Hip motion related to age and sex

Svenningsen, Svein; Terjesen, Terje; Auflem, Mariann; Berg, Vidar

doi:10.3109/17453678909150103

Cited by 85 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Normal healthy hips have a mean 133°flexion, 19°T P-values were calculated by independent-samples t-test, except male/ female ratio and surgical approach; these were calculated by chisquare (Fisher's exact) tests All values given as mean and standard deviation (SD). P-values were calculated by paired-samples t-tests and refer to the difference between the preoperative and postoperative values extension, 40°abduction, 30°adduction, 41°internal endorotation and 39°external rotation [13]. It is suggested that ROM after THA should be 120°flexion, 20°abduction and 20°external rotation [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No clinical difference between large metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and 28-mm-head total hip arthroplasty?

Zijlstra

Akker‐Scheek

Zee

et al. 2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose We aimed to test the claim of greater range of motion (ROM) with large femoral head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Methods We compared 28-mm metal-on-polyethylene (MP) total hip arthroplasty with large femoral head metal-on-metal (MM) total hip arthroplasty in a randomised clinical trial. ROM one year postoperatively was determined in 50 patients. Mean head sizes were 28 mm (MP) and 48 mm (MM).Results After one year, the large head MM group showed greater improvement in internal rotation (14 degrees) than the 28 mm group (seven degrees).There were no significant differences in the absolute values of postoperative internal rotation, external rotation, flexion, extension, abduction and abduction. Conclusions Absolute postoperative range of motion did not differ between the two groups. The improvement in internal rotation was greater after large femoral head metalon-metal total hip arthroplasty. It is however questionable whether this difference is clinically relevant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No clinical difference between large metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and 28-mm-head total hip arthroplasty?

Zijlstra

Akker‐Scheek

Zee

et al. 2011

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31 With a sample size of 32 participants, we had 60% to 85% power to detect an R 2 value of 0.25 (considered a large effect), 31 depending on the number of variables that remained in the model (from 4 to 1, respectively). 30 Because GJL, 2,24 HIER ROM , 17,21 and measures of knee laxity 2,24 differ by sex, we also examined these associations within each sex. Significance was determined at P .05 by using a 1-tailed test (assuming associations would be positive in nature).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17,21 The pelvis was stabilized against the table to ensure that motion was limited to the hip joint. With an inclinometer (Universal Inclinometer; Performance Attainment Associates, Saint Paul, MN) attached along the long axis of the tibia, the tibia was positioned perpendicularly to the table to establish an initial zero position, as confirmed by the inclinometer's vertical zero reference position.…”

Section: Clinical Measurement Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and Instrumented Measurements of Hip Laxity and Their Associations With Knee Laxity and General Joint Laxity

Fan

Copple

Tritsch

et al. 2014

Journal of Athletic Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Hip-joint laxity may be a relevant anterior cruciate ligament injury risk factor. With no devices currently available to measure hip laxity, it is important to determine if clinical measurements sufficiently capture passive displacement of the hip.Objective: To examine agreement between hip internalexternal-rotation range of motion measured clinically (HIER ROM ) versus internal-external-rotation laxity measured at a fixed load (HIER LAX ) and to determine their relationships with knee laxity (anterior- Conclusions: Although HIER ROM and HIER LAX differed in magnitude, they were measured with similar consistency and precision and were similarly correlated with knee laxity and GJL measures. Individuals with greater GJL also had greater hip laxity. These findings are relevant to clinicians and investigators conducting prospective risk factor studies, given the need for accessible, efficient, and low-cost alternatives for characterizing an individual's laxity profile.Key Words: anterior cruciate ligament injuries, risk factors, lower extremity Key PointsDifferences between measures of hip internal-external-rotation range of motion and laxity were large and systematic, even though the measures demonstrated comparable precision and were strongly correlated in relative magnitude. Measures of hip internal-external-rotation range of motion and laxity were strongly correlated with measures of knee laxity and general joint laxity. Clinical measurement of hip internal-external-rotation range of motion may be a reliable, efficient, and low-cost measure of passive hip-joint displacement.

show abstract

“…4,7,17,28,34,44,48 In subjects without hip joint pathology, passive hip joint range of motion, for a specific motion like hip internal rotation, has consistently been shown to be symmetrical from the left to right side. [44][45][46] The normal discrepancy between left to right side for a specific motion like hip internal rotation rarely exceeds 16°. 45,46 In this case, left internal rotation was 60°compared to 20°on the right.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[44][45][46] The normal discrepancy between left to right side for a specific motion like hip internal rotation rarely exceeds 16°. 45,46 In this case, left internal rotation was 60°compared to 20°on the right. Also, hip flexion was 130°on the left compared to 90°on the right.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%