Damien Moore1, Adam I Semciw, Tania Pizzari1. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, Podiatry and Prosthetics and Orthotics, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gluteus medius (GMed) and gluteus minimus (GMin) muscle segments demonstrate different responses to pathology and ageing, hence it is important in rehabilitation that prescribed therapeutic exercises can effectively target the individual segments with adequate exercise intensity for strengthening. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether common therapeutic exercises generate at least high ( > 40% maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)) electromyographic (EMG) activity in the GMed (anterior, middle and posterior) and GMin (anterior and posterior) segments. METHODS: Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AusSPORT, PEDro, SPORTdiscus and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to May 2018 for terms relating to gluteal muscle, exercise, and EMG. The search yielded 6918 records with 56 suitable for inclusion. Quality assessment, data extraction and data analysis were then undertaken with exercise data pooled into a meta-analysis where two or more studies were available for an exercise and muscle segment. RESULTS: For the GMed, different variations of the hip hitch/ pelvic drop exercise generated at least high activity in all segments. The dip test, and isometric standing hip abduction are other options to target the anterior GMed segment, while isometric standing hip abduction can be used for the posterior GMed segment. For the middle GMed segment, the single leg bridge; side-lying hip abduction with hip internal rotation; lateral step-up; standing hip abduction on stance or swing leg with added resistance; and resisted side-step were the best options for generating at least high activity. Standing isometric hip abduction and different variations of the hip hitch/ pelvic drop exercise generated at least high activity in all GMin segments, while side-lying hip abduction, the dip test, single leg bridge and single leg squat can also be used for targeting the posterior GMin segment. CONCLUSION: The findings from this review provide the clinician with confidence in exercise prescription for targeting individual GMed and GMin segments for potential strengthening following injury or ageing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE SUBJECT: Previous reviews on GMed exercises have been based on single electrode, surface EMG measures at middle GMed segment. It is not known whether these exercises effectively target the other segments of GMed or the GMin at a sufficient intensity for strengthening. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: This review provides the clinician with confidence in exercise prescription of common therapeutic exercises to effectively target individual GMed and GMin segments for potential strengthening.
BACKGROUND: The gluteus medius (GMed) and gluteus minimus (GMin) muscle segments demonstrate different responses to pathology and ageing, hence it is important in rehabilitation that prescribed therapeutic exercises can effectively target the individual segments with adequate exercise intensity for strengthening. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether common therapeutic exercises generate at least high ( > 40% maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC)) electromyographic (EMG) activity in the GMed (anterior, middle and posterior) and GMin (anterior and posterior) segments. METHODS: Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AusSPORT, PEDro, SPORTdiscus and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to May 2018 for terms relating to gluteal muscle, exercise, and EMG. The search yielded 6918 records with 56 suitable for inclusion. Quality assessment, data extraction and data analysis were then undertaken with exercise data pooled into a meta-analysis where two or more studies were available for an exercise and muscle segment. RESULTS: For the GMed, different variations of the hip hitch/ pelvic drop exercise generated at least high activity in all segments. The dip test, and isometric standing hip abduction are other options to target the anterior GMed segment, while isometric standing hip abduction can be used for the posterior GMed segment. For the middle GMed segment, the single leg bridge; side-lying hip abduction with hip internal rotation; lateral step-up; standing hip abduction on stance or swing leg with added resistance; and resisted side-step were the best options for generating at least high activity. Standing isometric hip abduction and different variations of the hip hitch/ pelvic drop exercise generated at least high activity in all GMin segments, while side-lying hip abduction, the dip test, single leg bridge and single leg squat can also be used for targeting the posterior GMin segment. CONCLUSION: The findings from this review provide the clinician with confidence in exercise prescription for targeting individual GMed and GMin segments for potential strengthening following injury or ageing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE SUBJECT: Previous reviews on GMed exercises have been based on single electrode, surface EMG measures at middle GMed segment. It is not known whether these exercises effectively target the other segments of GMed or the GMin at a sufficient intensity for strengthening. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: This review provides the clinician with confidence in exercise prescription of common therapeutic exercises to effectively target individual GMed and GMin segments for potential strengthening.
Authors: Rudolf W Poolman; Peter A A Struijs; Rover Krips; Inger N Sierevelt; René K Marti; Forough Farrokhyar; Mohit Bhandari Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: David A Krause; Rebecca S Jacobs; Katie E Pilger; Becky R Sather; Seth P Sibunka; John H Hollman Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Marc J Philippon; Michael J Decker; J Erik Giphart; Michael R Torry; Michael S Wahoff; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Erika Nelson-Wong; Diane E Gregory; David A Winter; Jack P Callaghan Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 2.063