Martin B Warner1, David A Wilson2, Lee Herrington3, Sharon Dixon4, Conor Power5, Richard Jones3, Markus O Heller6, Patrick Carden4, Cara L Lewis7. 1. School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, UK. Electronic address: m.warner@soton.ac.uk. 2. School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, UK. 3. Centre for Health Sciences Research, University of Salford, Salford, UK. 4. Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, UK. 5. School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 6. School of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, UK. 7. Department of Physical Therapy & Athletic Training, College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, Boston University, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are common biomechanical parameters when analysing the single leg squat movement to compare pathological and non-pathological groups and whether these parameters are able to effectively distinguish between groups. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched using MESH terms, keywords and phrases across four constructs: squat, biomechanical measures, region of interest, study design. Studies were selected based on inclusion of a quantitative biomechanical measure, compared between a pathological and a non-pathological group, and participants performed a single leg squat movement. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included and reviewed, where the majority of studies investigated patellofemoral pain. There was considerable variation in the biomechanical outcome measure used to compare between groups. The frontal plane projection angle was the most commonly reported measure. There was considerable variation in the manner in which the single leg squat was performed. CONCLUSION: Due to variation in how the single leg squat was performed, it was not possible to determine specific biomechanical parameters that distinguish between pathological and non-pathological groups. Frontal plane projection angle appeared to be a parameter that could be effectively utilised. Standardisation of the single leg squat movement is needed to allow comparison between studies of pathological and non-pathological groups.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are common biomechanical parameters when analysing the single leg squat movement to compare pathological and non-pathological groups and whether these parameters are able to effectively distinguish between groups. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched using MESH terms, keywords and phrases across four constructs: squat, biomechanical measures, region of interest, study design. Studies were selected based on inclusion of a quantitative biomechanical measure, compared between a pathological and a non-pathological group, and participants performed a single leg squat movement. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included and reviewed, where the majority of studies investigated patellofemoral pain. There was considerable variation in the biomechanical outcome measure used to compare between groups. The frontal plane projection angle was the most commonly reported measure. There was considerable variation in the manner in which the single leg squat was performed. CONCLUSION: Due to variation in how the single leg squat was performed, it was not possible to determine specific biomechanical parameters that distinguish between pathological and non-pathological groups. Frontal plane projection angle appeared to be a parameter that could be effectively utilised. Standardisation of the single leg squat movement is needed to allow comparison between studies of pathological and non-pathological groups.
Authors: Gustavo Luís Bellizzi; Tenysson Will-Lemos; Renan Alves Resende; Ana Cristina Corrêa Cervi; Paulo Roberto Pereira Santiago; César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas; Débora Bevilaqua-Grossi; Lidiane Lima Florencio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Magdalena Zawadka; Jakub Smolka; Maria Skublewska-Paszkowska; Edyta Lukasik; Aleksandra Bys; Grzegorz Zielinski; Piotr Gawda Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 4.379