Differences in Hip Joint Biomechanics and Muscle Activation in Individuals With Femoroacetabular Impingement Compared With Healthy, Asymptomatic Individuals: Is Level-Ground Gait Analysis Enough?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a recognized cause of hip and groin pain and a significant factor in hip joint function during sport. Objective tests for understanding hip function are lacking in this population. Purpose: To determine whether biomechanical and electromyographic features of hip function during level-ground walking differ between a group diagnosed with FAI and those with no symptoms of FAI. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 20 asymptomatic individuals and 20 individuals with FAI walked on a dual-belt instrumented treadmill at self-selected walking velocities. Sagittal and frontal plane joint motions, moments, and muscle activation for the gluteus medius, gluteus maximus, rectus femoris, and medial and lateral hamstrings were analyzed. Discrete measures were extracted from each biomechanical waveform, and principal component analysis was used to determine hip joint muscle activation and hip adduction moment patterns. Statistical significance was determined by use of Student t tests with Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons (α = .05). Results: Individuals with FAI walked more slowly ( P = .015) and had lower self-reported function ( P < .001). No differences in muscle strength were found between the symptomatic and contralateral legs in the FAI group ( P > .017), but those with FAI had lower strength in the knee extensors and flexors and the hip extensors, flexors, and adductors compared with the asymptomatic group ( P < .017). Individuals with unilateral symptomatic FAI walked with similar biomechanical and hip muscle electromyographic results bilaterally. The only differences found were a greater amplitude of gluteus maximus activation in the FAI symptomatic leg compared with the asymptomatic group and greater medial hamstring activation than lateral hamstring activation in the FAI group in both limbs compared with the asymptomatic group. Conclusion: Individuals with FAI were generally deconditioned and reported significantly more functional limitations. No biomechanical differences existed between groups during level walking, yet hamstring and gluteus maximus activation differed when the symptomatic group was compared with the asymptomatic group. Clinical Relevance: The field lacks objective testing of hip joint function to understand implications of FAI for dynamic movements, particularly with applications to biomechanics and electromyography. Level walking was of limited value for understanding FAI hip function, and the development of a more challenging gait assessment is warranted.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».