臀大肌分支、竖脊肌、股二头肌活动和各种俯卧髋关节运动中腰骨盆运动的比较。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Sun-Shil Shin, Won-Gyu Yoo
{"title":"臀大肌分支、竖脊肌、股二头肌活动和各种俯卧髋关节运动中腰骨盆运动的比较。","authors":"Sun-Shil Shin, Won-Gyu Yoo","doi":"10.1177/10538127251323114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundPrevious studies have reported that the gluteus maximus (GMax) consists of two distinct functional portions: the upper or superficial portion (GMU) and the lower or deep portion (GML). However, there is a lack of current literature providing recommendations for effective functional exercises that specifically target each subdivision of the GMax.ObjectiveTo investigate differences in GMax subdivisions, erector spinae (ES), and biceps femoris (BF) electromyographic (EMG) activity and lumbopelvic motion during five prone hip extension (PHE) exercises.MethodsThis cross-sectional study recruited 38 asymptomatic young adults. Participants performed five PHE exercises: PHE with knee extension (PHEKE), PHE with 90° knee flexion (PHRKF) and hip abduction 0° (PHEKFA0), 15° (PHEKFA15), 30° (PHEKFA30), and PHEKF with trunk support on the table (PHEKFTS). Surface EMG signals were recorded from GMU, GML, ES, and BF on the dominant side and the angles of pelvic were measured during the exercises, which involved an abdominal drawing-in maneuver. Differences in EMG amplitude and pelvic motion among the five conditions were analyzed using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). For significant main effects, pairwise comparisons were conducted with Bonferroni correction to identify specific differences between conditions (0.05/10). The level of statistical significance was set at p <0.005.ResultsGMU and GML EMG amplitudes showed similar trends across the five PHE exercises. The highest EMG amplitudes for GMU and GML were observed in the PHEKFTS exercise. Additionally, the GMU and GML EMG amplitudes were significantly greater in PHEKFA30 compared to PHEKFA15 and PHEKFA0 (p < 0.005). Muscle activation of ES was significantly higher in PHEKFA30 compared to PHEKE exercises showed significant differences (p < 0.005). Muscle activation of BF and BF/Gmax ratio were significantly higher in PHEKE compared to all other PHE exercises (p < 0.005).ConclusionClinically, PHEKFA30 is recommended for effectively activating GMU and GML while minimizing compensation from BF, and managing lumbopelvic motions. For advanced GMax rehabilitation, PHEKFTS is suggested due to its favourable ratio of ES to GMax.</p>","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"10538127251323114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of gluteus maximus subdivisions, erector spinae, and biceps femoris activities and lumbopelvic motion during various prone hip exercises.\",\"authors\":\"Sun-Shil Shin, Won-Gyu Yoo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10538127251323114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundPrevious studies have reported that the gluteus maximus (GMax) consists of two distinct functional portions: the upper or superficial portion (GMU) and the lower or deep portion (GML). However, there is a lack of current literature providing recommendations for effective functional exercises that specifically target each subdivision of the GMax.ObjectiveTo investigate differences in GMax subdivisions, erector spinae (ES), and biceps femoris (BF) electromyographic (EMG) activity and lumbopelvic motion during five prone hip extension (PHE) exercises.MethodsThis cross-sectional study recruited 38 asymptomatic young adults. Participants performed five PHE exercises: PHE with knee extension (PHEKE), PHE with 90° knee flexion (PHRKF) and hip abduction 0° (PHEKFA0), 15° (PHEKFA15), 30° (PHEKFA30), and PHEKF with trunk support on the table (PHEKFTS). Surface EMG signals were recorded from GMU, GML, ES, and BF on the dominant side and the angles of pelvic were measured during the exercises, which involved an abdominal drawing-in maneuver. Differences in EMG amplitude and pelvic motion among the five conditions were analyzed using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). For significant main effects, pairwise comparisons were conducted with Bonferroni correction to identify specific differences between conditions (0.05/10). The level of statistical significance was set at p <0.005.ResultsGMU and GML EMG amplitudes showed similar trends across the five PHE exercises. The highest EMG amplitudes for GMU and GML were observed in the PHEKFTS exercise. Additionally, the GMU and GML EMG amplitudes were significantly greater in PHEKFA30 compared to PHEKFA15 and PHEKFA0 (p < 0.005). Muscle activation of ES was significantly higher in PHEKFA30 compared to PHEKE exercises showed significant differences (p < 0.005). Muscle activation of BF and BF/Gmax ratio were significantly higher in PHEKE compared to all other PHE exercises (p < 0.005).ConclusionClinically, PHEKFA30 is recommended for effectively activating GMU and GML while minimizing compensation from BF, and managing lumbopelvic motions. For advanced GMax rehabilitation, PHEKFTS is suggested due to its favourable ratio of ES to GMax.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10538127251323114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127251323114\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127251323114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以前的研究报道了臀大肌(GMax)由两个不同的功能部分组成:上或浅表部分(GMU)和下或深部分(GML)。然而,目前缺乏文献提供针对GMax每个细分的有效功能锻炼的建议。目的探讨俯卧位髋关节伸展运动(PHE)中GMax细分、竖脊肌(ES)和股二头肌(BF)肌电图(EMG)活动和腰骨盆运动的差异。方法本横断面研究招募了38名无症状的年轻人。参与者进行了五种PHE练习:PHE膝关节伸展(PHEKE), PHE膝关节屈曲90°(PHRKF)和髋关节外展0°(PHEKFA0), 15°(PHEKFA15), 30°(PHEKFA30)和PHEKF躯干支撑在桌子上(PHEKFTS)。在练习过程中记录主侧GMU、GML、ES和BF的表面肌电信号,并测量骨盆角度,其中包括腹部收缩操作。采用单向重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)分析五种情况下肌电图振幅和骨盆运动的差异。对于显著的主效应,两两比较采用Bonferroni校正来确定条件之间的具体差异(0.05/10)。统计学显著性水平设为p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of gluteus maximus subdivisions, erector spinae, and biceps femoris activities and lumbopelvic motion during various prone hip exercises.

BackgroundPrevious studies have reported that the gluteus maximus (GMax) consists of two distinct functional portions: the upper or superficial portion (GMU) and the lower or deep portion (GML). However, there is a lack of current literature providing recommendations for effective functional exercises that specifically target each subdivision of the GMax.ObjectiveTo investigate differences in GMax subdivisions, erector spinae (ES), and biceps femoris (BF) electromyographic (EMG) activity and lumbopelvic motion during five prone hip extension (PHE) exercises.MethodsThis cross-sectional study recruited 38 asymptomatic young adults. Participants performed five PHE exercises: PHE with knee extension (PHEKE), PHE with 90° knee flexion (PHRKF) and hip abduction 0° (PHEKFA0), 15° (PHEKFA15), 30° (PHEKFA30), and PHEKF with trunk support on the table (PHEKFTS). Surface EMG signals were recorded from GMU, GML, ES, and BF on the dominant side and the angles of pelvic were measured during the exercises, which involved an abdominal drawing-in maneuver. Differences in EMG amplitude and pelvic motion among the five conditions were analyzed using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). For significant main effects, pairwise comparisons were conducted with Bonferroni correction to identify specific differences between conditions (0.05/10). The level of statistical significance was set at p <0.005.ResultsGMU and GML EMG amplitudes showed similar trends across the five PHE exercises. The highest EMG amplitudes for GMU and GML were observed in the PHEKFTS exercise. Additionally, the GMU and GML EMG amplitudes were significantly greater in PHEKFA30 compared to PHEKFA15 and PHEKFA0 (p < 0.005). Muscle activation of ES was significantly higher in PHEKFA30 compared to PHEKE exercises showed significant differences (p < 0.005). Muscle activation of BF and BF/Gmax ratio were significantly higher in PHEKE compared to all other PHE exercises (p < 0.005).ConclusionClinically, PHEKFA30 is recommended for effectively activating GMU and GML while minimizing compensation from BF, and managing lumbopelvic motions. For advanced GMax rehabilitation, PHEKFTS is suggested due to its favourable ratio of ES to GMax.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
194
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty. In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信