• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of athletic training >Isometric Hip Strength and Dynamic Stability of Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability
【24h】

Isometric Hip Strength and Dynamic Stability of Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability

机译：慢性踝关节不稳患者的等距髋关节强度和动态稳定性

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Context: Compared with individuals who have a history of lateral ankle sprain (LAS) without markers of chronic ankle instability (CAI; LAS copers) and healthy people, those with CAI often exhibit neuromuscular impairments and dynamic-stability deficits at the hip. However, the influence of hip-strength deficits on dynamic stability remains unknown. Objective: To compare isometric hip strength and dynamic stability in individuals with or without CAI and examine the degree of dynamic-stability variance explained by isometric hip strength. Design: Case-control study. Setting: Research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Sixty individuals (47 women, 13 men; age = 23.7 ± 4.6 years, height = 166.6 ± 7.7 cm, mass = 70.8 ± 15.7 kg) separated into CAI, LAS coper, and control groups based on previously established criteria. Main Outcome Measure(s): Group differences in resultant vector time to stabilization (RVTTS) and isometric hip-extension, -abduction, and external-rotation strength were determined using 1-way analyses of covariance that controlled for sex and limb (dominant or nondominant) tested and Cohen d effect sizes (95% confidence intervals). Backward linear regressions and Cohen f2 effect sizes (95% confidence intervals) determined the amount of RVTTS variance explained by isometric hip strength. Significance was set a priori at P .05. Results: The CAI group had less isometric hip-extension strength than LAS copers (P = .02, d = 0.72 [0.06, 1.34]) and controls (P = .01, d = 1.19 [0.50, 1.84]) and less external-rotation strength than LAS copers (P = .03, d = 0.78 [0.13, 1.41]) and controls (P = .01, d = 1.02 [0.34, 1.65]). No group differences existed for RVTTS (F2,57 = 1.16, P = .32) or abduction strength (F2,57 = 2.84, P = .07). Resultant vector time to stabilization was explained by isometric hip strength for LAS copers (R2 = 0.21, f2 = 0.27 [0.22, 0.32], P = .04) but not for the CAI (R2 = 0.12, f2 = 0.14 [0.06, 0.22], P = .22) or control (R2 = 0.10, f2 = 0.11 [0.03, 0.19], P = .18) groups. Conclusions: Participants with CAI had decreased isometric hip strength, but that did not equate to dynamic-stability deficits. Clinicians should include hip-muscle strengthening in rehabilitation protocols for patients with CAI, yet these gains may not enhance dynamic stability when landing from a jump.
机译：背景：与那些没有慢性踝关节不稳标记（CAI; LAS copers）的有踝关节扭伤史的人和健康人相比，患有CAI的人经常在髋部表现出神经肌肉损伤和动态稳定性缺陷。但是，臀部力量不足对动态稳定性的影响仍然未知。目的：比较有或没有CAI的个体的等距髋部力量和动态稳定性，并检查由等距髋部力量解释的动态稳定性差异程度。设计：病例对照研究。地点：研究实验室。患者或其他参与者：60位患者（47位女性，13位男性;年龄= 23.7±4.6岁，身高= 166.6±7.7厘米，体重= 70.8±15.7公斤）根据先前建立的标准分为CAI，LAS coper和对照组。主要观察指标：通过控制性别和肢体（主要或主要因素）的1协方差分析确定最终矢量稳定时间（RVTTS）和等距髋关节伸展，外展和外旋强度的组别差异。无显着性）和Cohen d效应大小（95％置信区间）。向后线性回归和Cohen f2效应大小（95％置信区间）确定了RVTTS方差的量，由等轴测髋关节强度解释。优先级设定为P <.05。结果：CAI组的等轴测髋伸肌强度低于LAS铜（P = .02，d = 0.72 [0.06，1.34]）和对照组（P = .01，d = 1.19 [0.50，1.84]），而外部-旋转强度比LAS铜（P = .03，d = 0.78 [0.13，1.41]）和对照（P = .01，d = 1.02 [0.34，1.65]）。 RVTTS（F2,57 = 1.16，P = .32）或外展强度（F2,57 = 2.84，P = .07）没有组差异。对于LAS铜（R2 = 0.21，f2 = 0.27 [0.22，0.32]，P = .04），等距髋部强度解释了达到稳定的矢量时间，但对于CAI（R2 = 0.12，f2 = 0.14 [0.06，0.22] ]，P = 0.22）或对照组（R2 = 0.10，f2 = 0.11 [0.03，0.19]，P = .18）。结论：CAI参与者的等距髋部力量有所降低，但这并不等于动态稳定性不足。临床医师应在CAI患者的康复方案中包括髋部肌肉的增强，但是这些益处可能不会从跳跃着陆时增强动态稳定性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号