Comparison between the Dominant and Non-dominant Sides of Athletes with Groin Pain.

Objective To compare the difference in range of motion (ROM) between the dominant and nondominant hips of the athletes and to correlate the results with groin pain, as well as to compare the differences in ROM among the main hip injuries. Methods The participants included 75 athletes, 56 males and 19 females, aged between 20 and 46 years old, who were diagnosed with hip injury. These individuals were subdivided according to the pathologies (femoroacetabular impact or labral lesion, adductor and pubic lesions and trochanteric syndrome) and characteristics of each hip were analyzed. Results A total of 150 hips (right and left) were measured for the present analysis. When comparing the ROM of the injured hip with the healthy hip, no statistically significant differences were found. There were also no significant differences between the amplitudes of hip movement when the main pathologies were compared. Conclusion The present study did not find differences in ROM rotation between the various pathologies of the hip.

Comparison between the Dominant and Non-dominant Sides of Athletes with Groin Pain / Comparação funcional entre membro dominante e não dominante em atletas com dor inguinal

Abstract Objective To compare the difference in range of motion (ROM) between the dominant and nondominant hips of the athletes and to correlate the results with groin pain, as well as to compare the differences in ROM among the main hip injuries. Methods The participants included 75 athletes, 56 males and 19 females, aged between 20 and 46 years old, who were diagnosed with hip injury. These individuals were subdivided according to the pathologies (femoroacetabular impact or labral lesion, adductor and pubic lesions and trochanteric syndrome) and characteristics of each hip were analyzed. Results A total of 150 hips (right and left) were measured for the present analysis. When comparing the ROM of the injured hip with the healthy hip, no statistically significant differences were found. There were also no significant differences between the amplitudes of hip movement when the main pathologies were compared. Conclusion The present study did not find differences in ROM rotation between the various pathologies of the hip.

Resumo Objetivo Comparar a diferença do arco de movimento (ADM) entre o quadril com lesão e o não lesionado de atletas com as principais patologias femoroacetabulares. Além disso, analisar a diferença da ADM do quadril em cada patologia considerada. Métodos Os participantes do presente estudo foram 75 atletas de diversas modalidades esportivas, sendo 56 mulheres e 19 homens, com idades entre 20 e 46 anos, os quais tinham diagnóstico de lesão do quadril. Esses indivíduos foram subdivididos em três grupos de acordo com as patologias (impacto femoroacetabular ou lesão labral, pubalgia ou lesão dos adutores e síndrome trocantérica) e as características de cada quadril foram analisadas. Resultados Um total de 150 quadris (direito e esquerdo) foram mensurados para a presente análise. Comparou-se o ADM do quadril lesado e do quadril saudável de cada atleta e não foram encontradas diferenças estatísticas. Da mesma forma, não houve diferença significativa entre a ADM do quadril entre as principais injúrias. Conclusão O presente estudo não encontrou diferenças no arco de movimento entre o quadril lesionado e o contralateral, bem como não houve diferença na amplitude dos movimentos entre as patologias femoroacetabulares analisadas.

Effects of low level laser therapy (808 nm) on physical strength training in humans.

Recent studies have investigated whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) can optimize human muscle performance in physical exercise. This study tested the effect of LLLT on muscle performance in physical strength training in humans compared with strength training only. The study involved 36 men (20.8±2.2 years old), clinically healthy, with a beginner and/or moderate physical activity training pattern. The subjects were randomly distributed into three groups: TLG (training with LLLT), TG (training only) and CG (control). The training for TG and TLG subjects involved the leg-press exercise with a load equal to 80% of one repetition maximum (1RM) in the leg-press test over 12 consecutive weeks. The LLLT was applied to the quadriceps muscle of both lower limbs of the TLG subjects immediately after the end of each training session. Using an infrared laser device (808 nm) with six diodes of 60 mW each a total energy of 50.4 J of LLLT was administered over 140 s. Muscle strength was assessed using the 1RM leg-press test and the isokinetic dynamometer test. The muscle volume of the thigh of the dominant limb was assessed by thigh perimetry. The TLG subjects showed an increase of 55% in the 1RM leg-press test, which was significantly higher than the increases in the TG subjects (26%, P = 0.033) and in the CG subjects (0.27%, P < 0.001). The TLG was the only group to show an increase in muscle performance in the isokinetic dynamometry test compared with baseline. The increases in thigh perimeter in the TLG subjects and TG subjects were not significantly different (4.52% and 2.75%, respectively; P = 0.775). Strength training associated with LLLT can increase muscle performance compared with strength training only.