No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Context: Hip rotation range of motion (ROM) is commonly assessed in individuals with lower extremity or spine pathology. It remains unknown which hip rotation ROM testing position is most reliable. Objective: To compare interrater and intrarater reliabilities between hip internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM in supine and seated positions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: University research laboratory. Participants: A total of 19 participants (11 females and 8 males; age = 23.5 [1.2] y; height = 173.2 [8.6] cm; and mass = 69.2 [13.4] kg) without hip, knee, low back, or sacroiliac pain within the preceding 3 months or history of hip or low back surgery were recruited. Interventions: Three testers obtained measures during 2 testing sessions. Passive supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM were performed with the hip and knee flexed to 90°. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were hip IR and ER ROM in supine and seated positions (in degrees). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Minimal detectable change was calculated. Differences between supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM values were assessed using paired t tests (significance level was .05). Results: Supine hip IR and ER ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were excellent (ICC = .75–.91). Seated hip IR ROM interrater and intrarater reliabilities were good (ICC = .64–.71). Seated hip ER ROM interrater reliability was good (ICC = .65), and intrarater reliabilities were good to excellent (ICC = .65–.82). Minimal detectable change values for supine and seated hip IR and ER ROM ranged from 6.1° to 8.6°. There were significant differences between supine and seated positions for hip IR and ER ROM (41.6° vs 44.5°; P < .01 and 53.0° vs 44.2°; P < .01, respectively). Conclusion: Supine hip rotation had higher interrater and intrarater reliabilities. Hip IR and ER ROM values differed significantly between supine and seated positions and should not be used interchangeably.

Background BackgroundA comprehensive battery of tests are used to inform return to play decisions following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Performance measures contribute to patient function, but it is not clear if achieving symmetrical performance on strength and hop tests is sufficient or if a patient also needs to meet minimum unilateral thresholds. Hypothesis/Purpose Hypothesis/PurposeTo determine the association of quadriceps strength and single-leg forward hop performance with patient-reported function, as measured by the IKDC Subjective Knee Form (IKDC), during late-stage ACL rehabilitation. A secondary purpose was to determine which clinical tests were the most difficult for participants to pass. Study Design Study Design Descriptive Laboratory Study Methods MethodsForty-eight individuals with a history of ACL-R (32 female, 16 male; mean±SD age=18.0±2.7 y; height=172.4±7.6 cm; mass=69.6±11.4 kg; time since surgery=7.7±1.8 months; IKDC=86.8±10.6) completed the IKDC survey, quadriceps isometric strength, and single-leg forward hop performance. The relationship between IKDC scores and performance measures (LSI and involved limb) was determined using stepwise linear regression. Frequency counts were used to determine whether participants met clinical thresholds (IKDC 90%, quadriceps and single-leg forward hop LSI 90%, quadriceps peak torque 3.0 Nm/kg, and single-leg forward hop 80% height for females and 90% height for males). Results ResultsQuadriceps LSI and involved limb peak torque explained 39% of the variance in IKDC scores while measures of single-leg forward hop performance did not add to the predictive model. Nearly 90% of participants could not meet established clinical thresholds on all five tests and quadriceps strength (LSI and peak torque) was the most common unmet criteria (71% of participants). Conclusions ConclusionsDuring late-stage ACL rehabilitation deficits in quadriceps strength contribute more to patient function and are greater in magnitude compared to hop test performance.