Hamstring‐to‐quadriceps fatigue ratio offers new and different muscle function information than the conventional non‐fatigued ratio. (2nd May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pinto, M. D.; Blazevich, A. J.; Andersen, L. L.; Mil‐Homens, P.; Pinto, R. S.
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. Volume 28:Number 1(2018)
• Page Start: 282
• Page End: 293
• Publication Date: 2017-05-02
• Subjects: anterior cruciate ligament and hamstring strain injuries -- fatigue test -- hamstring‐to‐quadriceps ratio -- isokinetic -- neuromuscular fatigue -- soccer -- test interpretation; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Sports -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Sports -- Periodicals; 617.1027
• DOI: 10.1111/sms.12891
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7188

Abstract

Abstract : Commonly used injury risk prediction tests such as the hamstring‐to‐quadriceps (H:Q) strength ratio appear to be poor predictors of non‐contact injury. However, these tests are typically performed in a non‐fatigued state, despite accumulated fatigue being an important risk factor for both hamstring strain (HS) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in professional soccer players. After the effect of different H:Q calculation methods were compared and contrasted, the influence of neuromuscular fatigue on the H:Q strength ratio and the association between fatigued and non‐fatigued ratio scores were examined. Thirty‐five professional soccer players performed a 30‐repetition isokinetic fatigue test protocol. Peak knee joint moments were computed for each repetition, and the H:Q conventional ratio (H:QCR ) was calculated using several different, previously published, methods. Knee extensor and flexor moments were statistically decreased by the sixth repetition and continued to decrease until the end of the protocol. However, the H:Q ratio was statistically decreased at the end of the test due to a significant reduction in knee flexor moment (correlation between change in knee flexor moment and change in H:Q, r ≈.80; P <.01). Moreover, H:Q measured in fatigue (ie, H:QF atigue ) at the end of the test was greater than H:QCR (1.25‐1.38 vs 0.70, P <.01), these variables were weakly correlated ( r =.39, P =.02), and subject rankings within the cohort based on H:QCR and H:QF atigue were different ( r s =0.25, P =.15). The present data suggest that H:Q ratio measurement during a fatiguing test (H:QF atigue ) provides different outcomes to the traditional H:QCR . The observed significant hamstring fatigue and the difference, and weak correlation, between H:QCR and H:QF atigue indicate that useful information might be obtained with respect to the prediction of HS and ACL injury risk. The potential predictive value of H:QF atigue warrants validation in future prospective trials.