3.8 Article

STRENGTH AND FATIGUE MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIP FLEXOR AND HIP EXTENSOR MUSCLES: TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY AND LIMB DOMINANCE EFFECT

期刊

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOC
DOI: 10.26603/ijspt20200967

关键词

Fatigue; hip joint; limb dominance; muscle strength; reproducibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Standardized testing of hip muscle strength and fatigue in the sagittal plane is important for assessing, treating and preventing a number of trunk and lower extremity pathologies. Furthermore, individuals displaying asymmetries of muscle strength between limbs are more likely to sustain an injury. Purpose: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of isometric strength and isokinetic fatigue measurements of the hip flexor and hip extensor muscles, and to examine whether there is a significant limb dominance effect on strength, fatigue and flexor-extensor ratios. Study design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: To evaluate reliability, 30 healthy individuals (33.2 +/- 13.1 years) were included. On a separate occasion, 24 healthy individuals (29.0 +/- 10.3 years) participated to assess between-limb differences. Reliability was established using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurements (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Isometric strength (best peak torque of three maximal contractions; Nm/kg), isokinetic fatigue (total work of 20 consecutive maximal concentric flexor-extensor contractions at 120 degrees/s; Joule/kg), and flexor-extensor ratios, were recorded using a Biodex dynamometer. Results: Reliability was good-to-excellent (ICCs>0.83) and measurement errors were acceptable (SEM<13.6% and MDC%<37.8%). No significant between-limb differences in strength, fatigue and flexorextensor ratios were detected. Conclusions: Isometric strength and isokinetic fatigue of the hip flexor and hip extensor muscles can be reliably assessed in healthy individuals using the Biodex dynamometer. Limb dominance did not significantly affect strength, fatigue or flexor-extensor ratios.

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

3.8
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