Passive knee-extension test to measure hamstring tightness: influence of gravity correction.
- Guex K HECVSanté Dept of Physiotherapy, University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Fourchet F
- Loepelt H
- Millet GP
- 2011-11-22
Published in:
- Journal of sport rehabilitation. - 2012
Adolescent
Anthropometry
Gravitation
Humans
Knee Joint
Leg
Male
Muscle Tonus
Muscle, Skeletal
Range of Motion, Articular
Thigh
English
CONTEXT
A passive knee-extension test has been shown to be a reliable method of assessing hamstring tightness, but this method does not take into account the potential effect of gravity on the tested leg.
OBJECTIVE
To compare an original passive knee-extension test with 2 adapted methods including gravity's effect on the lower leg.
DESIGN
Repeated measures.
SETTING
Laboratory.
PARTICIPANTS
20 young track and field athletes (16.6 ± 1.6 y, 177.6 ± 9.2 cm, 75.9 ± 24.8 kg).
INTERVENTION
Each subject was tested in a randomized order with 3 different methods: In the original one (M1), passive knee angle was measured with a standard force of 68.7 N (7 kg) applied proximal to the lateral malleolus. The second (M2) and third (M3) methods took into account the relative lower-leg weight (measured respectively by handheld dynamometer and anthropometrical table) to individualize the force applied to assess passive knee angle.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Passive knee angles measured with video-analysis software.
RESULTS
No difference in mean individualized applied force was found between M2 and M3, so the authors assessed passive knee angle only with M2. The mean knee angle was different between M1 and M2 (68.8 ± 12.4 vs 73.1 ± 10.6, P < .001). Knee angles in M1 and M2 were correlated (r = .93, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Differences in knee angle were found between the original passive knee-extension test and a method with gravity correction. M2 is an improved version of the original method (M1) since it minimizes the effect of gravity. Therefore, we recommend using it rather than M1.
A passive knee-extension test has been shown to be a reliable method of assessing hamstring tightness, but this method does not take into account the potential effect of gravity on the tested leg.
OBJECTIVE
To compare an original passive knee-extension test with 2 adapted methods including gravity's effect on the lower leg.
DESIGN
Repeated measures.
SETTING
Laboratory.
PARTICIPANTS
20 young track and field athletes (16.6 ± 1.6 y, 177.6 ± 9.2 cm, 75.9 ± 24.8 kg).
INTERVENTION
Each subject was tested in a randomized order with 3 different methods: In the original one (M1), passive knee angle was measured with a standard force of 68.7 N (7 kg) applied proximal to the lateral malleolus. The second (M2) and third (M3) methods took into account the relative lower-leg weight (measured respectively by handheld dynamometer and anthropometrical table) to individualize the force applied to assess passive knee angle.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Passive knee angles measured with video-analysis software.
RESULTS
No difference in mean individualized applied force was found between M2 and M3, so the authors assessed passive knee angle only with M2. The mean knee angle was different between M1 and M2 (68.8 ± 12.4 vs 73.1 ± 10.6, P < .001). Knee angles in M1 and M2 were correlated (r = .93, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Differences in knee angle were found between the original passive knee-extension test and a method with gravity correction. M2 is an improved version of the original method (M1) since it minimizes the effect of gravity. Therefore, we recommend using it rather than M1.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- green
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1123/jsr.21.3.231
- PMID 22100435
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/120168
Statistics
Document views: 37
File downloads:
- fulltext.pdf: 0