Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Effects of differences in femoral anteversion and hip flexion angle on hip abductor muscles activity during clam exercise in females

  • Sho Mitomo ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    mitomo.spt@tmd.ac.jp

    Affiliations Department of Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan, Sports for Health Division, Japan Sports Agency, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Junya Aizawa,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Faculty of Health Science, Department of Physical Therapy, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan, Clinical Center for Sports Medicine and Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Kenji Hirohata,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Clinical Center for Sports Medicine and Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Takehiro Ohmi,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Clinical Center for Sports Medicine and Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Shunsuke Ohji,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Clinical Center for Sports Medicine and Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Hidetaka Furuya,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Rehabilitation, Sonoda Third Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, Department of Rehabilitation, Sonoda Medical Institute Tokyo Spine Center, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Tomoko Kawasaki,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Clinical Center for Sports Medicine and Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Yayoi Sakai,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Rehabilitation, Kawakita General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Kazuyoshi Yagishita,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Clinical Center for Sports Medicine and Dentistry, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Atsushi Okawa

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Orthopaedic and Spinal Surgery, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯

Abstract

This study aimed to determine differences in the hip abductor muscle activity during clam exercise at different hip flexion and femoral anteversion angles. Thirty healthy females were divided into two groups based on the femoral anteversion angle: the excessive femoral anteversion group and the normal group. Clam exercise was performed at three different hip flexion angles (60°, 45°, and 30°). Tensor fascia latae, gluteus medius, and superior portion of gluteus maximus activities were measured during the exercise, and the results were normalized to the activity during maximum voluntary isometric contraction to calculate the gluteal-to-tensor fascia latae muscle activation index. The superior portion of gluteus maximus activities at a hip flexion of 60° and 45° were greater than that at 30°. The excessive femoral anteversion group had a lower gluteal-to-tensor fascia latae muscle activation index than the normal group; the gluteal-to-tensor fascia latae muscle activation index for hip flexion at 60° was higher than that at 45°, and the gluteal-to-tensor fascia latae muscle activation index for hip flexion at 60° and 45° were higher than that at 30°. Therefore, the femoral anteversion angle and hip joint position were related to the activity of the hip abductor muscles during clam exercise. These findings may provide a rationale for instructing exercises to maximize the activity of the hip abductor muscles in individuals with an excessive femoral anteversion angle.

Citation: Mitomo S, Aizawa J, Hirohata K, Ohmi T, Ohji S, Furuya H, et al. (2024) Effects of differences in femoral anteversion and hip flexion angle on hip abductor muscles activity during clam exercise in females. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0305515. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515

Editor: Roxana Ramona Onofrei, Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie Victor Babes din Timisoara, ROMANIA

Received: October 6, 2023; Accepted: June 1, 2024; Published: June 24, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Mitomo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP20K23287. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Introduction

Decreased strength and activity of the hip abductor muscles are associated with lower back [1], hip [2,3], and knee [4,5] pain and the risk of sports injuries, such as anterior cruciate ligament injuries, patellofemoral pain, and ankle instability [6–11]. Therefore, exercise training programs have emphasized increasing the hip abductor muscle activity during rehabilitation after sports injuries of the lower extremities and trunk [4,8–18]. Analyzing the muscle activity during exercise and selecting a method that can effectively increase the activity of the hip abductor muscles is important [19]. The tensor fascia latae (TFL), gluteus medius (GMED), and superior portion of the gluteus maximus (SUP-GMAX) are representative hip abductor muscles. The attachments and fiber orientations of these muscles vary, and each muscle plays a distinctive role in lower extremity kinematics and stabilization tasks [20–22].

Weakness of GMED and SUP-GMAX can cause compensatory TFL overactivity during torque exertion of the hip abductors [23,24]. TFL attaches to the iliotibial band, which, in turn, is attached to the lateral patella. Thus, TFL overactivity can cause excessive internal rotation of the hip joint, as well as lateral spin and translation of the patella, via the pulling tension from the iliotibial band [25]. This muscle and tension imbalance has been implicated in the development of patellofemoral joint pain [8,26,27]. Therefore, it is important to identify exercise methods that increase GMED and SUP-GMAX activities with minimal activation of TFL [28–32].

Clam exercise increases gluteal muscle activity, including that of GMED and SUP-GMAX [32], with minimal activation of TFL [28,31]. This exercise is frequently prescribed in rehabilitation and sports settings [14,33]. Changes in the hip angle during clam exercises alter the orientation of the fibers and insertion of the hip abductor muscles, thereby affecting muscular activity [32]. A study analyzing the relationship between the hip flexion position and muscle activity during clam exercise showed that GMED and SUP-GMAX activities were higher with 60° hip flexion than with shallow hip flexion [32]. Therefore, adjusting the hip joint position during clam exercise to maximize gluteal muscle activity is vital [31].

Changes in the femoral anteversion angle alter the fiber orientation and insertion of the hip abductor muscle and influence its activity during clam exercises. Nyland et al. [34] compared the activity of lower extremity muscles during clam exercise in healthy female participants divided into groups according to the femoral anteversion angle. They found that GMED activity was 34% lower in participants with excessive femoral anteversion than in participants with normal femoral anteversion. However, the hip flexion angle during clam exercise was only 45° [34], and activity changes in other hip flexion positions were not analyzed. Therefore, the hip flexion position in clam exercise that maximizes gluteal muscle activities while minimizing TFL activity is unknown for those with an excessive femoral anteversion angle.

An excessive femoral anteversion angle may increase the risk of certain sports injuries, such as knee ligament injuries [35–37], which are frequently observed in females [37]. Excessive femoral anteversion angle causes excessive hip internal rotation and knee valgus [38,39]; thus, it is necessary to identify the hip flexion position that increases GMED and SUP-UGM activity during clam exercises, as they play a crucial role in maintaining the lower extremity alignment [38,39]. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the relationship between the activity of hip abductor muscles during clam exercise and the femoral anteversion angle and hip flexion position in females. We hypothesized that those with excessive femoral anteversion would have a lower activity of the hip abductor muscles than those with normal femoral anteversion and that this activity would increase with an increased hip flexion angle.

Materials and methods

Design

This was a cross-sectional observational study. The activities of TFL, GMED, and SUP-GMAX were measured during clam exercise in three different hip flexion positions in this study to determine whether the activity of the hip abductor muscles is related to the femoral anteversion angle and hip flexion position in healthy females.

Participants

Thirty healthy females recruited between June 29, 2021 and April 1, 2022 participated in this study. The participants were divided into two groups based on the femoral anteversion angle: the excessive femoral anteversion (EFA) and normal (N) groups. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) aged 18–40 years, (2) sports activity once a week or more, and (3) no history of surgery on the lower extremities or trunk. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) those who were restricted or prohibited from participating in sports for medical reasons; (2) stopped participating in sports for more than 1 month, 3 months before the measurements; (3) complained of pain in the lower back or lower limbs during the measurements; and (4) those with femoral anteversion angle of 20–30° or <8°. The sample size was calculated using G*power 3.1.9.2 (Heinrich-Heine University, Germany) and the number of participants required for a two-factor (femoral anteversion) × three-factor (exercise condition) two-way ANOVA (repeated measures, within-between interactions) to compare differences in muscle activity (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, partial η2 = 0.06 for effect size) [40]. The required number of participants was estimated to be 28.

Ethical considerations

All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tokyo Medical and Dental University (approval number: M2020-259) and followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki for medical research involving human participants. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants aged over 18 years and also from the parents/legal guardians of participants younger than 18 years.

Procedure

Dominant-leg activity was measured [41,42]. The dominant-leg was defined as the leg that kicked the ball (right, 28 participants; left, 2 participants). The femoral anteversion angle and maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) were measured, and electromyography (EMG) was performed using a surface electromyograph. The EMG results were normalized to the MVIC EMG amplitudes, and all measurements were performed on the same day. The measurement order for each exercise was randomized.

Femoral anteversion angle measurement and group classification

Craig’s test [5] was used to measure the femoral anteversion angle. The participant was placed in a prone position in the intermediate position of the hip, with the knee flexed at 90°. The lower extremity was fixed where the greater trochanter passively touched the most lateral position during hip internal rotation, and the angle of hip internal rotation was measured [5] using manual goniometers. The femoral anteversion angle was measured by taking the average of the two measurements. A single examiner performed all measurements of the femoral anteversion angle. Those with femoral anteversion angles >30° were assigned to the EFA group, while those with angles of 8° to <20° were assigned to the N group [5,43]. A strong positive correlation has been reported between the femoral anteversion angle measured using Craig’s test and that measured using CT in previous studies [44–46]. The inter-rater reliability (95% confidence interval) for measuring the femoral anteversion angle using Craig’s test was reported to be 0.88 (0.68–0.96) [5].

Surface electromyography

Surface EMG was performed using Ag/AgCl double-surface electrodes (Noraxon Dual Electrodes, Noraxon USA Inc., Scottsdalte, AZ, USA). Before electrode application, the skin was shaved and washed with isopropyl alcohol to reduce skin impedance [47]. The muscles tested were TFL, GMED, and SUP-GMAX. Electrodes were placed parallel to the muscle. The electrode application site was determined based on previous studies (Table 1 and Fig 1) [48–50]. Visual observation of EMG signals during manual muscle testing was used to assess crosstalk. Crosstalk is affected by the electrode size, position, shape, and distance between electrodes [51], which were minimized by using relatively small electrodes (1.0 cm diameter) and a small distance (2.0 cm) between electrodes. Data were collected using a wireless EMG system (Ultium-EMG; Noraxon USA Inc).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. EMG electrode placement.

①: The tensor fascia latae; ②: The gluteus medius; ③: The superior portion of the gluteus maximus.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. EMG electrode placement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.t001

Maximum voluntary isometric contractions and reference trials

The EMG amplitude during MVIC was measured for each muscle to normalize the EMG amplitude during the exercise task [52]. The MVIC measurement position was based on previous studies [31,48–50,53,54] that used manual muscle testing for each muscle (Table 1). Following adequate practice, MVIC testing was performed for three sets of 5 s. A 2-min rest period was provided between MVIC measurements to eliminate the effects of induced fatigue [47].

Exercise tasks and conditions

The task was a side-lying clam exercise, with the lumbopelvic girdle in the intermediate position and the knee bent at 90° (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Clam exercises and experimental set-up.

A: The clam exercise. B: Torque values during the exercise task are displayed on the monitor; the participants exert 50% of the maximum torque value.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.g002

The participants were instructed to maintain the lumbopelvic girdle in the mid-position (with the superior anterior iliac spine facing forward) and the upper (dominant) leg in maximum abduction with external rotation. The exercise consisted of three different hip flexion angles (30°, 45°, and 60°), with the lumbopelvic girdle in the intermediate position. A bar was placed at the knee at maximum hip abduction with external rotation on the measurement side. This was necessary to provide feedback on the exercise position. A manual goniometer was used to check the hip flexion angle for each exercise condition [55,56].

The exercise load was set at 50% of the maximum hip abduction with external rotation torque value for each exercise condition [57]. Before performing the exercise, the maximum hip abduction with external rotation torque value for each exercise condition was measured, and the hip abduction with external rotation torque value at 50% MVIC for each exercise condition was calculated [57]. A hand-held dynamometer was placed on the distal thigh against the direction of motion to measure the hip abduction with external rotation torque during muscle exertion. Participants were instructed to exert a torque value in the range of 50% MVIC ±5%. In front of the participants, a monitor displayed the torque value exerted and the target load in real-time (Fig 2). During the exercise, the participants received visual feedback on the exercise. Three sets of 5-s holds were performed for each exercise condition, with each exercise separated by a 10-min rest period. EMG amplitudes were measured during exercise.

A pressure biofeedback unit (Stabilizer, Chattanooga Group Inc., USA) was placed in the lumbar region to assess the lumbar pelvic girdle stability during the task. The pressure biofeedback unit scale was maintained at 35–45 mmHg during the task [14,58,59].

Data processing

The EMG amplitude of each muscle was measured using a surface EMG (Ultium EMG, EM-U810M8, Tele Myo2400, Noraxon USA Inc). The EMG amplitudes were band-pass filtered at 20–500 Hz and sampled at 2,000 Hz on a personal computer using a receiver. The amplitude of each EMG during each task was the root mean square (RMS) processed in moving windows of 50 ms, and the EMG amplitudes were full-wave, rectified, and smoothed.

The RMS value during each task was defined as the average of the values for the 1.0-s intervals exhibiting the maximum stability and maximum value within 5 s of the exercise task. The RMS values during MVIC were the maximum values among the extracted 1.0-s. The RMS value for each exercise condition was averaged over three trials. Each RMS value was normalized to that obtained during MVIC and used as the muscle activity (%).

The gluteal-to-TFL muscle activation (GTA) index was calculated from the following equation based on previous studies [31]: {[(GMED/TFL) × GMED] + [(SUP-GMAX/TFL) × SUP-GMAX]}/2 (%). The GTA index (%) was calculated by inputting the normalized RMS values during each exercise task in each muscle into the formula. Higher GTA index values indicate higher GMED and SUP-GMAX activities, compared to the TFL activity [31]. These data were anonymized and no individual participant information was accessed during or after data collection.

Statistical analysis

The normality of the distribution of each variable was determined using histograms and the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. For each variable, descriptive statistics are presented as mean ± standard deviation for normally distributed variables and median (interquartile range) for non-normally distributed variables.

Unpaired t-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests were used to analyze differences in demographic variables between the groups. An analysis of variance for a split-plot factorial design was used to analyze differences in the normalized EMG amplitude and GTA index for each group (femoral anteversion angle: EFA group, N group) and exercise condition (hip flexion at 60°, 45°, 30°). Where the main effects and significant interactions were found (p < 0.05), the Bonferroni post-hoc test and unpaired t-test were performed. Cohen’s d was used to calculate the effect size for the comparison between the exercise tasks. Cohen’s d values of 0.20–0.49, 0.50–0.79, and ≥ 0.80 corresponded to small, medium, and large effects, respectively [60]. The significance level was set at 5%. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS statistics version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Demographics of each group

Participants were divided into two groups. The femoral anteversion angles of the participants showed a bimodal distribution (Fig 3). The Shapiro–Wilk normality test revealed non-normal distribution of age and the femoral anteversion angle. The data of the remaining attributes were normally distributed. The Mann–Whitney test conducted to analyze the differences in age and the femoral anteversion angle between the groups revealed differences in the femoral anteversion angle (p<0.001, Table 2). No differences were observed between the groups in terms of height, weight, or BMI (Table 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Distribution of femoral anteversion angles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Comparison of demographics between groups (N = 30)α.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.t002

Normalized EMG amplitude

For TFL and GMED activities, the split-plot analysis of variance revealed no main effects or interactions between factors (Tables 3 and 4). There was no interaction between the factors for the SUP-GMAX activity; nevertheless, there was a main effect of the exercise condition (p<0.001, Table 5). Post hoc tests revealed that the hip flexions at 60° and 45° were significantly higher than that at 30° (p<0.001, Cohen’s d:0.57 and p = 0.011, Cohen’s d: 0.34, respectively; Table 5).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Differences in the activity of TFL for each exercise condition in each group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.t003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Differences in the activity of GMED for each exercise condition in each group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.t004

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. Differences in the activity of SUP-GMAX for each exercise condition in each group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.t005

GTA index

There was no interaction, whereas there was a main effect of factors for femoral anteversion (p = 0.044) and the exercise condition (p<0.001, Table 6). A post hoc test revealed that the GTA index of the EFA group was significantly lower than that of the N group (p = 0.044, Cohen’s d: 0.68, Table 6). In the exercise condition, 60° of hip flexion was significantly higher than 45° (p = 0.042, Cohen’s d: 0.36), while 60° and 45° of hip flexion were significantly higher than 30° (p<0.001, Cohen’s d:0.69 and p = 0.022, Cohen’s d:0.39, respectively; Table 6).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 6. Differences in the GTA index for each exercise condition in each group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305515.t006

Discussion

In this study, SUP-GMAX activity during clam exercise was higher when the hip flexion angle was increased. In addition, the GTA index was higher under these conditions. Individuals with excessive femoral anteversion angles had lower GTA indices than those with normal anteversion angles, regardless of the hip flexion angle. The findings of the present study partially supported our hypothesis.

We found that the SUP-GMAX activity was significantly higher at 60° and 45° of hip flexion than at 30°. Willcox et al. [32] analyzed the activity of the gluteus maximus during clam exercise in healthy participants and reported that the gluteus maximus activity at 60° hip flexion was higher than that at 0° hip flexion. Our findings are consistent with those of previous studies. Muscle activity increases when the axis of motion coincides with the orientation of the muscle fibers [61]. Therefore, as the hip flexion angle increases, the SUP-GMAX activity increases as the orientation of the fibers of SUP-GMAX approximates that of the femur, the axis of motion of the hip joint.

The GTA index was significantly higher at 60° and 45° of hip flexion than at 30° and significantly higher at 60° than at 45°. There was no difference in activity between the exercise tasks, and the SUP-GMAX activity increased as the hip flexion angle increased. Willcox et al. [32] observed increased gluteal muscle activity during clam exercise in a position with an increased hip flexion angle, while the TFL activity remained unchanged. The results of this study supported those of previous studies. The GTA index was increased in this study, due to the increased SUP-GMAX activity relative to the TFL activity as the hip flexion angle increased. The orientation of the SUP-GMAX fibers approximates the axis of motion when the hip flexion angle increases, favoring the direction of hip abduction/external rotation motion. This may have resulted in higher muscle activity. Thus, the findings of this study provide electromyographic evidence for the anatomical muscle orientation characteristics of SUP-GMAX. These findings suggest that it is important to perform the position with an increased hip flexion angle to increase the ratio of the SUP-GMAX activity to TFL activity during the clam exercise.

The GTA index of the EFA group was significantly lower than that of the N group. No previous studies have assessed the relationship between the GTA index and the femoral anteversion angle during clam exercise. In the mid-position of the hip, if the femoral anteversion angle is excessive, the position of the greater trochanter is displaced posteriorly compared to that of the normal anteversion angle [62,63]. When the femoral anteversion angle is increased, the arm length in hip extension and abduction is reduced [63,64]. The SUP-GMAX length is shortened when the anterior femoral anteversion angle is excessive [65]. The muscle activity varies with the muscle length; shortening the muscle length reduces the muscle activity [66,67]. Thus, the SUP-GMAX activity of females with excessive femoral anteversion is lesser than that of those with normal femoral anteversion, suggesting that it is difficult to maximize SUP-GMAX activity regardless of the hip flexion angle.

No significant differences in GMED activity during clam exercise based on the femoral anteversion angle were observed in this study. The activity of the GMED during clam exercise was lower in the group with a larger femoral anteversion angle in a study that analyzed differences in GMED activity during clam exercise based on femoral anteversion in two groups of healthy female participants [34]. Therefore, the findings of this study contradict the findings of previous studies. Nyland et al. [34] defined the maximum angle of hip internal rotation in the prone position as the femoral anteversion angle, with the cut-off value being the median value for all participants. GMED activity was analyzed as the ratio of TFL and GMAX activities. The participants, grouping method and analysis method of the previous study were different from those of this study; hence, this could be why our findings contradict those of previous studies.

GMED and TFL activities were not affected by the hip angle during clam exercise in this study. Wilcox et al. [32] analyzed TFL and GMED activities during clam exercise at different hip flexion angles and reported that different hip flexion angles had no effect on TFL activity; however, GMED activity increased with increasing hip flexion angle [32]. TFL activity was not affected by the differences in hip angle in the present study. This finding is consistent with those of the study by Wilcox et al. [32]. However, the GMED activity observed in this study differed from that reported by Wilcox et al. [32]. The hip flexion angles were set at 0°, 30°, and 60° in the study by Wilcox et al. [32]. In contrast, the hip flexion angles were set at 30°, 45°, and 60° in the present study. Moreover, the hip flexion angle settings were more detailed than those reported in previous studies [32]. Consequently, the differences between the present study and previous studies [32] in terms of the hip flexion angles may have led to the differences in GMED activity. GMED is divided into anterior, middle, and posterior fibers based on anatomical structural features, and these fibers perform different actions [61,68]. Moore et al. [69] measured the activities in three segments of GMED (anterior, middle, and posterior) during clam exercise and reported that the activity in the posterior segment was higher than those in the anterior and middle segments. Morphologically, the anterior and middle segments have less favorable moment arms in the transverse plane for external rotation than the posterior segment. Thus, it is important to analyze the different segments of GMED separately [50]. The electrode was attached to the middle segment of GMED in this study. Thus, it may be necessary to divide the GMED activity into different categories corresponding to the activity of each segment and analyze the activity characteristics according to the femoral anteversion angle and hip flexion angle in detail.

Based on these findings, to effectively increase the gluteal muscle to TFL activity ratio, the hip joint should be flexed at 60°, regardless of the femoral anteversion angle. The GTA index in the EFA group was significantly lower than that in the N group, regardless of the flexion angle. Additional exercises must be implemented in females with excessive femoral anteversion angles to increase the activity of the gluteal muscles. Therefore, this finding may provide a basis for designing exercises to effectively increase the hip abduction muscle strength while considering the femoral anteversion angle of the participants.

Limitations

This study had some limitations. First, measures were taken to reduce crosstalk as much as possible; however, surface EMG measurements may have still been affected by crosstalk [70]. In addition, although none of the participants in this study were classified as obese based on their BMI values, muscle activity was measured at the hip, which has a high distribution of adipose tissue in women. Second, the primary findings were only based on the muscle activity. It is impossible to draw conclusions regarding the effects of the results on sports injury risks or training. Third, the GTA indices analyzed in this study were for exercises on open kinetic chains and cannot be generalized to exercises on closed kinetic chains or clam exercises without resistance or with elastic bands. Fourth, this study analyzed activity during short isometric exercises. Thus, it is unclear whether a change in activation is observed during fatigue. Finally, as this study only included healthy females, sex-based differences remain unclear. The results may differ between males and those with back or hip pain. Therefore, it will be necessary to increase the range of participants and exercise load conditions. Future studies should examine the relationship between performance variables and the effects of training.

Conclusion

SUP-GMAX activity was higher in the clam exercise condition with an increased hip flexion angle. Additionally, the GTA index was higher under these conditions. Those with an excessive femoral anteversion angle had a lower GTA index than those with a normal anteversion angle, regardless of hip flexion angle. The findings revealed that factors including anterior femoral anteversion and hip flexion angle were related to the amount of hip abductor muscle activity during clam exercise. These findings may provide a rationale for instructing exercises to maximize hip abductor muscle activity in individuals with an excessive femoral anteversion angle.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for the English language editing.

References

  1. 1. Nelson-Wong E, Gregory DE, Winter DA, Callaghan JP. Gluteus medius muscle activation patterns as a predictor of low back pain during standing. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2008;23: 545–553. pmid:18282648
  2. 2. Amaro A, Amado F, Duarte JA, Appell HJ. Gluteus medius muscle atrophy is related to contralateral and ipsilateral hip joint osteoarthritis. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28: 1035–1039. pmid:17534787
  3. 3. Morrissey D, Graham J, Screen H, Sinha A, Small C, Twycross-Lewis R, et al. Coronal plane hip muscle activation in football code athletes with chronic adductor groin strain injury during standing hip flexion. Man Ther. 2012;17, 145–149. pmid:22306511
  4. 4. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, Heidt RS Jr, Colosimo AJ, McLean SG, et al. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33: 492–501. pmid:15722287
  5. 5. Souza RB, Powers CM. Concurrent criterion-related validity and reliability of a clinical test to measure femoral anteversion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39: 586–592. pmid:19648719
  6. 6. Barbosa AC, Vieira ER, Barbosa MA, Fernandes I, Damázio M, Badaró B. Gluteal activation and increased frontal plane projection angle during a step-down test in young women. Hum Mov. 2018;19:64–70.
  7. 7. Brindle TJ, Mattacola C, McCrory J. Electromyographic changes in the gluteus medius during stair ascent and descent in subjects with anterior knee pain. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003;11: 244–251. pmid:12695878
  8. 8. Souza RB, Powers CM. Differences in hip kinematics, muscle strength, and muscle activation between subjects with and without patellofemoral pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39: 12–19. pmid:19131677
  9. 9. Friel K, McLean N, Myers C, Caceres M. Ipsilateral hip abductor weakness after inversion ankle sprain. J Athl Train. 2006;41: 74–78. pmid:16619098
  10. 10. De Ridder R, Witvrouw E, Dolphens M, Roosen P, Van Ginckel A. Hip Strength as an Intrinsic Risk Factor for Lateral Ankle Sprains in Youth Soccer Players: A 3-Season Prospective Study. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45: 410–416. pmid:27852594
  11. 11. Khayambashi K, Ghoddosi N, Straub RK, Powers CM. Hip Muscle Strength Predicts Noncontact Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Male and Female Athletes: A Prospective Study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44: 355–361. pmid:26646514
  12. 12. Casartelli NC, Maffiuletti NA, Item-Glatthorn JF, Staehli S, Bizzini M, Impellizzeri FM, et al. Hip muscle weakness in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19: 816–821. pmid:21515390
  13. 13. Larivière C DA Silva RA, Arsenault AB, Nadeau S, Plamondon A, Vadeboncoeur R. Specificity of a back muscle exercise machine in healthy and low back pain subjects. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42: 592–599. pmid:19952808
  14. 14. McBeth JM, Earl-Boehm JE, Cobb SC, Huddleston WE. Hip muscle activity during 3 side-lying hip-strengthening exercises in distance runners. J Athl Train. 2012;47, 15–23. pmid:22488226
  15. 15. McKeon MD, Albert WJ, Neary JP. Assessment of neuromuscular and haemodynamic activity in individuals with and without chronic low back pain. Dyn Med. 2006;5: 6. pmid:16734915
  16. 16. Santos TR, Oliveira BA, Ocarino JM, Holt KG, Fonseca ST. Effectiveness of hip muscle strengthening in patellofemoral pain syndrome patients: a systematic review. Braz J Phys Ther. 2015;19: 167–176. pmid:26039034
  17. 17. Willson JD, Kernozek TW, Arndt RL, Reznichek DA, Scott Straker J. Gluteal muscle activation during running in females with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon). 2011;26: 735–740. pmid:21388728
  18. 18. Yuenyongviwat V, Duangmanee S, Iamthanaporn K, Tuntarattanapong P, Hongnaparak T. Effect of hip abductor strengthening exercises in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21: 284. pmid:32380994
  19. 19. Andersen LL, Magnusson SP, Nielsen M, Haleem J, Poulsen K, Aagaard P. Neuromuscular activation in conventional therapeutic exercises and heavy resistance exercises: implications for rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2006;86: 683–697. pmid:16649892
  20. 20. Gottschalk F, Kourosh S, Leveau B. The functional anatomy of tensor fasciae latae and gluteus medius and minimus. J Anat. 1989;166: 179–189. pmid:2621137
  21. 21. Conneely MO, Sullivan K, Edmondston S. Dissection of gluteus maximus and medius with respect to their suggested roles in pelvic and hip stability: implications for rehabilitation? Phys Ther in Sport. 2006;7: 176–178.
  22. 22. Flack NA, Nicholson HD, Woodley SJ. A review of the anatomy of the hip abductor muscles, gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, and tensor fascia lata. Clin Anat. 2012;25: 697–708. pmid:22109658
  23. 23. Fredericson M, Cookingham CL, Chaudhari AM, Dowdell BC, Oestreicher N, Sahrmann SA, et al. Hip abductor weakness in distance runners with iliotibial band syndrome. Clin J Sport Med. 2000;10: 169–175. pmid:10959926
  24. 24. Fredericson M, Weir A. Practical management of iliotibial band friction syndrome in runners. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16: 261–268. pmid:16778549
  25. 25. Wilson NA, Press JM, Koh JL, Hendrix RW, Zhang LQ. In vivo noninvasive evaluation of abnormal patellar tracking during squatting in patients with patellofemoral pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91: 558–566. pmid:19255215
  26. 26. Fulkerson JP, Gossling HR. Anatomy of the knee joint lateral retinaculum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;153: 183–188. pmid:7449213
  27. 27. Kwak SD, Ahmad CS, Gardner TR, Grelsamer RP, Henry JH, Blankevoort L, et al. Hamstrings and iliotibial band forces affect knee kinematics and contact pattern. J Orthop Res. 2000;18: 101–108. pmid:10716285
  28. 28. Bishop BN, Greenstein J, Etnoyer-Slaski JL, Sterling H, Topp R. Electromyographic analysis of gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, and tensor fascia latae during therapeutic exercises with and without elastic resistance. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2018;13: 668–675. pmid:30140560
  29. 29. Grimaldi A, Richardson C, Durbridge G, Donnelly W, Darnell R, Hides J. The association between degenerative hip joint pathology and size of the gluteus maximus and tensor fascia lata muscles. Man Ther. 2009;14: 611–617. pmid:19121974
  30. 30. Khosrokiani Z, Letafatkar A, Sheikhi B, Thomas AC, Aghaie-Ataabadi P, Hedayati MT. Hip and core muscle activation during high-load core stabilization exercises. Sports Health. 2022;14: 415–423. pmid:34060953
  31. 31. Selkowitz DM, Beneck GJ, Powers CM. Which exercises target the gluteal muscles while minimizing activation of the tensor fascia lata? Electromyographic assessment using fine-wire electrodes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43: 54–64. pmid:23160432
  32. 32. Willcox EL, Burden AM. The influence of varying hip angle and pelvis position on muscle recruitment patterns of the hip abductor muscles during the clam exercise. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43: 325–331. pmid:23485733
  33. 33. Mascal CL, Landel R, Powers C. Management of patellofemoral pain targeting hip, pelvis, and trunk muscle function: 2 case reports. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003;33: 647–660. pmid:14669960
  34. 34. Nyland J, Kuzemchek S, Parks M, Caborn DN. Femoral anteversion influences vastus medialis and gluteus medius EMG amplitude: composite hip abductor EMG amplitude ratios during isometric combined hip abduction-external rotation. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14: 255–261. pmid:14962778
  35. 35. Agel J, Arendt EA, Bershadsky B. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in national collegiate athletic association basketball and soccer: a 13-year review. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33: 524–530. pmid:15722283
  36. 36. Harmon KG, Ireland ML. Gender differences in noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Clin Sports Med. 2000;19: 287–302. pmid:10740760
  37. 37. Nguyen AD, Shultz SJ. Sex differences in clinical measures of lower extremity alignment. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37: 389–398. pmid:17710908
  38. 38. McClay I, Manal K. A comparison of three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics during running between excessive pronators and normals. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1998;13: 195–203. pmid:11415788
  39. 39. Lephart SM, Ferris CM, Riemann BL, Myers JB, Fu FH. Gender differences in strength and lower extremity kinematics during landing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(401): 162–169. pmid:12151893
  40. 40. Peduzzi de Castro M, de Brito Fontana H, Fóes MC, Santos GM, Ruschel C, Roesler H. Activation of the gluteus maximus, gluteus medius and tensor fascia lata muscles during hip internal and external rotation exercises at three hip flexion postures. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;27: 487–492. pmid:34391276
  41. 41. Lanshammar K, Ribom EL. Differences in muscle strength in dominant and non-dominantleg in females aged 20–39 years—a population-based study. Phys Ther Sport. 2011;12: 76–79. pmid:21496769
  42. 42. Piran RJ, Babakhani F, Balouchi R, Hatefi M. Effect of external isometric hip rotation force on lower extremity muscles activities during pelvic drop with different hip positions. Sci Rep. 2022;12: 21871. pmid:36536029
  43. 43. Bråten M, Terjesen T, Rossvoll I. Femoral anteversion in normal adults. Ultrasound measurements in 50 men and 50 women. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992;63: 29–32. pmid:1738965
  44. 44. Tamari K, Tinley P, Briffa K, Breidahl W. Validity and reliability of existing and modified clinical methods of measuring femoral and tibiofibular torsion in healthy subjects: use of different reference axes may improve reliability. Clin Anat. 2005;18: 46–55. pmid:15597368
  45. 45. Souza RB, Powers CM. Concurrent criterion related validty and reliability of a clinical test to measure femoral anteversion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39: 586–592. pmid:19648719
  46. 46. Chung CY, Lee KM, Park MS, Lee SH, Choi IH, Cho TJ. Validity and reliability of measuring femoral anteversion and neck-shaft angle in patients with cerebral palsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92: 1195–1205. pmid:20439666
  47. 47. Maciukiewicz JM, Lulic T, MacKay KL, Meszaros KA, Dickerson CR. The influence of posture variation on electromyographic signals in females obtained during maximum voluntary isometric contractions: A shoulder example. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2022;62: 102319. pmid:31171405
  48. 48. Irish SE, Millward AJ, Wride J, Haas BM, Shum GL. The effect of closed-kinetic chain exercises and open-kinetic chain exercise on the muscle activity of vastus medialis oblique and vastus lateralis. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24: 1256–1262. pmid:20386128
  49. 49. O’Dwyer C, Sainsbury D, O’Sullivan K. Gluteus medius muscle activation during isometric muscle contractions. J Sport Rehabil. 2011;20: 174–186. pmid:21576709
  50. 50. O’Sullivan K, Smith SM, Sainsbury D. Electromyographic analysis of the three subdivisions of gluteus medius during weight-bearing exercises. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol. 2010;2: 17. pmid:20624291
  51. 51. Merletti R, Rainoldi A, Farina D. Surface electromyography for noninvasive characterization of muscle. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2001;29: 20–25. pmid:11210442
  52. 52. Boren K, Conrey C, Le Coguic J, Paprocki L, Voight M, Robinson TK. Electromyographic analysis of gluteus medius and gluteus maximus during rehabilitation exercises. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011;6: 206–223. pmid:22034614
  53. 53. Katoh M, Hiiragi Y, Uchida M. Validity of isometric muscle strength measurements of the lower limbs using a hand-held dynamometer and belt: a comparison with an isokinetic dynamometer. J Phys Ther Sci. 2011;23: 553–557.
  54. 54. Mentiplay BF, Perraton LG, Bower KJ, Adair B, Pua YH, Williams GP, et al. Assessment of lower limb muscle strength and power using hand-held and fixed dynamometry: A reliability and validity study. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0140822. pmid:26509265
  55. 55. Clapper MP, Wolf SL. Comparison of the reliability of the Orthoranger and the standard goniometer for assessing active lower extremity range of motion. Phys Ther. 1988;68: 214–218. pmid:3340659
  56. 56. Gajdosik RL, Bohannon RW. Clinical measurement of range of motion. Review of goniometry emphasizing reliability and validity. Phys Ther. 1987;67: 1867–1872. pmid:3685114
  57. 57. Rainoldi A, Galardi G, Maderna L, Comi G, Conte LL, Merletti R. Repeatability of surface EMG variables during voluntary isometric contractions of the biceps brachii muscle. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1999;9: 105–119. pmid:10098711
  58. 58. Cynn HS, Oh JS, Kwon OY, Yi CH. Effects of lumbar stabilization using a pressure biofeedback unit on muscle activity and lateral pelvic tilt during hip abduction in sidelying. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 87, 1454–1458 (2006). pmid:17084119
  59. 59. de Paula Lima PO, de Oliveira RR, Costa LO, Laurentino GE. Measurement properties of the pressure biofeedback unit in the evaluation of transversus abdominis muscle activity: a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2011;97: 100–106. pmid:21497243
  60. 60. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Lawrence Eribaum Associates; 1988.
    • 61. Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the hip: a focus on muscular actions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40: 82–94. pmid:20118525
    • 62. Marostica AD, Pizzolatti ALA, Adam GP, Codonho D, Canella RP, Ganev GG. Is femoral version associated with changes in hip muscle strength in females with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement? Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2019;54: 422–427. pmid:31435109
    • 63. Scorcelletti M, Reeves ND, Rittweger J, Ireland A. Femoral anteversion: significance and measurement. J Anat. 2020;237: 811–826. pmid:32579722
    • 64. Scheys L, Van Campenhout A, Spaepen A, Suetens P, Jonkers I. Personalized MR-based musculoskeletal models compared to rescaled generic models in the presence of increased femoral anteversion: effect on hip moment arm lengths. Gait Posture. 2008;28: 358–365. pmid:18571416
    • 65. Modenese L, Barzan M, Carty CP. Dependency of lower limb joint reaction forces on femoral version. Gait Posture. 2021;88: 318–321. pmid:34246172
    • 66. Worrell TW, Karst G, Adamczyk D, Moore R, Stanley C, Steimel B, et al. Influence of joint position on electromyographic and torque generation during maximal voluntary isometric contractions of the hamstrings and gluteus maximus muscles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001;31: 730–740. pmid:11767248
    • 67. Yoon JY, Lee MR, An DH. Effect of initial position on the muscle activity of the hip extensors and amount of pelvic tilt during prone hip extension. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27: 1195–1197. pmid:25995587
    • 68. Al-Hayani A. The functional anatomy of hip abductors. Folia Morphol (Warsz). 2009;68: 98–103. pmid:19449297
    • 69. Moore D, Pizzari T, McClelland J, Semciw AI. Rehabilitation Exercises for the Gluteus Medius Muscle Segments: An Electromyography Study. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;28: jsr.2018–0340. pmid:30747561
    • 70. Winter DA, Fuglevand AJ, Archer SE. Crosstalk in surface electromyography: Theoretical and practical estimates. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1994;4: 15–26. pmid:20870543