4.3 Article

Frontal Plane Neurokinematic Mechanisms Stabilizing the Knee and the Pelvis during Unilateral Countermovement Jump in Young Trained Males

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010220

关键词

vertical jump; pelvic tilt; hip abduction; knee valgus; gluteus medius; trained males

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the biomechanical mechanisms of knee and pelvis stabilization during unilateral vertical jumps. It found that hip abduction force does not directly regulate the magnitude of knee valgus, but the activation level of gluteus medius is crucial for increasing knee joint stability.
(1) The unilateral countermovement jump is commonly used to examine frontal plane kinetics during unilateral loading and to identify athletes with an increased risk of lower limb injuries. In the present study, we examined the biomechanical mechanisms of knee and pelvis stabilization during unilateral vertical jumps. (2) Healthy males performed jumps on a force plate with the dominant leg. Activity of the dominant-side gluteus medius and the contralateral-side quadratus lumborum and erector spinae muscles was recorded with surface EMG. The EMG data were normalized to the EMG activity recorded during maximal voluntary isometric hip abduction and lateral trunk flexion contractions. During jumps, the propulsive impulse was measured, and the pelvis and thigh segmental orientation angles in the frontal plane were recorded and synchronized with the EMG data. (3) The magnitude of knee valgus during the jump did not correlate with hip abduction force, but negatively correlated with gluteus medius activity. This correlation became stronger when gluteus medius activity was normalized to hip abduction force. Propulsive impulse did not correlate with any neuromechanical measurement. (4) We conclude that hip abduction force itself does not regulate the magnitude of knee valgus during unilateral jumps; rather, the gluteus medius should be highly activated to increase frontal-plane knee joint stability.

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

4.3
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