Introduction: Injury prevention programs (IPPs) are an inherent part of training in recreational and professional sports. Providing performance-enhancing benefits in addition to injury prevention may help adjust coaches and athletes’ attitudes towards implementation of injury prevention into daily routine. Conventional thinking by players and coaches alike seems to suggest that IPPs need to be specific to one’s sport to allow for performance enhancement. The systematic literature review aims to firstly determine the IPPs nature of exercises and whether they are specific to the sport or based on general conditioning. Secondly, can they demonstrate whether general, sports-specific or even mixed IPPs improve key performance indicators with the aim to better facilitate long-term implementation of these programs? Methods: PubMed and Web of Science were electronically searched throughout March 2018. The inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, publication dates between Jan 2006 and Feb 2018, athletes (11–45 years), injury prevention programs and included predefined performance measures that could be categorized into balance, power, strength, speed/agility and endurance. The methodological quality of included articles was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration assessment tools. Results: Of 6619 initial findings, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. In addition, reference lists unearthed a further 6 studies, making a total of 28. Nine studies used sports specific IPPs, eleven general and eight mixed prevention strategies. Overall, general programs ranged from 29–57% in their effectiveness across performance outcomes. Mixed IPPs improved in 80% balance outcomes but only 20–44% in others. Sports-specific programs led to larger scale improvements in balance (66%), power (83%), strength (75%), and speed/agility (62%). Conclusion: Sports-specific IPPs have the strongest influence on most performance indices based on the significant improvement versus control groups. Other factors such as intensity, technical execution and compliance should be accounted for in future investigations in addition to exercise modality.

Background: Recent shoulder injury prevention programs have utilized resistance exercises combined with different forms of instability, with the goal of eliciting functional adaptations and thereby reducing the risk of injury. However, it is still unknown how an unstable weight mass (UWM) affects the muscular activity of the shoulder stabilizers. Aim of the study was to assess neuromuscular activity of dynamic shoulder stabilizers under four conditions of stable and UWM during three shoulder exercises. It was hypothesized that a combined condition of weight with UWM would elicit greater activation due to the increased stabilization demand. Methods: Sixteen participants (7 m/9 f) were included in this cross-sectional study and prepared with an EMG-setup for the: Mm. upper/lower trapezius (U.TA/L.TA), lateral deltoid (DE), latissimus dorsi (LD), serratus anterior (SA) and pectoralis major (PE). A maximal voluntary isometric contraction test (MVIC; 5 s.) was performed on an isokinetic dynamometer. Next, internal/external rotation (In/Ex), abduction/adduction (Ab/Ad) and diagonal flexion/extension (F/E) exercises (5 reps.) were performed with four custom-made-pipes representing different exercise conditions. First, the empty-pipe (P; 0.5 kg) and then, randomly ordered, water-filled-pipe (PW; 1 kg), weight-pipe (PG; 4.5 kg) and weight + water-filled-pipe (PWG; 4.5 kg), while EMG was recorded. Raw root-mean-square values (RMS) were normalized to MVIC (%MVIC). Differences between conditions for RMS%MVIC, scapular stabilizer (SR: U.TA/L.TA; U.TA/SA) and contraction (CR: concentric/eccentric) ratios were analyzed (paired t-test; p ≤ 0.05; Bonferroni adjusted α = 0.008). Results: PWG showed significantly greater muscle activity for all exercises and all muscles except for PE compared to P and PW. Condition PG elicited muscular activity comparable to PWG (p > 0.008) with significantly lower activation of L.TA and SA in the In/Ex rotation. The SR ratio was significantly higher in PWG compared to P and PW. No significant differences were found for the CR ratio in all exercises and for all muscles. Conclusion: Higher weight generated greater muscle activation whereas an UWM raised the neuromuscular activity, increasing the stabilization demands. Especially in the In/Ex rotation, an UWM increased the RMS%MVIC and SR ratio. This might improve training effects in shoulder prevention and rehabilitation programs.