戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 6, 0.96) for varus and 0.94 (0.89, 0.99) for valgus.
2 tions, with mean differences as follows: for valgus, 0.94 degrees (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0
3 , the femur-tibia angle was 3.4 degrees more valgus (3.0 degrees in women and 4.7 degrees in men); af
4                                              Valgus-aligned knees tended to have lower dGEMRIC values
5                                              Valgus alignment >3 degrees was also associated with car
6            In knees without radiographic OA, valgus alignment >3 degrees was associated with incidenc
7 ression was comparably increased by varus or valgus alignment (10-fold).
8 lateral progression were increased 2-fold by valgus alignment (approaching significance).
9                                        Varus-valgus alignment (the angle formed by the intersection o
10                                        Varus-valgus alignment (the angle formed by the intersection o
11                                              Valgus alignment at baseline was associated with a nearl
12 riminative ability for identifying varus and valgus alignment evidenced by area under the ROC curve.
13                                        Varus-valgus alignment has been linked to subsequent progressi
14 ces load distribution at the knee; varus and valgus alignment increase medial and lateral load, respe
15                                              Valgus alignment increased the odds of PF OA progression
16 ncreases risk of medial OA progression, that valgus alignment increases risk of lateral OA progressio
17 re common than medial progression, and varus-valgus alignment influenced the likelihood of PF OA prog
18 operative planning by illustrating how varus-valgus alignment is affected by proposed surgical plans
19                                        Varus-valgus alignment may influence the risk of PF OA and, in
20 1 degrees valgus) and examined the effect of valgus alignment versus neutral alignment (neither varus
21 imating equations, to evaluate the effect of valgus alignment versus neutral alignment on disease out
22                                  Neutral and valgus alignment were each associated with a reduction i
23 ct of obesity was intermediate in those with valgus alignment.
24 risk of progression in knees with neutral or valgus alignment.
25 al, posterior tibial) and with varus (versus valgus) alignment (central tibial, external tibial, post
26 bregions was associated with neutral (versus valgus) alignment (central tibial, internal tibial, post
27  ratios (ORs) were calculated between hallux valgus and age, sex, body mass index, nodal osteoarthrit
28                            We assessed varus-valgus and anteroposterior laxity in 25 young control su
29                                         Both valgus and varus malalignments affect forces at the PF j
30 alignment (mechanical axis of >/=1.1 degrees valgus) and examined the effect of valgus alignment vers
31 adduction of the lead leg, whereas a greater valgus angle at address (r = 0.60, p = 0.03) was associa
32 onship between delivered alignment and varus-valgus angle of the knee.
33 sed ankle dorsiflexion angle, decreased knee valgus angle, and lower vertical GRF during SL-DJ (p < 0
34  abduction moments of the lead leg and varus/valgus angle, toe-out angle, stance width, weight transf
35 forces were highly correlated with the varus-valgus angulation (r = - 0.57).
36                   The dynamic range of varus-valgus angulation decreased from 3.9 4.4 preoperatively
37 .40-0.62 in dominant knees), and severity of valgus correlated with greater subsequent lateral joint
38 omuscular training (NMT) on the dynamic knee valgus (DKV) and feedforward activity (FFA) of knee musc
39 exion range of motion (ROM) and dynamic knee valgus (DKV) kinematic inter-limb asymmetries would be a
40                                 Dynamic knee valgus (DKV) malalignment affects the biomechanical char
41  vivo static and dynamic alignment and varus-valgus during tasks of daily living 1-year after surgery
42 hat predict in vivo static and dynamic varus-valgus during tasks of daily living.
43                               In particular, valgus extension overload during the throwing motion can
44  (highest knee flexion increase, lowest knee valgus, fastest take-off time; d = 0.43-1.89), sprint sp
45 Proprioceptive acuity was assessed in varus, valgus, flexion, and extension using threshold to detect
46                          Pivot, twisting, or valgus forces were reported mechanisms of injury.
47 anatomic axis was offset a mean 4.21 degrees valgus from the mechanical axis (3.5 degrees in women, 6
48 group (r = -0.29, P = 0.0009) but not in the valgus group (r = -0.13, P = 0.17).
49 d renal abnormalities, micrognathia, cubitus valgus, high-arched palate, short metacarpals and Madelu
50 larly among women, but also in patients with valgus hip deformity and other abnormalities leading to
51                           Alignment was more valgus in the Beijing men than in the Framingham men (me
52 de and that of the non-dominant side without valgus instability in symptomatic pitchers.
53                                       Hallux valgus is prevalent in the community and is associated w
54 rved sagittal balance, coronal imbalance and valgus knee deformity.
55 duals with medial knee OA respond to a rapid valgus knee movement, to investigate the relationship be
56 varus knees (r = 0.26) but not in those with valgus knees (r = 0.16).
57  These results suggest that the evolution of valgus knees and narrow steps in humans may be decoupled
58 equitable in valgus than in varus knees, and valgus knees may better tolerate obesity.
59 mate that walk bipedally with adducted hips, valgus knees, and swing-side pelvic drop.
60 ty-four patients had varus knees and 115 had valgus knees.
61 those with varus knees but not in those with valgus knees.
62 ubregions and that neutral and varus (versus valgus) knees each have reduced odds of cartilage loss i
63                                Greater varus-valgus laxity in the uninvolved knees of OA patients ver
64                        In OA patients, varus-valgus laxity increased as joint space decreased (slope
65                                        Varus-valgus laxity is associated with a decrease in the magni
66 ese results raise the possibility that varus-valgus laxity may increase the risk of knee OA and cycli
67 knee OA, stratification of analyses by varus-valgus laxity should be considered.
68 l knees and an age-related increase in varus-valgus laxity support the concept that some portion of t
69     In the controls, women had greater varus-valgus laxity than did men (3.6 degrees versus 2.7 degre
70        A device was designed to assess varus-valgus laxity under a constant varus or valgus load whil
71                                        Varus-valgus laxity was greater in the uninvolved knees of OA
72 ine quadriceps and hamstring strength, varus-valgus laxity, functional status (Western Ontario and Mc
73  mechanical and neuromuscular factors (varus-valgus laxity, malalignment, proprioceptive inaccuracy,
74 bone height is associated with greater varus-valgus laxity.
75 teral lesions were seen mostly in those with valgus limbs.
76 arus-valgus laxity under a constant varus or valgus load while maintaining a fixed knee flexion angle
77 hose with lateral compartment loss were more valgus malaligned (P = 0.008).
78 hritis Initiative (OAI) to define limbs with valgus malalignment (mechanical axis of >/=1.1 degrees v
79 rty-three of 75 knees with lateral PF OA had valgus malalignment compared with only 5 of 21 patients
80                                    Varus and valgus malalignment increase the risk of medial and late
81                                              Valgus malalignment increases the risk of knee OA radiog
82 OA is more common than medial PF OA, whether valgus malalignment is more frequent in lateral PF OA th
83  of knee OA examined, the impact of varus or valgus malalignment on the odds of OA progression over t
84 with isolated PF OA were more likely to have valgus malalignment than those with isolated TF OA (P =
85 1.1-30.3]).We found a strong relationship of valgus malalignment with progressive lateral meniscal da
86                   Laterally, meniscal tears, valgus malalignment, and cartilage damage were associate
87               In both studies, all strata of valgus malalignment, including 1.1 degrees to 3 degrees
88 ed instruments assessed self-reported hallux valgus, nodal osteoarthritis, and knee pain.
89                  We studied 5,053 knees (881 valgus) of subjects in the MOST cohort and 5,953 knees (
90 ts in the MOST cohort and 5,953 knees (1,358 valgus) of subjects in the OAI cohort.
91  versus neutral alignment (neither varus nor valgus) on OA structural outcomes.
92                The second step involved anti-valgus osteotomy of the right tibial bone.
93                                       Hallux valgus prevalence was calculated and standardized by the
94  for identifying varus and 0.98 and 0.73 for valgus, respectively.
95 ham men (mean 4.5 degrees versus 2.7 degrees valgus, respectively; P < 0.001), but no differences in
96 al elbow joint was measured between rest and valgus stress both at the injured and at the uninjured (
97  that stabilize the knee joint and provide a valgus stress have been shown to improve pain and functi
98 oth ultrasonography (US; conventional US and valgus stress US) and magnetic resonance (MR) arthrograp
99 position without stress to the position with valgus stress were also calculated.
100                                   With elbow valgus stress, the contact area changed, and the center
101  elbows were obtained with and without elbow valgus stress.
102 fications, and demonstrates more laxity with valgus stress.
103 30 degrees of flexion, both at rest and with valgus stress.
104 the BMI-OA severity correlation is weaker in valgus than in varus knees, 3) BMI is correlated with th
105 tment load distribution is more equitable in valgus than in varus knees, and valgus knees may better
106  and whether knees with PF OA are more often valgus than knees with isolated tibiofemoral (TF) OA.
107 lecting the change in knee loading and varus-valgus that occurs between non-weightbearing and weightb
108 tudy to determine the frequency of varus and valgus thrust in African Americans and Caucasians and to
109                                              Valgus thrust is believed to be less common than varus t
110           Also independently associated with valgus thrust were disease severity and malalignment.
111                                  The odds of valgus thrust were greater for African Americans than fo
112 wer odds of varus thrust and greater odds of valgus thrust.
113 dial compartment knee OA, as well as a lower valgus (tibial medial tilt) angle at address for those c
114 ally stressed (medial for varus, lateral for valgus) tibiofemoral compartment.
115 e the variability in delivered dynamic varus-valgus, ultimately improving long-term outcomes.
116       Medial gap in flexion, femoral implant valgus-varus and internal-external rotation alignment, a
117 rnal-external rotation alignment, and tibial valgus-varus rotation and slope were the most influentia
118  central femoral, external femoral) and with valgus (versus varus) alignment (central tibial, externa
119 s to examine our hypotheses that neutral and valgus (versus varus) knees each have reduced odds of ca
120        The standardized prevalence of hallux valgus was 28.4%.
121                                       Hallux valgus was associated with age (adjusted OR 1.61 per dec
122 , as lesion score worsened, comparably worse valgus was seen with either assessment approach.
123 d patients with knee OA, 2 groups (varus and valgus) were identified based on dominant knee alignment
124 lignment, including 1.1 degrees to 3 degrees valgus, were associated with an increased risk of latera
125 angeal joint in patients with hallux abducto valgus, with 33% of patients reporting multiple sites of

 
Page Top