4.6 Article

Elastography Study of Hamstring Behaviors during Passive Stretching

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139272

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund [37400]
  2. University of Nantes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction The mechanical properties of hamstring muscles are usually inferred from global passive torque/angle relationships, in combination with adjoining tissues crossing the joint investigated. Shear modulus measurement provides an estimate of changes in muscle-tendon stiffness and passive tension. This study aimed to assess the passive individual behavior of each hamstring muscle in different stretching positions using shear wave elastography. Methods/Results The muscle shear modulus of each hamstring muscle was measured during a standardized slow passive knee extension (PKE, 80% of maximal range of motion) on eighteen healthy male volunteers. Firstly, we assessed the reliability of the measurements. Results were good for semitendinosus (ST, CV: 8.9%-13.4%), semimembranosus (SM, CV: 10.3%-11.2%) and biceps femoris long-head (BF-lh, CV: 8.6%-13.3%), but not for biceps femoris short-head (BF-sh, CV: 20.3%-44.9%). Secondly, we investigated each reliable muscle in three stretch positions: 70 degrees, 90 degrees and 110 degrees of hip flexion. The results showed different values of shear modulus for the same amount of perceived stretch, with the highest measurements in the high-flexed hip situation. Moreover, individual muscles displayed different values, with values increasing or BF-lh, SM and ST, respectively. The inter-subject variability was 35.3% for ST, 27.4% for SM and 30.2% for BF-lh. Conclusion This study showed that the hip needs to be high-flexed to efficiently tension the hamstrings, and reports a higher muscle-tendon stress tolerance at 110 degrees of hip angle. In addition muscles have different passive behaviors, and future works will clarify if it can be linked with rate of injury.

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

4.6
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