Maximum isokinetic familiarization of the knee: Implication on bilateral assessment |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Children''s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States;2. Engineering Center for Orthopaedic Research Excellence (ECORE), Departments of Orthopaedics and Bioengineering, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, United States;3. Sports Health and Performance Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States;4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States;5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States;6. Departments of Physiology and Cell Biology, Family Medicine and the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States;7. Biomechanics & Injury Mitigation Systems, Research & Exploratory Development Department, The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, United States;1. Human Performance and Rehabilitation Laboratory, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece;2. Faculty of Physiotherapy, University of Thessaly, Lamia, Greece |
| |
| Abstract: | PurposeFamiliarization is necessary for an accurate strength assessment as it reduces confounding factors such as learning and training effects. However, the number of contractions required for familiarization and whether cross-limb transfer during familiarization could affect bilateral assessment are unknown. This study aimed at identifying the number of maximum contractions required for isokinetic knee extension and flexion familiarization in both dominant (D) and non-dominant limb (ND).MethodsTwenty-eight right-limb dominant males (age: 22.64 ± 2.60 years, BMI: 23.82 ± 2.85 kg/m2) performed a total of 6 sets (each consisted of 5 continuous maximum contractions) at 60o/s for each limb.ResultsThe number of sets required for familiarization is determined when the average peak torque achieved stabilization from the series of contractions of each limb. For knee extension, 3 sets (15 contractions) were required for familiarization, whereas 2 sets (10 contractions) for knee flexion in both limbs. Interestingly, for knee extension in ND, the number of sets required for familiarization was reduced to 2 following contralateral contractions in D, however, for knee extension in D, there was no difference in the number of sets required for familiarization following contralateral contractions in ND. While for knee flexion, no cross-limb transfer was observed. These observations suggest the presence of cross-limb transfer from D to ND during familiarization which implies the involvement of the central nervous system.ConclusionsPractically, familiarization for bilateral isokinetic strength assessment for knee extension and flexion at 60o/s should begin with the dominant limb for 3 sets to obtain accurate and reliable measurements. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
