The relationship of dynamic and static q angle with kinetic, kinematic and anthropometric characteristics of the lower limb

INTRODUCTION: Q angle is one of the important parameters used in the mechanical and functional evaluation of the lower extremity. While body weight is transferred between segments of the lower extremity, a disturbance in the alignment of one segment can affect the adjacent segment. Therefore, the Q angle, which is one of the most frequently used parameters when evaluating the changes in axial loading of the lower extremity, is associated not only with the knee joint but also with the hip and foot mechanics. There are few studies comparing static and dynamic measurements of the Q angle and comprehensively evaluating the impact of this angle from the hip joint to the foot. Therefore, our aim in our thesis is to evaluate the relationship between dynamic and static measurements of the Q angle and their relationship with lower extremity anthropometric characteristics, foot pressure, gait kinematics and knee muscle strength as a whole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study consists of Q angle measurements, anthropometric measurements, gait kinematics, foot pressure measurements and knee isokinetic muscle strength measurements. Static measurements of the Q angle were measured using a universal goniometer. Anthropometric features; height, lower extremity length, tibia length, knee bicondylar width, foot length, foot width and navicular height measurements were taken using Martin type anthropometer and a digital caliper. Foot pressure measurement, which is one of the lower extremity kinetic measurements, and gait analysis which is one of the lower extremity kinematic measurements, werre measured with the Diers 4d motion device during walking. Knee isokinetic flexion / extension muscle strength measurements were measured with the IsoMed 2000 device. All measurements were made separately for both dominant and non-dominant limbs. RESULTS: In our study, all measured parameters were first compared between the dominant and non-dominant sides, and no clinically significant differences were found between the sides. The corralation between Q angle measurements and anthropometric measurements, gait analysis measurements, foot pressure measurements and isokinetic strength measurements were evaluated separately on the dominant and non-dominant sides. It was observed that there was a negative correlation between isokinetic strength measurements and static Q angle measurements on the dominant side. However, no such relationship was observed in the non-dominant side. When the level of consistency between static and dynamic Q angle measurements were evaluated, a moderate consistency between static active and static passive Q angle measurements on both the dominant and non-dominant sides was observed, and no relationship between dynamic and static Q angle measurementswas found. CONCLUSION: It reveals that dynamic Q angle measurements are not related to static Q angle measurements, therefore static and dynamic Q angle measurements cannot be used interchangeably.