BACKGROUND: Gender differences exist in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) cross-sectional area and lateral tibial slope. Biomechanical principles suggest that the direction of these gender differences should induce larger peak ACL strains in females under dynamic loading. HYPOTHESIS: Peak ACL relative strain during a simulated pivot landing is significantly greater in female ACLs than male ACLs. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty cadaveric knees from height- and weight-matched male and female cadavers were subjected to impulsive 3-dimensional test loads of 2 times body weight in compression, flexion, and internal tibial torque starting at 15° of flexion. Load cells measured the 3-dimensional forces and moments applied to the knee, and forces in the pretensioned quadriceps, hamstring, and gastrocnemius muscle equivalents. A novel, gender-specific, nonlinear spring simulated short-range and longer range quadriceps muscle tensile stiffness. Peak relative strain in the anteromedial bundle of the ACL (AM-ACL) was measured using a differential variable reluctance transducer, while ACL cross-sectional area and lateral tibial slope were measured using magnetic resonance imaging. A repeated-measures Mann-Whitney signed-rank test was used to test the hypothesis. RESULTS: Female knees exhibited 95% greater peak AM-ACL relative strain than male knees (6.37% [2.53%] vs 3.26% [1.89%]; P = .004). Anterior cruciate ligament cross-sectional area and lateral tibial slope were significant predictors of peak AM-ACL relative strain (R(2) = .59; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Peak AM-ACL relative strain was significantly greater in female than male knees from donors of the same height and weight. This gender difference is attributed to a smaller female ACL cross-sectional area and a greater lateral tibial slope. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Since female ACLs are systematically exposed to greater strain than their male counterparts, training and injury prevention programs should take this fact into consideration.
BACKGROUND: Gender differences exist in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) cross-sectional area and lateral tibial slope. Biomechanical principles suggest that the direction of these gender differences should induce larger peak ACL strains in females under dynamic loading. HYPOTHESIS: Peak ACL relative strain during a simulated pivot landing is significantly greater in female ACLs than male ACLs. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Twenty cadaveric knees from height- and weight-matched male and female cadavers were subjected to impulsive 3-dimensional test loads of 2 times body weight in compression, flexion, and internal tibial torque starting at 15° of flexion. Load cells measured the 3-dimensional forces and moments applied to the knee, and forces in the pretensioned quadriceps, hamstring, and gastrocnemius muscle equivalents. A novel, gender-specific, nonlinear spring simulated short-range and longer range quadriceps muscle tensile stiffness. Peak relative strain in the anteromedial bundle of the ACL (AM-ACL) was measured using a differential variable reluctance transducer, while ACL cross-sectional area and lateral tibial slope were measured using magnetic resonance imaging. A repeated-measures Mann-Whitney signed-rank test was used to test the hypothesis. RESULTS: Female knees exhibited 95% greater peak AM-ACL relative strain than male knees (6.37% [2.53%] vs 3.26% [1.89%]; P = .004). Anterior cruciate ligament cross-sectional area and lateral tibial slope were significant predictors of peak AM-ACL relative strain (R(2) = .59; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Peak AM-ACL relative strain was significantly greater in female than male knees from donors of the same height and weight. This gender difference is attributed to a smaller female ACL cross-sectional area and a greater lateral tibial slope. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Since female ACLs are systematically exposed to greater strain than their male counterparts, training and injury prevention programs should take this fact into consideration.
Authors: Letha Y Griffin; Marjorie J Albohm; Elizabeth A Arendt; Roald Bahr; Bruce D Beynnon; Marlene Demaio; Randall W Dick; Lars Engebretsen; William E Garrett; Jo A Hannafin; Tim E Hewett; Laura J Huston; Mary Lloyd Ireland; Robert J Johnson; Scott Lephart; Bert R Mandelbaum; Barton J Mann; Paul H Marks; Stephen W Marshall; Grethe Myklebust; Frank R Noyes; Christopher Powers; Clarence Shields; Sandra J Shultz; Holly Silvers; James Slauterbeck; Dean C Taylor; Carol C Teitz; Edward M Wojtys; Bing Yu Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Robert Hudek; Silvia Schmutz; Felix Regenfelder; Bruno Fuchs; Peter P Koch Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Javad Hashemi; Naveen Chandrashekar; Hossein Mansouri; James R Slauterbeck; Daniel M Hardy Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Ajit M W Chaudhari; Eric A Zelman; David C Flanigan; Christopher C Kaeding; Haikady N Nagaraja Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 6.202
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: Ali Kiapour; Ata M Kiapour; Vikas Kaul; Carmen E Quatman; Samuel C Wordeman; Timothy E Hewett; Constantine K Demetropoulos; Vijay K Goel Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Katja Oberhofer; S H Hosseini Nasab; Pascal Schütz; Barbara Postolka; Jess G Snedeker; William R Taylor; Renate List Journal: Muscles Ligaments Tendons J Date: 2017-05-10
Authors: Judd T Kalkhoven; Mark L Watsford; Aaron J Coutts; W Brent Edwards; Franco M Impellizzeri Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Daniel R Sturnick; Robert Van Gorder; Pamela M Vacek; Michael J DeSarno; Mack G Gardner-Morse; Timothy W Tourville; James R Slauterbeck; Robert J Johnson; Sandra J Shultz; Bruce D Beynnon Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.494