Pelvic Tilt and Range of Motion in Hips With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physiotherapy is a management option for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. This study examines the influence of changes in pelvic tilt and hip adduction on the range of motion (ROM) of the hip. METHODS: Ten FAI hips were used to simulate impingement at two positions: (1) 20° internal rotation (IR) with 100° flexion and 10° adduction and (2) 40° IR with 35° flexion and 10° adduction; the amount of IR was measured at the point of bony impingement or to the defined limit. Each simulation was performed at neutral and 5° and 10° anterior and posterior pelvic tilt. Then, the hip was placed in 10° of abduction, and all simulations were repeated. RESULTS: With neutral pelvic tilt, impingement occurred at 4.3 ± 8.4° of IR at the high-flexion position. An increase in anterior pelvic tilt led to a loss of IR, that is, earlier occurrence of FAI, whereas an increase in posterior pelvic tilt led to an increase in IR, that is, later occurrence of FAI. At the high-flexion position, abduction provided more IR before impingement (neutral: 9.1 ± 5.7°, P < 0.01; 10° anterior tilt: 14.6 ± 5.2°, P < 0.01; 10° posterior tilt: 4.2 ± 3.7° IR, P = 0.01). Placing the hip in abduction and posteriorly tilting the pelvis produce a combined effect that increased IR relative to the neutrally tilted pelvis (5° posterior tilt: 11.4 ± 7.6°, P = 0.01; 10° posterior tilt: 12.8 ± 7.6°, P < 0.01). The ROM in the mid-flexion position was not affected by any combination of pelvic tilt and hip abduction or adduction (average IR: 37.4 ± 5.0°, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Abduction and posterior pelvic tilt increased the impingement-free ROM in the hips with FAI. Thus, rehabilitation aimed at altering the tilt of the pelvis may reduce the frequency of impingement and limit further joint damage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".