AbstractBackground Hip injuries have been reported in 8%-27% of tennis players and have impacted some of the game's highest ranked players.1 The open-stance forehand has emerged as a more common forehand for high-level tennis players due to the quicker recovery time.2 However, it has been noted by coaches and trainers that this type of forehand, coupled with other changes in the game, have been accompanied by an increase in hip pain and injury in players.1,3,4 Objective Determine if there was greater hip load on players using open-stance forehand compared to closed-stance forehand. Additionally, we determined if there were differences in separation angles and range of motion requirements between each of these forehands and how that may impact hip injuries. Setting In a lab setting, each subject performed 3 trials of an open and closed-stance forehands, cross-court and down-the-line utilizing a ball machine was used to feed the balls.Participants 7 high-level tennis players with a USTA rating of > 5.5 and no current or recent injuries. Interventions Hip radiographs and lower extremity measurements were obtained prior to testing to ensure no pre-existing conditions or other restrictions would impact the results. The Vicon system was used to obtain kinematic data and 4 force platforms measured ground reaction force. Main Outcome Measurements Hip and ankle joint forces, range of motion, and peak angles.Results Joint forces of the dominant hip longitudinally and ankle laterally were significantly greater, 37% and 11% respectively, in down-the-line open-stance forehands when compared to closed stance. Conclusions Loading of the hip and ankle can lead to various types of injuries.5 The results of this study are important in determining if training modifications and certain mobility requirements need to be adapted to reduce the risk for hip injuries as well as identify factors that can predispose players to injury.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2024 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: