The relationship between test scores is calculated to identify individuals who may be at risk for a low back injury [ 11 ].
The FPT scores for the core musculature are used by rehabilitation professionals to guide therapeutic exercise prescription [ 1113 ]. The aforementioned value represents a clinical recommendation by de Witt and Venter [ 14 ]; however, normative values for a general population are currently unknown.
The purpose of this investigation was to bubkie normative data for the Bunkie test in a healthy, general noncompetitive athlete population. It was hypothesized that there would be no statistical difference in Bunkie test scores between sides e.
It was also hypothesized that there would be a statistical difference in scores based on history of musculoskeletal injury. Subjects were recruited to participate in the study either via direct invitation or via recruitment flyers distributed throughout the university.
Each subject completed a brief questionnaire collecting demographic information including age, gender, previous injuries to the extremities that required medical care from a primary provider or allied health care providerand previous injuries to the spine or pelvis that required medical care from either bnkie primary provider or allied health care provider. Bknkie to nearest half inch bunkir weight to nearest half pound were recorded using a standard medical scale.
The Bunkie test consists of 5 testing positions with each test bunkiee bilaterally Figures 1 — 5. Order of testing was randomized per each subject.
The Bunkie Test: Descriptive Data for a Novel Test of Core Muscular Endurance
Sequencing of the remaining tests was based on the initial number rolled. For example, a subject who rolled a 4 would perform the PSL first with the remaining tests performed sequentially 5, 1, 2, 3. A flip of a coin was performed to determine which side was tested first. Subjects were shown a picture of each test see Figures 1 — 5 and asked to assume the test position with their upper extremities placed against a floor mat and the lower extremities LE positioned approximately mid-Achilles on the treatment table.
Once in position, the primary investigator PI provided verbal cues to help facilitate the correct posture prior to initiating the test. The PI next instructed the subject to elevate one LE off of the surface of the treatment table. For this study, when the right LE was weight-bearing on the treatment table it was described as a right sided test. The time that one was able to maintain the proper test position was recorded in seconds using a stopwatch.
A test was terminated when a subject was no longer able to maintain bunkif proper test bunjie as shown in Figures 1 — 5.
Examples of test termination occurred when either a the subject stopped the test due to fatigue or b the subject was unable to maintain the correct position. Subjects were allowed one attempt to correct their position; if they were unable to assume the correct posture after verbal cueing the test was stopped. Thirty seconds of rest was allowed between tests. Independent t -tests were calculated to assess for differences in hold times between lower extremities for each group all subjects, females, males.
Independent t- tests were calculated to assess for differences in test scores based on demographic characteristics: Independent t -tests were also calculated to assess for differences in Bunkie test position hold times between genders. Data analyses were performed using SPSS The test-retest reliability for each position was calculated during a pilot study prior to subject recruitment. The intraclass correlation coefficients ICC 3,1 were as follows: Demographic information of the study sample is presented in Table 1.
Eighty-one of the subjects were female. Fifty-three of the 81 female subjects 65 percent reported a prior history of musculoskeletal injury that required evaluation and treatment by a medical professional. Twenty-one of the 81 female subjects 26 percent reported history of back thoracic or lumbar region injury that required evaluation and treatment by a medical professional. Sixty-four percent 20 out of 31 of male subjects reported prior history of musculoskeletal injury requiring medical treatment.
Only 13 percent 4 out of 31 of male subjects reported prior history of back thoracic or lumbar region injury. There were no side-to-side differences between extremities for the total population.
There were no side-to-side differences between lower extremities for each test position in this group.
Male subjects held three of the test positions significantly longer than their female counterparts. Males were able to hold the APL L position for There were two significant findings based on BMI. There was only one test position, the LSL Lwhere a significant difference in hold times was observed between those with no history or history of musculoskeletal injury. Those with a history of injury were able to hold the LSL L position Table 4 presents Bunkie test scores for female subjects based on age, BMI, and prior history of musculoskeletal injury.
There were no statistical differences in hold times when comparing female subjects with or without history of musculoskeletal injury. Table 5 presents Bunkie test scores for male subjects based on age, BMI, and prior history of injury. There were no statistical differences between test scores for male subjects based on age categorization. Male subjects with a lower BMI were able to hold 8 out of the 10 test positions significantly longer than males with a greater BMI.
There were no statistical differences in hold times when comparing male subjects with or without history of musculoskeletal injury. This is the first study to report normative Bunkie test scores for a healthy, general noncompetitive athlete population. In general, subjects were able to hold test positions for mean times of approximately 40 seconds except for the MSL test position. There were no within group side-to-side differences per gender; however, males were able to hold some positions significantly longer than their female counterparts.
These significant differences should be viewed as preliminary and may be the result of the population sampled in this study. Male subjects with a lower BMI were able to hold the test positions significantly longer in most cases than males with a greater BMI. This finding is opposite of what was observed with female subjects.
It is possible that males with a higher BMI were less conditioned than their counterparts with a lower BMI; however, this is only speculative. The relationship between higher BMI and lower Bunkie scores warrants further exploration. McGill [ 11 ] published descriptive data for mean endurance times for the lateral musculature test, the flexor endurance test, and the back extensors test in year-old asymptomatic individuals.
Women were able to hold the back extensor test for a longer period than the males; however, the males were able to hold the other 3 positions for longer periods [ 11 ].
In this study, the males were able to hold some of the Bunkie test positions longer than their female counterparts. McGill [ 11 ] also reported that asymptomatic individuals with a history of LBP have shorter hold times with the muscular endurance tests for the core and have abnormal ratios between tests.
Rehabilitation Research and Practice
The muscular dysfunction in individuals with prior history of LBP is consistent with the finding that muscular function of the multifidus is not spontaneous after an initial episode of LBP [ 15 ]. This is counter to what was hypothesized. The testing protocol for the Bunkie test in this investigation differs slightly from the original description by de Witt and Venter [ 14 ]. Etst proposed that each of the 5 test positions assesses different fascial planes [ 14 ]. According to de Witt and Venter [ 14 ], the tests are held for specific time periods assessing the patient or client for symptoms such ttest pain, cramping, or burning.
However, assessment and treatment of fascial dysfunction are not accepted amongst all physical therapists or other rehabilitation professionals.
More research is warranted to validate the presence of functional fascial planes and execution of randomized controlled trials to assess outcomes of treatment directed at fascial dysfunction.
Brumitt demonstrated how the Bunkie test could be utilized as a measure bunkkie core muscular endurance capacity in the assessment of an injured recreational distance runner [ 16 ]. The patient, a year-old female, experienced left-sided low back pain only when running.
Testing the patient with the Bunkie revealed asymmetrical hold times that correlated with left-sided weakness of the gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, and hip tesy rotators as assessed by traditional manual muscle testing [ 16 ].
At her follow-up visit 8 days later she was able to hold the Bunkie test positions for longer periods and return to running pain-free.
One other study to date has reported mean scores for the Bunkie test. Mean scores for front row rugby players ranged from the lowest score of Mean scores for backline rugby players range from the lowest score of Despite the time restriction and test termination requirement based on musculoskeletal sensations, the tesf in van Pletzen and Venter [ 17 ] held the tests for similar time periods as subjects in this study.
Future investigations are warranted to determine the utility of bunkje Bunkie test. Descriptive studies are warranted to identify normative data in injured populations e. In this study subjects with a prior history of injury did not demonstrate significant differences in hold times when compared to individuals with no history of injury. However, for an injured patient the Bunkie test may be clinically bnukie as a test to identify asymmetry of muscular endurance bunkiw as a tool to track increases in muscular function during a course of rehabilitation [ 16 ].
Clinicians should utilize caution and their clinical judgment when assessing the injured patient. The Bunkie test may be too aggressive for patients who are in the acute bunkje of healing; however, those who are in subacute or chronic stages may be able to tolerate the test without symptom provocation.
The Bunkie test should also be evaluated for its ability to identify individuals who may be at risk for a future injury e.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.