BACKGROUND: Very few studies examining the predisposing anatomical factors leading to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries have examined the ACL itself, and none of these directly examined the difference in ACL properties between injured and matched control subjects. HYPOTHESIS: The ACL total volume in people who have experienced a noncontact ACL injury is smaller than that of matched controls. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Contours of the ACL were manually identified in sagittal magnetic resonance images, and volumes were calculated for 27 contralateral, healthy knees of individuals after noncontact ACL injury and for 27 control subjects matched for gender, height, age, and weight. Validation of this method was performed on 5 porcine knees. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine the difference in ACL volume between injured and control subjects while considering gender, height, weight, and age as potential covariates. RESULTS: Contralateral ACL volume for injured subjects was significantly smaller than for noninjured subjects (P = .0208) by 231 mm(3) after adjusting for weight, which was also a significant contributor to ACL volume (P < .0001). At the average body mass of 72.7 kg, subjects with a noncontact ACL injury had an average contralateral ACL volume of 1921 mm(3), while the corresponding control group had an average volume of 2151 mm(3). Gender, height, and age were not significant when weight was included in the regression model. CONCLUSION: This study shows that there are anthropometric differences between the knees of subjects with a noncontact ACL injury and those without an ACL injury, suggesting that ACL volume may play a direct role in noncontact ACL injury.
BACKGROUND: Very few studies examining the predisposing anatomical factors leading to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries have examined the ACL itself, and none of these directly examined the difference in ACL properties between injured and matched control subjects. HYPOTHESIS: The ACL total volume in people who have experienced a noncontact ACL injury is smaller than that of matched controls. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Contours of the ACL were manually identified in sagittal magnetic resonance images, and volumes were calculated for 27 contralateral, healthy knees of individuals after noncontact ACL injury and for 27 control subjects matched for gender, height, age, and weight. Validation of this method was performed on 5 porcine knees. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine the difference in ACL volume between injured and control subjects while considering gender, height, weight, and age as potential covariates. RESULTS: Contralateral ACL volume for injured subjects was significantly smaller than for noninjured subjects (P = .0208) by 231 mm(3) after adjusting for weight, which was also a significant contributor to ACL volume (P < .0001). At the average body mass of 72.7 kg, subjects with a noncontact ACL injury had an average contralateral ACL volume of 1921 mm(3), while the corresponding control group had an average volume of 2151 mm(3). Gender, height, and age were not significant when weight was included in the regression model. CONCLUSION: This study shows that there are anthropometric differences between the knees of subjects with a noncontact ACL injury and those without an ACL injury, suggesting that ACL volume may play a direct role in noncontact ACL injury.
Authors: Inger Holm; Merete Aarsland Fosdahl; Astrid Friis; May Arna Risberg; Grethe Myklebust; Harald Steen Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Mary A Pflum; Kevin B Shelburne; Michael R Torry; Michael J Decker; Marcus G Pandy Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Edward M Wojtys; Laura J Huston; Melbourne D Boynton; Kurt P Spindler; Thomas N Lindenfeld Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2002 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: William P H Charlton; Thomas A St John; Michael G Ciccotti; Nichol Harrison; Mark Schweitzer Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Sandra J Shultz; Randy J Schmitz; Anh-Dung Nguyen; Ajit M Chaudhari; Darin A Padua; Scott G McLean; Susan M Sigward Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Sandra J Shultz; Randy J Schmitz; Anne Benjaminse; Malcolm Collins; Kevin Ford; Anthony S Kulas Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Stephanie L Di Stasi; Kim D Barber Foss; Lyle J Micheli; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Hsin-Min Wang; Sandra J Shultz; Scott E Ross; Robert A Henson; David H Perrin; Robert A Kraft; Randy J Schmitz Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 2.860