4.3 Article

Sex-Specific associations between hip muscle strength and foot progression angle

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2022.102723

Keywords

Dynamometry; Gait; Biomechanics; Kinematics; Walking

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the foot progression angle (FPA) between males and females and examined the association between lower extremity kinematics, hip strength, and FPA. The results showed no difference in FPA between sexes, but females had greater hip angles. In males, greater hip abduction strength was associated with greater FPA.
The foot progression angle (FPA) influences knee loading during gait, but its determinants are unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare FPA between males and females and also examine the association between lower extremity kinematics during gait, hip strength, and the FPA. 25 males and 25 females completed 5 gait trials while FPA and frontal and transverse plane hip and knee angles were calculated from the dominant limb during the foot flat portion of stance. Hip extensor/flexor, abductor/adductor, and internal/external rotator strength were evaluated using maximum voluntary isometric contractions. One-way MANOVAs compared gait and strength outcomes. Stepwise regression assessed the association between FPA, and MVIC and kinematics after accounting for speed in males and females. There was no difference in FPA between sexes (p > 0.05), but females had greater frontal and transverse plane hip angles compared with males (all p < 0.05). Greater hip abduction (p = 0.02) strength was associated with greater FPA, but only in males. In males, greater hip abductor strength may contribute to a more neutral position of the foot during gait, which could help maintain an equal knee loading distribution. Our results suggest that there are sex specific control strategies to achieve a similar FPA during gait.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available