Search Results (2)

Background/Objectives: Hip abductor weakness is a common issue in patients with lower back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and hip disorders, and compromises pelvic stability, gait control, and function. Side-lying hip abduction exercises are widely used as safe and effective interventions for patients unable to perform high-load or weight-bearing activities. However, the influence of ankle joint angles and distal muscle activity on the hip abductor muscles remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effects of ankle joint angles and activation states on unilateral right hip abductor strength and muscle activity. Methods: Fifteen healthy male adults (29.1 ± 5.4 years) participated. Surface electromyography (EMG) was used to measure the activity of the tensor fasciae latae (TFL), gluteus medius (G-med), gluteus maximus, tibialis anterior, and medial gas-trocnemius muscles. Hip abduction strength was evaluated in a side-lying position with the ankle positioned at three angles (neutral, dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion) and in three activation states (no activation, maximal dorsiflexion, and maximal plantarflexion). Two-factor (3 × 3) repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze strength and EMG activity. Results: ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect. The results of the simple main effects showed significantly higher hip abduction strength in dorsiflexion than in the neutral position and plantarflexion (p < 0.001). TFL and G-med EMG activities peaked during dorsiflexion, particularly under maximal dorsiflexion. Conclusions: These findings suggest that dorsiflexion enhances hip abductor strength and activity by increasing fascial tension (lateral line and superficial backline) and improving limb alignment. This approach may provide effective rehabilitation strategies. This is a load-adjustable training recovery approach that should be confirmed with future intervention studies. Full article

(1) Background: The isokinetic measurement (IM) of the leg muscles is well established but costly, whereas the Bunkie Test (BT) is a rarely investigated but easy-to-conduct functional test to evaluate the total posterior chain. Although the tests differ in aim and test structures, both have their justification in the assessment process. Therefore, this study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the BT and the IM. (2) Methods: 21 participants (9 female, 12 male; age, 26.2 ± 5.26 years; weight 73.8 ± 14.6 kg; height 176.0 ± 9.91 cm) and 21 patients (9 female, 12 male; age, 26.5 ± 5.56 years; weight, 72.6 ± 16.9 kg; height 177.0 ± 10.1 cm) with self-reported pain in the knee performed the IM and the BT. For IM, we calculated the ratio of the knee mean flexor/extensor peak torque (H/Q ratio) for 60°/s and 120°/s, and BT performance was measured in seconds. We classified the IM (<0.6 H/Q ratio) and the BT (leg difference ≥4 s) as binary results according to the literature. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity, which we compared with the Chi-Square test, and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). A p-value of ≤0.05 is considered significant. (3) Results: The sensitivity for the BT was 0.89, 95% CI [0.67, 0.99], and the specificity was 0.52 [0.30, 0.74]. For the IM, the sensitivity was 0.14 [0.03, 0.36] for 60°/s and 0.05 [0.00, 0.24] for 120°/s, and the specificity was 0.70 [0.46, 0.88] for 60°/s and 0.90 [0.68, 0.99] for 120°/s. The results of the Chi-Square tests were significant for the BT (χ² (1) = 6.17, p = 0.01) but not for the IM (60°/s: χ² (1) = 0.70, p = 0.40; 120°/s: χ² (1) = 0.00, p = 0.97). (4) Conclusions: Patients were more likely to obtain a positive test result for the BT but not for the IM. Full article