SAĞLIKLI GENÇ BİREYLERDE Q AÇISI VE STORK BALANCE STAND TESTİNİN SOMATOTİP İLE İLİŞKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Amaç : Tüm iskelet değerlendirmelerinde alt ekstremite durumunu değerlendirmek için önemli bir belirteç olan Q açısı dengeyi de etkileyen bir parametredir. Bu çalışmada; sağlıklı genç bireylerde patellafemoral açı (Q açısı) ve stork balance stand testinin (SBST) somatotip ile ilişkisinin incelenmesi amaçlandı.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma kapsamında üniversite öğrencisi 105’si erkek, 86’sı kadın toplam 191 sağlıklı genç bireyin Q açısı, SBST ve somatotip ölçümleri yapıldı. Somatotip ölçümü Heath-Carter formülü ile yapıldı. Somatotip hesaplamaları “Somatotype for Windows 1.2.6 Trial Version” programı ile yapıldı.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya katılan 191 bireyde endomorphic mesomorph (71), mesomorph-endomorph (27), balanced ectomorph (15), central (17), balanced mesomorph (24), mesomorphic endomorph (19),mesomorphic ectomorph (18) olmak üzere 7 farklı somatotip tespit edildi. Yapılan Kruskal Wallis H Testine göre erkek ve kadınlarda belirlenen her bir somatotipte Q açısı ve SBST’de istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı fark olmadığı belirlendi (p>0.05).

Sonuç: Çalışmamızda değerlendirilen SBST ve Q açısı skorları ile somatotipler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişki bulunmadığı belirlendi. Literatürde ayrıntılı somatotip karakter analizi kullanılarak yapılmış oldukça sınırlı sayıda çalışma olduğu, çalışmamızın literatürde bu alanda görülen eksikliğin giderilmesini sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Q açısı,stork balance stant test,denge,somatotip

Investigation of the Relationship of Q Angle and Stork Balance Stand Test With Somatotype in Healthy Young Individuals

Abstract

Aim: The Q angle, which is an important marker for assessing lower extremity status in all skeletal evaluations, is also a parameter influencing balance. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship of patellafemoral angle (Q angle) and stork balance stand test (SBST) with somatotype in healthy young subjects. 

Material and Methods: Q-angle, SBST and somatotype measurements of 191 healthy young individuals (105 male, 86 female) were made within the context of the study. Somatotype measurement was made with Heath-Carter formula. Somatotype calculations were made with “Somatotype for Windows 1.2.6 Trial Version” program. 

Results: In the 191 individuals who participated in the study, 7 different somatotypes were found as endomorphic mesomorph (71), mesomorph-endomorph (27), balanced ectomorph (15), central (17), balanced mesomorph (24), mesomorphic endomorph (19), mesomorphic ectomorph (18). According to the Kruskal Wallis H Test conducted, it was found that there were no statistically significant differences in Q angle and SBST of each somatotype found in males and females (p>0.05). 

Conclusion: It was found that there were no statistically significant associations between SBST and Q angle scores and somatotypes assessed in our study. It is thought that since there are limited numbers of studies in literature conducted by using detailed somatotype character analysis, our study will contribute to making up the deficiency in this field. 

Keywords

• Stork balance stand test,Q angle,balance,somatotype

Kaynakça

1. Referans 1 Hahn, T, Foldspang A. The Q angle and sport. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 1997; 7(1):43-48.
2. Refeans 2 Yilmaz, A, Kabadayi M, Mayda M, Çavusoglu G, Tasmektepligi M. Analysis of Q angle values of female athletes from different branches. Sci Mov Heal, 2017;17:141-146.
3. Referans 3 Citaker S, Kaya D, Yuksel I, Yosmaoglu B, Nyland J, Atay OA, Doral, MN. Static balance in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Sports health, 2011;3(6):524-527.
4. Referans 4 Lihavainen K, Sipilä S, Rantanen T, Sihvonen S, Sulkava R, Hartikainen S. Contribution of musculoskeletal pain to postural balance in community-dwelling people aged 75 years and older. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 2010;65(9):990-996.
5. Referans 5 Kolokoltsev MM, Iermakov SS, Prusik K. Motor skills and functional characteristics of students of different somatotypes. Physical education of students, 2018;22(1): 31-37.
6. Referans 6 Jagiello W, Kruszewski A. Morphological diversification of competitors training Greco-Roman style of wrestling. Archives of Budo. 2009;5: 147-53.
7. Referans 7 Tunnemann H. Evolution and adjustments for the new rules in wrestling. Psychophysiological International Journal of Wrestling Science. 2013;3(2): 94-105.
8. Referans 8 Baumgardner RN, Cameron C, Roche AF. Bioelectrical impedance for body composition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1998; 48:16-25.

9. Referans 9 Tortop Y, Ocak Y. Elit düzey sporcularda diz eklemi hamstring/quadriceps (H/Q) izokinetik kuvvet oranlarının değerlendirilmesi. Nigde University Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences 2010;4:109-15.
10. Referans 10 Norton K, Olds T. Anthropometrica: A textbook of body measurement for sports and health courses. SydneyAustralia: UNSW Press; 2004.
11. Referans 11 Akın, G, Tekdemir İ, Gültekin T, Erol E, Bektaş Y. Antropometri ve Spor. Ankara: Alter Yayınları 2013.
12. Referans 12 Carling C, Le Gall F, Malina RM. Body size, skeletal maturity, and functional characteristics of elite academy soccer players on entry between 1992 and 2003. J Sports Sci 2012;30:1683-93.
13. Referans 13 Dias Quiterio AL, Carnero EA, Baptista FM, Sardinha LB. Skeletal mass in adolescent male athletes and nonathletes: relationships with high-impact sports. J Strength Cond Res 2011;25:3439-47.
14. Referans 14 Chaouachi, A, Ben Othman A, Hammami R, Drinkwater EJ, Behm DG. The combination of plyometric and balance training improves sprint and shuttle run performances more often than plyometric-only training with children. J. Strength Cond. Res. 28(2), 401-412.401–412
15. Referans 15 Hammami R, Granacher U, Makhlouf I, Behm DG, Chaouachi A. Sequencing effects of balance and plyometric training on physical performance in youth soccer athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016;30(12):3278-3289.
16. Referans 16 Eliöz M, Atan T, Saç A, Yamak B. Sporcu ve sedanterlerde q açısı ile bazı fiziksel özellikler arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Spor ve Performans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2015;6(1): 58-65.
17. Referans 17 Akman N, Karatas M. Temel ve Uygulanan Kinezyoloji, Haberal Egitim Vakfı, Ankara,2003, pp 247-288.
18. Referans 18 Bayraktar B, Yücesir İ, Öztürk A, Çakmak AK, Taşkara N, Kale A ve ark. Change of quadriceps angle values with age and activity. Saudi Med J. 2004;25 (6):756-760
19. Referans 19 Schulties SS, Francis RS, Fisher AG, Van der Graaf KM. Does the Q angle reflect the forces on the patella in the frontal plane? Phys Ther. 1995;75 (1):24-30.
20. Referans 20 Batistão MV, Carnaz L, Barbosa LF, Motta GCD, Sato TDO. (2014). Posture and musculoskeletal pain in eutrophic, overweighed, and obese students. A cross-sectional study. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 2014;20(2):192-199.
21. Referans 21 Ibikunle PO, Ani NC. Dominant Body Somatotype and its Influence on the Quadriceps and Tibiofemoral Angles of Male and Female Young Adults in South Eastern Nigeria. Journal of Current Biomedical Research, 2017;1(1):3-13.
22. Referans 22 Ibikunle, PO, Onwukagba I, Iheukwumere N, Umunnah JO, Egwuonwu V. Influence of dominant body somatotype on Q-angle and some skeletal measures of young adults in South-eastern, Nigeria. AJPARS.2014; 6(1&2): 1-10.
23. Referans 23 Lee AJ, Lin WH. The influence of gender and somatotype on single-leg upright standing postural stability in children. Journal of applied biomechanics, 2007;23(3):173-179.
24. Referans 24 Allard P, Chavet P, Barbier F, Gatto L, Labelle H, Sadeghi H. Effect of body morphology on standing balance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation, 2004;83(9): 689-697.