Dai Sugimoto1, Carl G Mattacola, David R Mullineaux, Thomas G Palmer, Timothy E Hewett. 1. *The Micheli Center for Sports Injury Prevention, Waltham, Massachusetts; †Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; ‡Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Sports Medicine Biodynamics Center and Human Performance Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio; §Rehabilitation Science Doctoral Program, College of Health Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky; ¶School of Sport and Exercise Science, College of Social Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom; ‖Athletic Training Program, College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio; **Department of Pediatrics and Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, and Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Sports Medicine, Sports Health and Performance Institute, Department of Orthopaedics, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, and Departments of Physiology & Cell Biology, Family Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hip abductor and adductor peak torque outputs and compare their ratios between sexes. DESIGN: A cross-sectional laboratory-controlled study. SETTING: Participants visited a laboratory and performed an isokinetic hip abductor and adductor test. All participants performed 2 sets of 5 repetitions of concentric hip abduction and adduction in a standing position at 60 degrees per second. Gravity was determined as a function of joint angle relative to the horizontal plane and was corrected by normalizing the weight of the limb on an individual basis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 36 collegiate athletes. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Sex (20 females and 16 males). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bilateral peak hip abductor and adductor torques were measured. The 3 highest peak torque values were averaged for each subject. RESULTS: Independent t tests were used to compare sex differences in hip abductor and adductor peak torques and the abductor:adductor peak torque ratios. Males demonstrated significantly greater hip abductor peak torque compared with females (males 1.29 ± 0.24 Nm/kg, females 1.13 ± 0.20 Nm/kg; P = 0.03). Neither hip adductor peak torque nor their ratios differed between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in hip abductor strength were observed. The role of weaker hip abductors in females deserves further attention and may be a factor for higher risk of knee pathologies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hip abductor and adductor peak torque outputs and compare their ratios between sexes. DESIGN: A cross-sectional laboratory-controlled study. SETTING:Participants visited a laboratory and performed an isokinetic hip abductor and adductor test. All participants performed 2 sets of 5 repetitions of concentric hip abduction and adduction in a standing position at 60 degrees per second. Gravity was determined as a function of joint angle relative to the horizontal plane and was corrected by normalizing the weight of the limb on an individual basis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 36 collegiate athletes. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Sex (20 females and 16 males). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bilateral peak hip abductor and adductor torques were measured. The 3 highest peak torque values were averaged for each subject. RESULTS: Independent t tests were used to compare sex differences in hip abductor and adductor peak torques and the abductor:adductor peak torque ratios. Males demonstrated significantly greater hip abductor peak torque compared with females (males 1.29 ± 0.24 Nm/kg, females 1.13 ± 0.20 Nm/kg; P = 0.03). Neither hip adductor peak torque nor their ratios differed between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Sex differences in hip abductor strength were observed. The role of weaker hip abductors in females deserves further attention and may be a factor for higher risk of knee pathologies.
Authors: Timothy E Hewett; Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Robert S Heidt; Angelo J Colosimo; Scott G McLean; Antonie J van den Bogert; Mark V Paterno; Paul Succop Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Letha Y Griffin; Marjorie J Albohm; Elizabeth A Arendt; Roald Bahr; Bruce D Beynnon; Marlene Demaio; Randall W Dick; Lars Engebretsen; William E Garrett; Jo A Hannafin; Tim E Hewett; Laura J Huston; Mary Lloyd Ireland; Robert J Johnson; Scott Lephart; Bert R Mandelbaum; Barton J Mann; Paul H Marks; Stephen W Marshall; Grethe Myklebust; Frank R Noyes; Christopher Powers; Clarence Shields; Sandra J Shultz; Holly Silvers; James Slauterbeck; Dean C Taylor; Carol C Teitz; Edward M Wojtys; Bing Yu Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Bohdanna T Zazulak; Timothy E Hewett; N Peter Reeves; Barry Goldberg; Jacek Cholewicki Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jurdan Mendiguchia; Kevin R Ford; Carmen E Quatman; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Sports Med Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Meghan L Critchley; Daniel J Davis; Michaela M Keener; Jacob S Layer; Margaret A Wilson; Qin Zhu; Boyi Dai Journal: Sports Biomech Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 2.832