4.6 Article

The hamstrings to quadriceps functional ratio expressed over the full angle-angular velocity range using a limited number of data points

Journal

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.210696

Keywords

strength balance; hamstring strain injuries; isokinetic dynamometry; eccentric contraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents a model based on torque measurements to evaluate the muscle strength balance of the knee joint. The results show that the model performs well under various conditions and can provide fast and accurate assessment results.
The hamstring to quadriceps (H : Q) strength ratio is widely used to identify individuals at risk of sustaining hamstring strain injuries. However, its efficacy is not supported by the current evidence. Current methods for the calculation of the H : Q ratio provide only a one- or two-dimensional ratio, often ignoring fundamental muscle mechanical properties. Based on isokinetic torque measurements of the knee flexors and extensors (0-400 degrees s(-1)) in 25 young, physically active males, we derived a model equation that creates a three-dimensional H : Q functional ratio profile. The model robustness was tested against a different number of input torque data (8, 11, 14 and 17 pairs of points) and small perturbation of the knee joint angle data (5 degrees). The model was consistent and behaved well under all conditions apart from the eight pairs of points (R-2 = 0.84-0.96; RMSE = 0.14-0.25; NRMSE = 0.12-0.27), and the H : Q functional ratio was successfully described even at angles and velocities that cannot be normally assessed with isokinetic dynamometry. Overall, our results suggest that the model can provide a fast and accurate three-dimensional description of the knee joint muscle strength balance using as few as 11 experimental data points and this could be an easy-to-employ screening tool.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available