Skip to main content

Gluteus maximus impairment in femoroacetabular impingement: a tensiomyographic evaluation of a clinical fact

Abstract

Introduction

the aim of the present study is to evaluate the mechanical and contractile properties of the gluteus maximus (GM) muscle in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Our hypothesis is that the clinical observation of GM pain would be evidenced by tensiomyographic impairment in muscle function.

Materials and methods

A prospective, cross-sectional, intra-group comparative study was conducted to assess the neuromuscular changes of lower extremity muscles in patients with FAI. Fifty-one patients with clinical and radiographic diagnosis of FAI for at least 3 months were included. The rectus femoris (RF), adductor magnus (AM), and GM of both lower extremities of all patients were evaluated with tensiomyography (TMG). The values of TMG of the affected lower extremity were compared to those of the healthy contralateral side. The parameters obtained in this study were maximal displacement (Dm), and contraction time (Tc).

Results

The Tc of the injured GM was significantly higher compared to the healthy side (p = 0.01). There were no significant side-to-side differences in the Dm of the GM (p = 0.13), either in the Tc and Dm of the RF (p = 0.15 and p = 0.8, respectively) and AM (p = 0.25 and p = 0.75, respectively).

Conclusions

FAI is associated with impairment of contraction time in the GM of the injured compared to the healthy side. Impairment of the GM may be monitored to evaluate response to conservative or surgical treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Montgomery SR, Ngo SS, Hobson T et al (2013) Trends and demographics in hip arthroscopy in the United States. Arthroscopy 29:661–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Khanna V, Caragianis A, Diprimio G et al (2014) Incidence of hip pain in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic volunteers: is the cam deformity a risk factor for hip pain? Am J Sports Med 42:793–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Amanatullah DF, Antkowiak T, Pillay K et al (2015) Femoroacetabular impingement: current concepts in diagnosis and treatment. Orthopedics 38:185–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Vaz MD, Kramer JF, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (1993) Isometric hip abductor strength following total hip replacement and its relationship to functional assessments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 18:526–531

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Shih CH, Du YK, Lin YH, Wu CC (1994) Muscular recovery around the hip joint after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 302:115–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sashika H, Matsuba Y, Watanabe Y (1996) Home program of physical therapy: effect on disabilities of patients with total hip arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 77:273–277

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Frost KL, Bertocci GE, Wassinger CA et al (2006) Isometric performance following total hip arthroplasty and rehabilitation. J Rehabil Res Dev 43:435–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tibor LM, Sekiya JK (2008) Differential diagnosis of pain around the hip joint. Arthroscopy 24:1407–1421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Poultsides LA, Bedi A, Kelly BT (2012) An algorithmic approach to mechanical hip pain. HSS J 8:213–224

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rusu LD, Cosma GG, Cernaianu SM et al (2013) Tensiomyography method used for neuromuscular assessment of muscle training. J Neuroeng Rehabil 10:67

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rey E, Lago-Peñas C, Lago-Ballesteros J (2012) Tensiomyography of selected lower-limb muscles in professional soccer players. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 22:866–872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Tous-Fajardo J, Moras G, Rodríguez-Jiménez S (2010) Inter-rater reliability of muscle contractile property measurements using non-invasive tensiomyography. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 20:761–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Carrasco L, Sañudo B, de Hoyo M et al (2011) Effectiveness of low-frequency vibration recovery method on blood lactate removal, muscle contractile properties and on time to exhaustion during cycling at VO2max power output. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:2271–2279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Simunic B (2012) Between-day reliability of a method for non-invasive estimation of muscle composition. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 22:527–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Valencic V, Knez N (1997) Measuring of skeletal muscle’s dynamic properties. Artif Organs 21:240–242

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Alentorn-Geli E, Alvarez-Diaz P, Ramon S et al (2015) Assessment of neuromuscular risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury through tensiomyography in male soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(9):2508–2513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Alentorn-Geli E, Alvarez-Diaz P, Ramon S (2015) Assessment of gastrocnemius tensiomyographic neuromuscular characteristics as risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury in male soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(9):2502–2507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Alvarez-Diaz P, Alentorn-Geli E, Ramon S et al (2014) Effects of anterior cruciate ligament injury on neuromuscular tensiomyographic characteristics of the lower extremity in competitive male soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Epub ahead of print]

  19. 19.

    Alvarez-Diaz P, Alentorn-Geli E, Ramon S et al (2014) Comparison of tensiomyographic neuromuscular characteristics between muscles of the dominant and non-dominant lower extremity in male soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Epub ahead of print]

  20. 20.

    Alvarez-Diaz P, Alentorn-Geli E, Ramon S et al (2015) Effects of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on neuromuscular tensiomyographic characteristics of the lower extremity in competitive male soccer players. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(11):3407–3413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Reiman MP, Bolgla LA, Loudon JK (2012) A literature review of studies evaluating gluteus maximus and gluteus medius activation during rehabilitation exercises. Physiother Theory Pract 28:257–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Delp SL, Hess WE, Hungerford DS, Jones LC (1999) Variation of rotation moment arms with hip flexion. J Biomech 32:493–501

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Neumann DA (2010) Kinesiology of the hip: a focus on muscular actions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40:82–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Oh JS (2014) Effects of Pelvic Belt on Hip Extensor Muscle EMG Activity during Prone Hip Extension in Females with Chronic Low Back Pain. J Phys Ther Sci 26:1023–1024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Maguire C, Sieben JM, Erzer F et al (2012) How to improve walking, balance and social participation following stroke: a comparison of the long term effects of two walking aids—canes and an orthosis TheraTogs—on the recovery of gait following acute stroke. A study protocol for a multicentre, single blind, randomised control trial. BMC Neurol 12:18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Dahmane R, Valencic V, Knez N, Erzen I (2001) Evaluation of the ability to make non-invasive estimation of muscle contractile properties on the basis of the muscle belly response. Med Biol Eng Comput 39:51–55

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Johnson MA, Polgar J, Weightman D, Appleton D (1973) Data on the distribution of fibre types in thirty-six human muscles. An autopsy study. J Neurol Sci 18:111–129

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Dooley PJ (2008) Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: nonarthritic hip pain in young adults. Can Fam Physician 54:42–47

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Emara K, Samir W, el Motasem H, Ghafar KA (2011) Conservative treatment for mild femoroacetabular impingement. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 19:41–45

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Palmer AJ, Ayyar-Gupta V, Dutton SJ (2014) Protocol for the Femoroacetabular Impingement Trial (FAIT): a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing surgical and non-surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint Res 3:321–327

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Palmer AJ, Thomas GE, Pollard TC et al (2013) The feasibility of performing a randomised controlled trial for femoroacetabular impingement surgery. Bone Joint Res 2:33–40

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kokkonen J, Nelson A, Cornwell A (1998) Acute muscle stretching inhibits maximal strength performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 69:411–415

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Krizaj D, Simunic B, Zagar T (2008) Short-term repeatability of parameters extracted from radial displacement of muscle belly. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 18:645–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Seijas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests or financial aid for the present investigation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seijas, R., Alentorn-Geli, E., Álvarez-Díaz, P. et al. Gluteus maximus impairment in femoroacetabular impingement: a tensiomyographic evaluation of a clinical fact. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 785–789 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2428-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Femoroacetabular impingement
  • Gluteus maximus
  • Tensiomyography
  • Rectus femoris
  • Adductor magnus