BACKGROUND: there long has been debate whether static knee kinematics measured using magnetic resonance imaging are the same as knee kinematics in dynamic weight-bearing motion. Magnetic resonance imaging provides excellent volumetric detail but is static. Fluoroscopic imaging provides for dynamic observation of knee kinematics but provides no direct observation of the soft-tissue structures. We attempted to answer the question 'Are knee kinematics the same during static and dynamic squatting?' METHODS: knee kinematics data from two previously reported studies of healthy knee kinematics during squatting from 0° to 120° were obtained. The results of the dynamic fluoroscopic study were reformatted to perform a direct comparison of femoral anteroposterior translation and internal-external rotation with the static magnetic resonance imaging study. FINDINGS: comparison of internal-external rotations and lateral femoral condyle anteroposterior translations did not reveal significant differences between static and dynamic data. The medial femoral condyle demonstrated 0 (SD=3) mm posterior translation during dynamic squatting from 0° to 120° flexion compared to 5 (SD=3) mm posterior translation during static squatting (P=0.01, Cohen's d=1.7). INTERPRETATION: for squatting types of motions, static and dynamic study protocols appear to produce equivalent knee kinematics with no functionally important differences. Differences in medial condyle translations can be attributed to differences in foot position during the study. Investigators can choose the modality that best fits their goals and resources with the knowledge that the results for squatting activities are comparable. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: there long has been debate whether static knee kinematics measured using magnetic resonance imaging are the same as knee kinematics in dynamic weight-bearing motion. Magnetic resonance imaging provides excellent volumetric detail but is static. Fluoroscopic imaging provides for dynamic observation of knee kinematics but provides no direct observation of the soft-tissue structures. We attempted to answer the question 'Are knee kinematics the same during static and dynamic squatting?' METHODS: knee kinematics data from two previously reported studies of healthy knee kinematics during squatting from 0° to 120° were obtained. The results of the dynamic fluoroscopic study were reformatted to perform a direct comparison of femoral anteroposterior translation and internal-external rotation with the static magnetic resonance imaging study. FINDINGS: comparison of internal-external rotations and lateral femoral condyle anteroposterior translations did not reveal significant differences between static and dynamic data. The medial femoral condyle demonstrated 0 (SD=3) mm posterior translation during dynamic squatting from 0° to 120° flexion compared to 5 (SD=3) mm posterior translation during static squatting (P=0.01, Cohen's d=1.7). INTERPRETATION: for squatting types of motions, static and dynamic study protocols appear to produce equivalent knee kinematics with no functionally important differences. Differences in medial condyle translations can be attributed to differences in foot position during the study. Investigators can choose the modality that best fits their goals and resources with the knowledge that the results for squatting activities are comparable. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Matthew G Teeter; Douglas D Naudie; Richard W McCalden; Xunhua Yuan; David W Holdsworth; Steven J MacDonald; Brent A Lanting Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: G B Sharma; S K Saevarsson; S Amiri; S Montgomery; H Ramm; D D Lichti; R Lieck; S Zachow; C Anglin Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: Satoshi Hamai; Taka-aki Moro-oka; Nicholas J Dunbar; Hiromasa Miura; Yukihide Iwamoto; Scott A Banks Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2012-12-23 Impact factor: 3.411