2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hip kinematics and kinetics in persons with and without cam femoroacetabular impingement during a deep squat task

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
98
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(103 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
4
98
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Hip kinematics were investigated by three medium-quality studies28 30 31 with no differences observed in all outcomes investigated. Specifically, no difference in peak hip angles in all three planes at maximum squat depth31; no difference in peak hip flexion, abduction and internal rotation angle between patients with FAIS and controls (flexion −0.62, 95% CI −1.36 to 0.11; abduction −0.01, 95% CI −0.73 to 0.70; internal rotation −0.65, 95% CI −1.39 to 0.09),30 (flexion 0.02, 95% CI −0.99 to 1.03; abduction −1.04, 95% CI −2.14 to 0.06; internal rotation −0.57, 95% CI −1.61 to 0.47)28; and no difference in total ROM in all planes (sagittal 0.58, 95% CI −0.46 to 1.63; frontal −0.26, 95% CI −1.28 to 0.76; transverse −1.06, 95% CI −2.17 to 0.04)28 (table 3). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hip kinematics were investigated by three medium-quality studies28 30 31 with no differences observed in all outcomes investigated. Specifically, no difference in peak hip angles in all three planes at maximum squat depth31; no difference in peak hip flexion, abduction and internal rotation angle between patients with FAIS and controls (flexion −0.62, 95% CI −1.36 to 0.11; abduction −0.01, 95% CI −0.73 to 0.70; internal rotation −0.65, 95% CI −1.39 to 0.09),30 (flexion 0.02, 95% CI −0.99 to 1.03; abduction −1.04, 95% CI −2.14 to 0.06; internal rotation −0.57, 95% CI −1.61 to 0.47)28; and no difference in total ROM in all planes (sagittal 0.58, 95% CI −0.46 to 1.63; frontal −0.26, 95% CI −1.28 to 0.76; transverse −1.06, 95% CI −2.17 to 0.04)28 (table 3). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Two medium-quality studies30 31 demonstrated no difference in pelvic tilt at maximum squat depth (0.73, 95% CI −0.01 to 1.4830; 0.70, 95% CI −0.11 to 1.50)31 (table 4). Total sagittal plane pelvic ROM was investigated in two moderate-quality studies31 32 with conflicting results.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The researchers observed decreased squat depth, hip internal rotation, and decreased posterior pelvic tilt in individuals with CAM-type FAI. 9,45,46 Researchers have also observed that squat performance improved postsurgically with subjects having a greater squat depth and pelvic motion. 9 Despite these reported finding, [47][48][49] This must be considered when interpreting these results or comparing to other values to inform clinical practice.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These results provide reference hip ROM values that the researchers did not discuss if the squat movement was a risk factor for injury which leaves a gap in our understanding of this common exercise. 9,45,46 Future research is necessary to examine the correlation between common WT movements, the required hip ROM, and risk of hip injury.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Refs. [19,20], kinematics of the same joints was studied during squatting activity. In addition, for the completeness of the ADL evaluation, the frequency and duration of each of the activities evaluated in [21] is of particular interest.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%