Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 109 items for :

  • "hip adduction" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Restricted access

John H. Hollman, Nicholas J. Beise, Michelle L. Fischer, and Taylor L. Stecklein

muscles. 1 – 5 The premise supporting these risk factors is that impaired hip muscle function may lead to excessive hip adduction and medial rotation during lower-extremity weight-bearing tasks, 6 – 10 leading to altered forces at the hip or knee that increase injury risk. 11 – 13 Neuromuscular control

Restricted access

Michelle Boling, Darin Padua, J. Troy Blackburn, Meredith Petschauer, and Christopher Hirth


Clinicians commonly attempt to facilitate vastus medialis oblique (VMO) activity by instructing patients to squeeze a ball between their knees during squatting exercises.


To determine whether VMO activation amplitude and the VMO to vastus lateralis (VL) activation ratio (VMO:VL) were altered when performing active hip adduction during a dynamic squat exercise.


Single test session.


Fifteen healthy subjects, with no history of knee pain, volunteered for this study.


Surface EMG of the VMO, VL, and hip adductor (ADD) muscles were recorded while subjects performed 10 consecutive squats against their body weight through a range of 0° to 90° of knee flexion. Subjects performed the squat exercises during two different conditions: (1) active hip adduction and (2) no hip adduction.

Main Outcome Measures:

Average VMO EMG amplitude and VMO:VL ratio were determined during the knee flexion (0° to 90°) and knee extension (90° to 0°) phases of the squat exercise.


Active hip adduction did not significantly change VMO amplitude or VMO:VL ratio during the knee flexion or knee extension phases of the dynamic squat exercise.


Based on these results, we conclude that VMO amplitude and the VMO: VL ratio are not influenced by performing active hip adduction during a dynamic squat exercise in healthy subjects.

Restricted access

James J. Hannigan, Louis R. Osternig, and Li-Shan Chou

alter hip and pelvis kinematics during running, 12 , 17 , 18 possibly even increasing hip adduction range of motion. 16 Thus, decreased pain after rehabilitation does not appear to be a result of changing hip kinematics during running. To better understand these findings, some studies have attempted

Restricted access

Kathryn Harrison, Adam Sima, Ronald Zernicke, Benjamin J. Darter, Mary Shall, D.S. Blaise Williams III, and Sheryl Finucane

participation in the sport. 5 , 10 Biomechanics during running have also been associated with the risk of running-related injury. Greater peak hip adduction was prospectively observed in female runners who later experienced patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) 11 and iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) 12

Restricted access

Shogo Takano, Yoshitaka Iwamoto, Junya Ozawa, and Nobuhiro Kito

kinematics in the frontal and transverse planes. 5 – 9 Healthy women show greater hip adduction and internal rotation during gait, running, and single-leg squats than healthy men. 5 – 9 Greater hip adduction and internal rotation are kinematic features of patients with PFP. 10 Biomechanical studies using

Restricted access

Hae-rim Han, Chung-hwi Yi, Sung-hyun You, Heon-seock Cynn, One-bin Lim, and Jae-ik Son

pain, iliotibial band friction syndrome, and patellofemoral pain syndrome can occur. In addition, delayed onset of GMED activity can occur during stair ambulation. 3 , 4 Individuals with GMED weakness have reported the increase of hip adduction, internal rotation, and knee abduction during day

Restricted access

Lukas D. Linde, Jessica Archibald, Eve C. Lampert, and John Z. Srbely

musculature. 4 This has been supported through gender differences in hip adduction and knee abduction angles (greater in females) during single-leg squats, 3 and subsequent improvements in these same outcomes have been reported during single-leg squats through neuromuscular training programs. 5

Restricted access

Justin P. Waxman, Kevin R. Ford, Anh-Dung Nguyen, and Jeffrey B. Taylor

hip-adduction angles compared to the moderate-stiffness group (mean difference = 2.27 ± 0.83°, P  = .022). No other pairwise differences were observed at initial contact. There were statistically significant between-group differences in peak frontal-plane trunk angle during the landing ( P  = .043

Open access

Marcie Fyock, Nelson Cortes, Alex Hulse, and Joel Martin

misalignment of the lower limbs are often reported as the main causes of PFP. 3 , 5 – 7 Several prominent factors appear to be related to motion of the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex. Current research suggests increased contralateral pelvic drop, hip adduction, and hip internal rotation as a potential contributing

Restricted access

Max R. Paquette and Daniel A. Melcher

; greater peak ankle eversion 7 – 9 ; lower eversion range of motion (ROM) and peak eversion velocity 8 ; greater ankle peak knee adduction 10 ; greater peak hip adduction 7 , 11 , 12 and internal rotation 10 , 12 , 13 ; greater knee abduction moment and angular impulse 14 ; and greater hip abduction