OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-D hip kinematics during the single-leg squat and step-down in patients with hip-related groin pain to those in asymptomatic participants, and to assess relationships among hip kinematics, muscle strength, and bony morphology. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory cross-sectional study. METHODS: Forty patients with hip-related groin pain and 40 matched, asymptomatic participants between 18 and 40 years of age participated. A handheld dynamometer was used to assess hip abductor and external rotator strength. An 8-camera motion-analysis system was used to quantify 3-D kinematics during the single-leg squat and step-down. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to quantify bony morphology. The independent t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess between-group differences. Pearson coefficient correlations were used to assess relationships. RESULTS: Patients with hip-related groin pain had smaller peak hip flexion angles, smaller knee flexion angles, and lesser squat depth compared to asymptomatic participants during the single-leg squat. Among patients with hip-related groin pain, smaller hip flexion angles during the single-leg squat were associated with hip abductor weakness (r = 0.47, P≤.01). Among asymptomatic participants, smaller peak hip flexion angles during the single-leg squat were associated with less acetabular coverage (r = 0.33, P = .04) and shallow squat depth (r = 0.48, P≤.01); a smaller hip internal rotation angle during the step-down was associated with larger femoral neck shaft angle (r = -0.43, P<.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to asymptomatic participants, patients with hip-related groin pain had smaller hip and knee flexion angles and shallower squat depth during the single-leg squat. Smaller hip flexion angles were associated with hip abductor weakness among those with hip-related groin pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(5):243-251. Epub 6 Jan 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9150.
OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-D hip kinematics during the single-leg squat and step-down in patients with hip-related groin pain to those in asymptomatic participants, and to assess relationships among hip kinematics, muscle strength, and bony morphology. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory cross-sectional study. METHODS: Forty patients with hip-related groin pain and 40 matched, asymptomatic participants between 18 and 40 years of age participated. A handheld dynamometer was used to assess hip abductor and external rotator strength. An 8-camera motion-analysis system was used to quantify 3-D kinematics during the single-leg squat and step-down. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to quantify bony morphology. The independent t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess between-group differences. Pearson coefficient correlations were used to assess relationships. RESULTS:Patients with hip-related groin pain had smaller peak hip flexion angles, smaller knee flexion angles, and lesser squat depth compared to asymptomatic participants during the single-leg squat. Among patients with hip-related groin pain, smaller hip flexion angles during the single-leg squat were associated with hip abductor weakness (r = 0.47, P≤.01). Among asymptomatic participants, smaller peak hip flexion angles during the single-leg squat were associated with less acetabular coverage (r = 0.33, P = .04) and shallow squat depth (r = 0.48, P≤.01); a smaller hip internal rotation angle during the step-down was associated with larger femoral neck shaft angle (r = -0.43, P<.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to asymptomatic participants, patients with hip-related groin pain had smaller hip and knee flexion angles and shallower squat depth during the single-leg squat. Smaller hip flexion angles were associated with hip abductor weakness among those with hip-related groin pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(5):243-251. Epub 6 Jan 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9150.
Entities:
Keywords:
dysplasia; femoroacetabular impingement; movement
Authors: N C Casartelli; N A Maffiuletti; J F Item-Glatthorn; S Staehli; M Bizzini; F M Impellizzeri; M Leunig Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: David M Bazett-Jones; Stephen C Cobb; Mukta N Joshi; Susan E Cashin; Jennifer E Earl Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.966
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: David A Krause; Susan J Schlagel; Beth M Stember; Janice E Zoetewey; John H Hollman Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Matthew G King; Peter R Lawrenson; Adam I Semciw; Kane J Middleton; Kay M Crossley Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Benjamin K Potter; Brett A Freedman; Romney C Andersen; John A Bojescul; Timothy R Kuklo; Kevin P Murphy Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-04-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Gary J Farkas; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Kumar B Rajan; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Shane J Nho Journal: Sports Health Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Stefanie N Foster; Michael D Harris; Mary K Hastings; Michael J Mueller; Gretchen B Salsich; Marcie Harris-Hayes Journal: J Sport Rehabil Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: K N Jochimsen; L Brown-Taylor; J Perry; K Glaws; C L Lewis; J Ryan; S Di Stasi Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 2.034
Authors: Penny R Atkins; Praful Agrawal; Joseph D Mozingo; Keisuke Uemura; Kunihiko Tokunaga; Christopher L Peters; Shireen Y Elhabian; Ross T Whitaker; Andrew E Anderson Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-12-05 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Ryan Zarzycki; Philip Malloy; Brian J Eckenrode; Jane Fagan; Molly Malloy; Kathleen K Mangione Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2022-01-02