TABLE 4.

Associations between femoral and tibial geometrical parameters and measures of muscle function assessed in this study. In the table we find the estimates as the unstandardised regression coefficients, confidence intervals of the regression coefficients (CI) and significance (p-value) of the linear mixed effects. The muscle funtion parameters have been normalised to the participants’ body mass. Relative power has been considered for the countermovement squat jump. Relative peak force has been considered for the two hopping movements. Linear mixed effects model with age and training status as random effects was used to determine main effects of bone geometry on jump and hop outcome. Intertrochanteric Torsion (ITT), Shaft Torsion (ST), Condylar Torsion (CT).

Variables	Relative peak power countermovement squat-jump			Relative peak force two leg hopping			Relative peak force one leg hopping
	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p	Estimates	CI	p
Total femoral torsion (°)	−0.06	−0.31–0.19	.632	−0.22	−0.53 – 0.09	.161	−0.01	−0.13–0.11	.852
ITT (°)	−0.09	−0.32–0.15	.483	−0.21	−0.51 – 0.09	.167	−0.06	−0.18–0.05	.298
ST (°)	0.11	−0.14–0.36	.898	−0.9	−2.02 – 0.22	.110	0.04	−0.08–0.16	.496
CT (°)	0.20	−0.70–1.09	.670	0.15	−0.16 – 0.47	.325	−0.33	−0.75–0.09	.134
Femoral lateral bowing (°)	0.44	−0.69–1.57	.214	1.18	−0.19 – 2.56	.090	0.06	−0.48–0.61	.820
Femoral frontal bowing (°)	−0.54	−1.52–0.44	.290	−0.22	−1.48 – 1.03	.722	0.12	−0.36–0.60	.630
Tibial lateral bowing (°)	−1.14	−2.28–0.00	.058	−0.68	−2.21 – 0.85	.374	0.09	−0.49–0.67	.771
Tibial frontal bowing (°)	−0.01	−0.78–0.75	.974	0.02	−0.95 – 0.99	.971	0.14	−0.22–0.51	.447
Mechanical angle (°)	0.58	−0.47–1.64	.283	0.6	−0.76 – 1.96	.382	−0.04	−0.56–0.48	.879
Femorotibial angle (°)	−0.14	−1.17–0.88	.789	−0.6	−1.91 – 0.70	.355	0.02	−0.47–0.52	.932
Acetabular coverage angle (°)	−0.22	−0.48–0.17	.347	0.06	−0.86 – 0.99	.892	−0.07	−0.23–0.09	.338
Acetabular version angle (°)	−0.16	−0.99–0.55	.575	−0.15	−0.56 – 0.27	.474	0.18	−0.18–0.55	.377