4.2 Article

EMG of the hip adductor muscles in six clinical examination tests

期刊

PHYSICAL THERAPY IN SPORT
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 134-140

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.08.004

关键词

Groin; Soccer; Adductors; Electromyography

资金

  1. AIS Departments of Sports Medicine and Physical Therapies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess activation of muscles of hip adduction using EMG and force analysis during standard clinical tests, and compare athletes with and without a prior history of groin pain. Study design: Controlled laboratory study. Participants: 21 male athletes from an elite junior soccer program. Main outcome measures: Bilateral surface EMG recordings of the adductor magnus, adductor longus, gracilis and pectineus as well as a unilateral fine-wire EMG of the pectineus were made during isometric holds in six clinical examination tests. A load cell was used to measure force data. Results: Test type was a significant factor in the EMG output for all four muscles (all muscles p < 0.01). EMG activation was highest in Hips 0 or Hips 45 for adductor magnus, adductor longus and gracilis. EMG activation for pectineus was highest in Hips 90. Injury history was a significant factor in the EMG output for the adductor longus (p < 0.05), pectineus (p < 0.01) and gracilis (p < 0.01) but not adductor magnus. For force data, clinical test type was a significant factor (p < 0.01) with Hips 0 being significantly stronger than Hips 45, Hips 90 and Side lay. BMI (body mass index) was a significant factor (p < 0.01) for producing a higher force. All other factors had no significant effect on the force outputs. Conclusions: Hip adduction strength assessment is best measured at hips 0 (which produced most force) or 45 degrees flexion (which generally gave the highest EMG output). Muscle EMG varied significantly with clinical test position. Athletes with previous groin injury had a significant fall in some EMG outputs. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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