Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Isometric Hip Strength and Dynamic Stability of Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability.

CONTEXT:   Compared with individuals who have a history of lateral ankle sprain (LAS) without markers of chronic ankle instability (CAI; LAS copers) and healthy people, those with CAI often exhibit neuromuscular impairments and dynamic-stability deficits at the hip. However, the influence of hip-strength deficits on dynamic stability remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE:   To compare isometric hip strength and dynamic stability in individuals with or without CAI and examine the degree of dynamic-stability variance explained by isometric hip strength.

DESIGN:   Case-control study.

SETTING:   Research laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS:   Sixty individuals (47 women, 13 men; age = 23.7 ± 4.6 years, height = 166.6 ± 7.7 cm, mass = 70.8 ± 15.7 kg) separated into CAI, LAS coper, and control groups based on previously established criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):   Group differences in resultant vector time to stabilization (RVTTS) and isometric hip-extension, -abduction, and external-rotation strength were determined using 1-way analyses of covariance that controlled for sex and limb (dominant or nondominant) tested and Cohen d effect sizes (95% confidence intervals). Backward linear regressions and Cohen f2 effect sizes (95% confidence intervals) determined the amount of RVTTS variance explained by isometric hip strength. Significance was set a priori at P < .05.

RESULTS:   The CAI group had less isometric hip-extension strength than LAS copers ( P = .02, d = 0.72 [0.06, 1.34]) and controls ( P = .01, d = 1.19 [0.50, 1.84]) and less external-rotation strength than LAS copers ( P = .03, d = 0.78 [0.13, 1.41]) and controls ( P = .01, d = 1.02 [0.34, 1.65]). No group differences existed for RVTTS ( F2,57 = 1.16, P = .32) or abduction strength ( F2,57 = 2.84, P = .07). Resultant vector time to stabilization was explained by isometric hip strength for LAS copers ( R2 = 0.21, f2 = 0.27 [0.22, 0.32], P = .04) but not for the CAI ( R2 = 0.12, f2 = 0.14 [0.06, 0.22], P = .22) or control ( R2 = 0.10, f2 = 0.11 [0.03, 0.19], P = .18) groups.

CONCLUSIONS:   Participants with CAI had decreased isometric hip strength, but that did not equate to dynamic-stability deficits. Clinicians should include hip-muscle strengthening in rehabilitation protocols for patients with CAI, yet these gains may not enhance dynamic stability when landing from a jump.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app