Wienen, R. (Robbert) (2015) Hardloopblessures in relatie tot de Q-angle. thesis, Medicine.
![[img]](https://umcg.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
WienenR.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (917kB) |
Abstract
Introduction: Running injuries occur frequently. Erroneous training methods and previous sports injuries are known risk factors. A large or small quadriceps angle (the angle between the quadriceps muscles and the patella tendon) is also seen as a potential risk factor. However, because of conflicting results in prior research, uncertainty persists. The conflicting results could be explained because of the variations between studies. One of these variations is a difference in measurement methods. For example, the quadriceps angle (Q-angle) can be measured in supine position, in standing position or based on photographs. The aim of this study is to explore if there’s a relation between running injuries and a large- of small Q-angle. And secondly, whether this relation is influenced by the way the Q-angle is being measured. Method: The 79 subjects in this cross sectional study completed a questionnaire about injuries and sports history. The Q-angles of both legs were measured in supine position, standing positing and by photo analysis in all these subjects. The relationship between Q-angle and running injuries was analyzed, as well as the absolute right-left difference in relation with running injuries. Furthermore, proportions of agreement were calculated between the different measurement methods. Results: Only the supine method showed that for people with a small Q-angle, it was 3,3 times more likely to have had a running injury compared to individuals with a neutral Q-angle (OR = 3.3. 95% CI = 1.1-10.4. p = 0.04). Odds ratios were not increased for small Q-angles measured in standing position or by photo analysis. No association was found between having a large Q-angle and running injuries. Also, no association was found between the absolute right-left difference and running injuries. The proportions of agreement between measurement methods were fair to good (0.50 to 0.68 on the right leg, 0.48 to 0.61 on the left leg). Conclusion: First, this study shows that a small Q-angle may be a potential risk factor for running injuries. Since the odds ratio was only increased in the supine measurement, the relation may depend on the measurement method. Secondly, studies are not comparable when different measurements are being used; the proportions of agreement between the measurements are too low. Larger studies with bigger sample sizes are needed to analyze the relation between Q-angle and running injuries. We recommend creating a guideline about how to measure the Q-angle properly. This will make Q-angle studies more reliable and more comparable in the future.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Thesis) |
|---|---|
| Supervisor name: | Facultair begeleider: and Worp, H. van der and Afdeling sportgeneeskunde, Sport Medisch Centrum UMCG |
| Faculty: | Medical Sciences |
| Date Deposited: | 25 Jun 2020 10:41 |
| Last Modified: | 25 Jun 2020 10:41 |
| URI: | https://umcg.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/id/eprint/306 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |