Centro de Fisioterapia y Readaptación García-Pastor, 33010 Oviedo, Spain.
Laboratory of Applied Physiology (FISAP), University of León, 24404 Ponferrada, Spain.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 28;19(9):5397. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095397.
Isokinetic knee dynamometry evolves towards more precise techniques, such as the calculation of the functional ratio. This study evaluated the influence of an intermediate hip position called the unified reclined position (URP) compared to the classic sitting position, (CSP) on hamstring eccentric PT values (H) and conventional (H/Q) and functional (H/Q) ratios. Twenty Spanish high-level competitive soccer players (20.4 ± 4.44 years) were evaluated in CSP and in URP. The hip angle in URP (44°) was determined with a passive extensibility test (quadriceps and hamstrings), looking for an agonist/antagonist tension balance. The following were performed: three repetitions (60°/s) and five repetitions (240°/s) in concentric quadriceps and hamstrings mode; and three repetitions (30°/s) in concentric and eccentric for the hamstrings. At 30°/s, the CSP presents higher values of maximal eccentric hamstring strength than URP, (Dom + N-Dom leg (Nm): CSP = 148.3 ± 19.5 vs. URP 143.5 ± 23.2); = 0.086 (n.s.). The conventional relationship did not show data justifying the preference for URP over CSP ( = 0.86 (n.s.)). However, although the functional index did not show significant values ( = 0.97 (n.s.), it did show a greater number of subjects with imbalances measured in URP (five in URP vs. two in CSP). An assessment angle of the hip closer to sports reality seems to favor the use of the URP as a complementary method to the CSP. These data stimulate new studies using URP together with the classic protocol.
等速膝关节测力向更精确的技术发展,例如功能比的计算。本研究评估了一种中间髋关节位置(称为统一仰卧位,URP)与经典坐姿(CSP)相比,对腘绳肌离心 PT 值(H)以及传统(H/Q)和功能(H/Q)比值的影响。20 名西班牙高水平竞技足球运动员(20.4 ± 4.44 岁)在 CSP 和 URP 中进行了评估。URP 中的髋关节角度(44°)通过被动伸展测试(股四头肌和腘绳肌)确定,寻找一种作用肌/拮抗肌张力平衡。以下是在等速向心和离心模式下进行的:三次重复(60°/s)和五次重复(240°/s)的股四头肌和腘绳肌;三次重复(30°/s)的腘绳肌。在 30°/s 时,CSP 比 URP 具有更高的最大离心腘绳肌力量值,(主动腿+非主动腿(Nm):CSP = 148.3 ± 19.5 比 URP = 143.5 ± 23.2); = 0.086(无统计学意义)。传统关系没有显示出支持 URP 优于 CSP 的数据( = 0.86(无统计学意义))。然而,尽管功能指数没有显示出显著的值( = 0.97(无统计学意义)),但它确实显示出在 URP 中测量到更多的不平衡受试者(URP 中 5 人,CSP 中 2 人)。髋关节的评估角度更接近运动实际情况,似乎有利于使用 URP 作为 CSP 的补充方法。这些数据刺激了使用 URP 与经典方案相结合的新研究。