Normal Range of Motion of the Hip, Knee and Ankle Joints in Male Subjects, 30–40 Years of Age

Roaas, A; Andersson, Gunnar

doi:10.3109/17453678208992202

Cited by 250 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the ROM of the hip joint shows a high degree of variability among healthy subjects. 34,35 Variability in results can therefore depend on mobility in other joints than the hip joint as well as variability in the measuring technique (measuring device, intertester and interassay errors). Earlier work has revealed that differences between pelvic positions may strongly affect the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of chiropractic treatment on hip extension ability and running velocity among young male running athletes

Sandell¹,

Palmgren²,

Björndahl³

2008

Journal of Chiropractic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study investigates the effect of chiropractic treatment on hip joint extension ability and running velocity. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled experimental pilot study. Seventeen healthy male junior athletes (age, 17-20 years) training in middle distance running were recruited from local Swedish athletic associations. Hip extension ability and running velocity were measured before and after the study period. Chiropractic investigations comprised motion palpation of the sacroiliac and hip joints and modified Thomas test of the ability to extend the leg. In the treatment group, findings of restrictive joint dysfunctions formed the basis for the choice of chiropractic treatment. The interventions were based on a pragmatic approach consisting of high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulations targeted toward, but not exclusively to, the sacroiliac joints. Results: The treatment group showed significantly greater hip extension ability after chiropractic treatment than did controls (P b .05). Participants in the treatment group did not show a significant decrease in time for running 30 m after treatment (average, −0.065 seconds; P = .0572), whereas the difference was even smaller for the control subjects (average, −0.003; P = .7344). Conclusions:The results imply that chiropractic treatment can improve hip extensibility in subjects with restriction as measured by the modified Thomas test. It could be speculated that the running step was amplified by increasing the angle of step through facilitated hip joint extension ability. The possible effect of chiropractic treatment to enhance the running velocity, by increasing the hip joint extension ability and thereby increasing the running step, remains unproven.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of chiropractic treatment on hip extension ability and running velocity among young male running athletes

Sandell¹,

Palmgren²,

Björndahl³

2008

Journal of Chiropractic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors' choice to measure active motion was taken since the force of a passive motion could possibly hurt the individual by the pressure from the brim of the socket as well as causing loosening of the suspension of the socket. Moreover, hip extension was measured in a supine position instead of a prone position, which has been reported in most studies (AAOS 1965;Roaas and Andersson 1982;Roach and Miles 1991); lying prone when wearing a trans-femoral prosthesis and performing an active extension in that position could not be considered as either clinically relevant or comfortable. The supine position has however also been reported earlier and is recommended when a hip-flexion contracture could be assumed (Ekstrand et al 1982;Greene and Heckman 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The protocol used in the current study was adapted to the specific group of individuals using a prosthesis and differs somewhat from other studies. Measures on joint motion could be on a passive or active motion (Boone and Azen 1979;Ekstrand et al 1982;Lea and Gerhardt 1995;Roaas and Andersson 1982;Roach and Miles 1991). The authors' choice to measure active motion was taken since the force of a passive motion could possibly hurt the individual by the pressure from the brim of the socket as well as causing loosening of the suspension of the socket.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though all movements when wearing the prosthesis were performed first, to avoid loosening of the suspension of the socket, this happened in a few cases in the S group, and the prosthesis had to be put on correctly again. Measurements of the contralateral or the sound limb were performed for descriptive purposes and comparisons with the motion of the sound limb with the affected side have been shown to be adequate (Boone and Azen 1979;Roaas and Andersson 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Socket Versus Bone-Anchored Trans-Femoral Prostheses

Hagberg

Häggström

Uden

et al. 2005

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

150

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first study to report on hip range of motion (ROM) among active prosthesis users, when wearing and not wearing a trans-femoral socket prosthesis and to compare with individuals rehabilitated with an osseointegrated bone-anchored prosthesis. In addition, discomfort when sitting with the prosthesis is reported in both groups. The study group all had a non-vascular amputation and were divided into those supplied with a socket prosthesis (S group) (n = 43, mean age 51 years, 74% men) or a bone-anchored prosthesis (OI group) (n = 20, mean age 46 years, 75% men). Active hip ROM was measured with a goniometer, and self-reported problems with discomfort when sitting were recorded. The hip motion decreased in all directions when wearing the socket prosthesis compared to without it (P 5 0.001 for all directions), and 37% of the subjects had less than 908 of hip flexion when wearing their prosthesis. Discomfort when sitting was reported among 44% (n = 19) in the S group and was more common among individuals with less than 908 of hip flexion motion (P = 0.025). In the OI group, no restriction in hip motion was measured with the prosthesis, and no subject had less than 908 of flexion and 5% (n = 1) reported discomfort when sitting. This study shows that a trans-femoral prosthetic socket significantly reduces the ROM of the hip and that discomfort when sitting is common among individuals wearing such prostheses. Further, the study confirms that individuals using a bone-anchored prosthesis have no restricted hip motion with the prosthesis and report very few problems with discomfort when sitting.

show abstract

“…The functional range of knee motion has been studied extensively [7,30,40,49]. In general, gait and climbing slopes required greater than 90°knee flexion, using stairs and getting in and out of chairs required 90°to 120°fl exion, and getting in and out of a bath required 135°fl exion [40,50].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

2009 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: How Often Do Patients with High-Flex Total Knee Arthroplasty Use High Flexion?

Huddleston¹,

Scarborough

Goldvasser

et al. 2009

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although high-flexion TKA designs aim to safely accommodate deep flexion, it is unknown how often patients use deep flexion outside the laboratory. We used a validated smart-activity monitor to document the prevalence of knee flexion greater than 90°in 20 consecutive patients (21 knees) who had high-flexion TKAs, at a minimum of 2 years' followup. Patients wore the device continuously for a mean of 35.7 ± 0.5 hours. The 21 knees flexed more than 90°for an average of 10 ± 3.8 minutes (0.5%). Activities performed with flexion greater than 90°w ere, on average, 70% in single-limb stance, 12% moving from sitting to standing, 8% walking, 7% moving from standing to reclining, 2% stepping, 0.9% moving from lying to standing, and 0.1% running. Eight knees flexed greater than 120°for an average of 2.2 minutes (range, 0.2-15 minutes), or 0.1% of the testing time. Activities performed with flexion greater than 120°were, on average, 90% in single-limb stance, 6% moving from sitting to standing, 3% walking, 0.6% moving from standing to reclining, 0.3% stepping, and 0.1% moving from lying to standing. Peak flexion used at any time during testing was, on average, 84%

show abstract

Normal Range of Motion of the Hip, Knee and Ankle Joints in Male Subjects, 30–40 Years of Age

Cited by 250 publications

References 7 publications

Effect of chiropractic treatment on hip extension ability and running velocity among young male running athletes

Effect of chiropractic treatment on hip extension ability and running velocity among young male running athletes

Socket Versus Bone-Anchored Trans-Femoral Prostheses

2009 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: How Often Do Patients with High-Flex Total Knee Arthroplasty Use High Flexion?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About