Muscle Architecture of the Human Lower Limb

Wickiewicz, Thomas L.; Roy, Roland R.; Powell, P. L.; Edgerton, V. Reggie

doi:10.1097/00003086-198310000-00042

Cited by 777 publications

(672 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

602

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a biomechanical perspective, this suggests these muscles are the key power producers of the lower extremity. Our data also contradict the commonly held belief that biarticular muscles have longer fibers compared with uniarticular muscles [8,30]. Several obvious examples are illustrated by comparing the rectus femoris with the remaining vasti and the biceps femoris long head with the biceps femoris short head.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

“…(A) At the ankle, the muscles follow the classic tradeoff between PCSA and fiber length; large PCSA correlates with short fibers. Also at the ankle, plantarflexor and dorsiflexor fiber lengths are dramatically different from those of previous reports [8,30]. (B) At the knee, the quadriceps and hamstrings have opposite architectural trends.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

“…Their data were presented almost 30 years ago as a pilot project by a medical student working in a muscle laboratory (verbal communication, V. R. Edgerton, PhD, 2008). The two functionally dominant architectural parameters, fiber length and PCSA, differed from published parameters [8,30] by 10% to 100%. The key differences in our data are the longer fiber lengths of the knee extensors, knee flexors, and ankle plantarflexors and shorter fiber lengths of the ankle dorsiflexors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Relative to previous architectural data, comparison with the data reported by Wickiewicz et al [30] is particularly important because they are the most widely used data set for musculoskeletal modeling. Their data were presented almost 30 years ago as a pilot project by a medical student working in a muscle laboratory (verbal communication, V. R. Edgerton, PhD, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two most extensively used data sets representing direct measurements of human lower extremity architecture consist of only five specimens of unknown size, gender, and age [8,30]. This small sample size precludes generating confidence intervals to obtain accurate predictions of muscle force or excursion and understanding issues of scaling effects or gender differences in muscle architecture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Are Current Measurements of Lower Extremity Muscle Architecture Accurate?

Ward¹,

Eng²,

Smallwood³

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

583

657

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skeletal muscle architecture is defined as the arrangement of fibers in a muscle and functionally defines performance capacity. Architectural values are used to model muscle-joint behavior and to make surgical decisions. The two most extensively used human lower extremity data sets consist of five total specimens of unknown size, gender, and age. Therefore, it is critically important to generate a high-fidelity human lower extremity muscle architecture data set. We disassembled 27 muscles from 21 human lower extremities to characterize muscle fiber length and physiologic cross-sectional area, which define the excursion and force-generating capacities of a muscle. Based on their architectural features, the soleus, gluteus medius, and vastus lateralis are the strongest muscles, whereas the sartorius, gracilis, and semitendinosus have the largest excursion. The plantarflexors, knee extensors, and hip adductors are the strongest muscle groups acting at each joint, whereas the hip adductors and hip extensors have the largest excursion. Contrary to previous assertions, two-joint muscles do not necessarily have longer fibers than single-joint muscles as seen by the similarity of knee flexor and extensor fiber lengths. These high-resolution data will facilitate the development of more accurate musculoskeletal models and challenge existing theories of muscle design; we believe they will aid in surgical decision making.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Are Current Measurements of Lower Extremity Muscle Architecture Accurate?

Ward¹,

Eng²,

Smallwood³

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

583

657

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dimensions and moment arms of the hind- and forelimb muscles of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Thorpe

Crompton

Günther

et al. 1999

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

145

354

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper supplies quantitative data on the hind- and forelimb musculature of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and calculates maximum joint moments of force as a contribution to a better understanding of the differences between chimpanzee and human locomotion. We dissected three chimpanzees, and recorded muscle mass, fascicle length, and physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA). We also obtained flexion/extension moment arms of the major muscles about the limb joints. We find that in the hindlimb, chimpanzees possess longer fascicles in most muscles but smaller PCSAs than are predicted for humans of equal body mass, suggesting that the adaptive emphasis in chimpanzees is on joint mobility at the expense of tension production. In common chimpanzee bipedalism, both hips and knees are significantly more flexed than in humans, necessitating muscles capable of exerting larger moments at the joints for the same ground force. However, we find that when subject to the same stresses, chimpanzee hindlimb muscles provide far smaller moments at the joints than humans, particularly the quadriceps and plantar flexors. In contrast, all forelimb muscle masses, fascicle lengths, and PCSAs are smaller in humans than in chimpanzees, reflecting the use of the forelimbs in chimpanzee, but not human, locomotion. When subject to the same stresses, chimpanzee forelimb muscles provide larger moments at the joints than humans, presumably because of the demands on the forelimbs during locomotion. These differences in muscle architecture and function help to explain why chimpanzees are restricted in their ability to walk, and particularly to run bipedally.

show abstract

Architecture of the human jaw-closing and jaw-opening muscles

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The human jaw‐closing and jaw‐opening muscles produce forces leading to the development of three‐dimensional bite and chewing forces and to three‐dimensional movements of the jaw. The length of the sarcomeres is a major determinant for both force and velocity, and the maximal work, force, and shortening range each muscle is capable of producing are proportional to the architectural parameter volume, physiological cross‐sectional area, and fiber length, respectively. In addition, the mechanical role the muscles play is strongly related to their three‐dimensional position and orientation in the muscle–bone–joint system. The objective of this study was to compare relevant architectural characteristics for the jaw‐closing and jaw‐opening muscles and to provide a set of data that can be used in biomechanical modeling of the masticatory system. Methods: In eight cadavers, sarcomere lengths, muscle masses, fiber lengths, pennation angles, and physiological cross‐sectional areas were determined for the following muscles: superficial and deep masseter, anterior and posterior temporalis, anterior and posterior medial pterygoid, inferior and superior lateral pterygoid, posterior and anterior digastric, geniohyoid, posterior and anterior mylohyoid, and stylohyoid. To determine the spatial position of their action lines, the three‐dimensional coordinates of the attachment sites were registered. Results: Compared with the jaw openers, the jaw closers were characterized by shorter sarcomere lengths at the closed jaw, larger masses of contractile and tendinous tissue, larger physiological cross‐sectional areas, larger pennation angles, shorter fiber lengths, shorter moment arms, and lower fiber‐length‐to‐muscle‐length ratios. In addition, architectural features differed across the muscles of the same functional group. Sarcomere length did not differ significantly among the regions of the same muscle. In contrast, in some muscles, significant intramuscular differences were found with respect to, e.g., physiological cross‐sectional area, fiber length, pennation angle, and moment arm length. Conclusions: The results suggest that the jaw‐closing muscles have architectural features that suit them for force production. Conversely, the jaw‐opening muscles are better designed to produce velocity and displacement. Anat. Rec., 248:464‐474, 1997. © 1997 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Muscle Architecture of the Human Lower Limb

Cited by 777 publications

References 0 publications

Are Current Measurements of Lower Extremity Muscle Architecture Accurate?

Are Current Measurements of Lower Extremity Muscle Architecture Accurate?

Dimensions and moment arms of the hind- and forelimb muscles of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Architecture of the human jaw-closing and jaw-opening muscles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About