4.5 Article

Hip strength and hip and knee kinematics during stair descent in females with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome

期刊

出版社

J O S P T,
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2008.2462

关键词

anterior knee pain; hip abduction; hip external rotation; kinematics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVE: To determine if females presenting with patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) from no discernable cause other than overuse demonstrate hip weakness and increased hip internal rotation, hip adduction, and knee valgus during stair descent. BACKGROUND: Historically, PFPS has been viewed exclusively as a knee problem. Recent findings have indicated a possible association between hip weakness and PFPS. Researchers have hypothesized that patients who demonstrate hip weakness would exhibit increased hip internal rotation, hip adduction, and knee valgus during functional activities. To date, researchers have not simultaneously examined hip and knee strength and kinematics in subjects with PFPS to make this determination. METHODS AND MEASURES: Eighteen females diagnosed with PFPS and 18 matched controls participated. Strength measures were taken for the hip external rotators and hip abductors. Hip and knee kinematics were collected as subjects completed a standardized stair-stepping task. Independent t tests were used to determine between-group differences in strength and kinematics during stair descent. RESULTS: Subjects with PFPS generated 24% less hip external rotator (P = .002) and 26% less hip abductor (P =. 006) torque. No between-group differences (P>.05) were found for average hip and knee transverse and frontal plane angles during stair descent. CONCLUSION: Subjects with PFPS had significant hip weakness but did not demonstrate altered hip and knee kinematics as previously theorized. Additional investigations are needed to better understand the association between hip weakness and PFPS etiology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Symptom Prevalence, Level 4.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据