Gait & posture · 2016
Single leg stance control in individuals with symptomatic gluteal tendinopathy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Allison Kim, Bennell Kim L, Grimaldi Alison, Vicenzino Bill, Wrigley Tim V, Hodges Paul W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lateral hip pain during single leg loading, and hip abductor muscle weakness, are associated with gluteal tendinopathy, but it has not been shown how or whether kinematics in single leg stance differ in those with gluteal tendinopathy.
PURPOSE: To compare kinematics in preparation for, and during, single leg stance between individuals with and without gluteal tendinopathy, and the effect of hip abductor muscle strength on kinematics.
METHODS: Twenty individuals with gluteal tendinopathy and 20 age-matched pain-free controls underwent three-dimensional kinematic analysis of single leg stance and maximum isometric hip abductor strength testing. Maximum values of hip adduction, pelvic obliquity (contralateral pelvis rise/drop), lateral pelvic translation (ipsilateral/contralateral shift) and ipsilateral trunk lean during preparation for leg lift and average values in steady single leg stance, were compared between groups using an analysis of covariance, with and without anthropometric characteristics and strength as covariates.
RESULTS: Individuals with gluteal tendinopathy demonstrated greater hip adduction (standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.70, P=0.04) and ipsilateral pelvic shift (SMD=1.1, P=0.002) in preparation for leg lift, and greater hip adduction (SMD=1.2, P=0.002) and less contralateral pelvic rise (SMD=0.86, P=0.02) in steady single leg stance than controls. When including strength as a covariate, only between-group differences in lateral pelvic shift persisted (SMD=1.7, P=0.01).
CONCLUSION: Individuals with gluteal tendinopathy use different frontal plane kinematics of the hip and pelvis during single leg stance than pain-free controls. This finding is not influenced by pelvic dimension or the potentially modifiable factor of body mass index, but is by hip abductor muscle weakness.
PURPOSE: To compare kinematics in preparation for, and during, single leg stance between individuals with and without gluteal tendinopathy, and the effect of hip abductor muscle strength on kinematics.
METHODS: Twenty individuals with gluteal tendinopathy and 20 age-matched pain-free controls underwent three-dimensional kinematic analysis of single leg stance and maximum isometric hip abductor strength testing. Maximum values of hip adduction, pelvic obliquity (contralateral pelvis rise/drop), lateral pelvic translation (ipsilateral/contralateral shift) and ipsilateral trunk lean during preparation for leg lift and average values in steady single leg stance, were compared between groups using an analysis of covariance, with and without anthropometric characteristics and strength as covariates.
RESULTS: Individuals with gluteal tendinopathy demonstrated greater hip adduction (standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.70, P=0.04) and ipsilateral pelvic shift (SMD=1.1, P=0.002) in preparation for leg lift, and greater hip adduction (SMD=1.2, P=0.002) and less contralateral pelvic rise (SMD=0.86, P=0.02) in steady single leg stance than controls. When including strength as a covariate, only between-group differences in lateral pelvic shift persisted (SMD=1.7, P=0.01).
CONCLUSION: Individuals with gluteal tendinopathy use different frontal plane kinematics of the hip and pelvis during single leg stance than pain-free controls. This finding is not influenced by pelvic dimension or the potentially modifiable factor of body mass index, but is by hip abductor muscle weakness.