Literature DB >> 21602566

Measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during soft and stiff drop landings using biplane fluoroscopy.

Casey A Myers1, Michael R Torry, Daniel S Peterson, Kevin B Shelburne, J Erik Giphart, Jacob P Krong, Savio L-Y Woo, J Richard Steadman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous laboratory studies of landing have defined landing techniques in terms of soft or stiff landings according to the degree of maximal knee flexion angle attained during the landing phase and the relative magnitude of the ground-reaction force. Current anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention programs are instructing athletes to land softly to avoid excessive strain on the anterior cruciate ligament.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to measure, describe, and compare tibiofemoral rotations and translations of soft and stiff landings in healthy individuals using biplane fluoroscopy. STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: The in vivo, lower extremity, 3-dimensional knee kinematics of 16 healthy adults (6 male and 10 female) instructed to land softly and stiffly in different trials were collected in biplane fluoroscopy as they performed the landing from a height of 40 cm.
RESULTS: Average and maximum relative anterior tibial translation (average, 2.8 ± 1.2 mm vs 3.0 ± 1.4 mm; maximum, 4.7 ± 1.6 mm vs 4.4 ± 0.8 mm), internal/external rotation (average, 3.7° ± 5.1° vs 2.7° ± 4.3°; maximum, 5.6° ± 5.5° vs 4.9° ± 4.7°), and varus/valgus (average, 0.2° ± 1.2° vs 0.2° ± 1.0°; maximum, 1.7° ± 1.2° vs 1.6° ± 0.9°) were all similar between soft and stiff landings, respectively. The peak vertical ground-reaction force was significantly larger for stiff landings than for soft landings (2.60 ± 1.32 body weight vs 1.63 ± 0.73; P < .001). The knee flexion angle total range of motion from the minimum angle at contact to the maximum angle at peak knee flexion was significantly greater for soft landings than for stiff (55.4° ± 8.8° vs 36.8° ± 11.1°; P < .01).
CONCLUSION: Stiff landings, as defined by significantly lower knee flexion angles and significantly greater peak ground-reaction forces, do not result in larger amounts of anterior tibial translation or knee rotation in either varus/valgus or internal/external rotation in healthy individuals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In healthy knees, the musculature and soft tissues of the knee are able to maintain translations and rotations within a small, safe range during controlled landing tasks of differing demand. The knee kinematics of this healthy population will serve as a comparison for injured knees in future studies. It should be stressed that because the authors did not compare how the loads were distributed over the soft tissues of the knee between the 2 landing styles, the larger ground-reaction forces and more extended knee position observed during stiff landings should still be considered dangerous to the anterior cruciate ligament and other structures of the lower extremities, particularly in competitive settings where movements are often unanticipated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21602566      PMCID: PMC4167636          DOI: 10.1177/0363546511404922

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  43 in total

1.  The effect of neuromuscular training on the incidence of knee injury in female athletes. A prospective study.

Authors:  T E Hewett; T N Lindenfeld; J V Riccobene; F R Noyes
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Effect of landing stiffness on joint kinetics and energetics in the lower extremity.

Authors:  P Devita; W A Skelly
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Knee kinematic profiles during drop landings: a biplane fluoroscopy study.

Authors:  Michael R Torry; Kevin B Shelburne; Daniel S Peterson; J Erik Giphart; Jacob P Krong; Casey Myers; J Richard Steadman; Savio L-Y Woo
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 5.411

4.  Model prediction of anterior cruciate ligament force during drop-landings.

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

5.  Validation of a new model-based tracking technique for measuring three-dimensional, in vivo glenohumeral joint kinematics.

Authors:  Michael J Bey; Roger Zauel; Stephanie K Brock; Scott Tashman
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.097

Review 6.  Mechanisms of non-contact ACL injuries.

Authors:  Bing Yu; William E Garrett
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 13.800

7.  Kinetics of the lower extremities during drop landings from three heights.

Authors:  J L McNitt-Gray
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  Lines of action and moment arms of the major force-carrying structures crossing the human knee joint.

Authors:  W Herzog; L J Read
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.610

9.  A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee.

Authors:  E S Grood; W J Suntay
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  1983-05       Impact factor: 2.097

10.  Effect of verbal instructions on muscle activity and risk of injury to the anterior cruciate ligament during landing.

Authors:  E J Cowling; J R Steele; P J McNair
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 13.800

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Dynamic knee laxity measurement devices.

Authors:  Mattias Ahldén; Yuichi Hoshino; Kristian Samuelsson; Paulo Araujo; Volker Musahl; Jón Karlsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-12-31       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Assessment of Knee Kinematics in Older Adults Using High-Speed Stereo Radiography.

Authors:  Vasiliki Kefala; Adam J Cyr; Michael D Harris; Donald R Hume; Bradley S Davidson; Raymond H Kim; Kevin B Shelburne
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Normative rearfoot motion during barefoot and shod walking using biplane fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Kevin J Campbell; Katharine J Wilson; Robert F LaPrade; Thomas O Clanton
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Trunk and Lower Extremity Movement Patterns, Stress Fracture Risk Factors, and Biomarkers of Bone Turnover in Military Trainees.

Authors:  Timothy C Mauntel; Stephen W Marshall; Anthony C Hackney; Brian G Pietrosimone; Kenneth L Cameron; Karen Y Peck; Jesse R Trump; Darin A Padua
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  In vivo assessment of the interaction of patellar tendon tibial shaft angle and anterior cruciate ligament elongation during flexion.

Authors:  Zoë A Englander; Hattie C Cutcliffe; Gangadhar M Utturkar; Kevin A Taylor; Charles E Spritzer; William E Garrett; Louis E DeFrate
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2019-04-27       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Dependence of Muscle Moment Arms on In Vivo Three-Dimensional Kinematics of the Knee.

Authors:  Alessandro Navacchia; Vasiliki Kefala; Kevin B Shelburne
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 3.934

7.  Impact differences in ground reaction force and center of mass between the first and second landing phases of a drop vertical jump and their implications for injury risk assessment.

Authors:  Nathaniel A Bates; Kevin R Ford; Gregory D Myer; Timothy E Hewett
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 2.712

8.  High knee valgus in female subjects does not yield higher knee translations during drop landings: a biplane fluoroscopic study.

Authors:  Michael R Torry; Kevin B Shelburne; Casey Myers; J Erik Giphart; W Wesley Pennington; Jacob P Krong; Daniel S Peterson; J Richard Steadman; Savio L-Y Woo
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 3.494

9.  Kinetic and kinematic differences between first and second landings of a drop vertical jump task: implications for injury risk assessments.

Authors:  Nathaniel A Bates; Kevin R Ford; Gregory D Myer; Timothy E Hewett
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 2.063

10.  Kinematic differences between optical motion capture and biplanar videoradiography during a jump-cut maneuver.

Authors:  Daniel L Miranda; Michael J Rainbow; Joseph J Crisco; Braden C Fleming
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.