K Manal1, E Gardinier2, T S Buchanan3, L Snyder-Mackler4. 1. Delaware Rehabilitation Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA. Electronic address: manal@udel.edu. 2. School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, USA. 3. Delaware Rehabilitation Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA. 4. Delaware Rehabilitation Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the peak knee flexor moment (pKFM) provides unique and meaningful information about peak medial compartment loading above and beyond what is obtained from the peak knee adduction moment. METHODS: Standard video-based motion capture and EMG recordings were collected for 10 anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructed subjects walking at a self-selected speed. Knee joint moments were obtained using inverse dynamics and medial contact force was computed using an EMG-driven musculoskeletal model. Linear regression with the peak adductor moment entered first was implemented to isolate the unique contribution of the peak flexor moment to peak medial loading. RESULTS: Peak moments and medial contact force occurred during weight acceptance at approximately 23% of stance. The peak knee adduction moment (pKAM) was a significant predictor of peak medial loading (P = 0.004) accounting for approximately 63% of the variance. The pKFM was also a significant predictor (P = 0.009) accounting for an additional 22% of the variance. When entered together pKAM and pKFM accounted for more than 85% of the variance in peak medial compartment loading. CONCLUSION: The combined use of the peak knee flexor and adductor moments provides a significantly more accurate estimate of peak medial joint loading than the peak adduction moment alone. More accurate inferences of joint contact force will assist clinicians and researchers investigating relationships between joint loading and the onset and progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the peak knee flexor moment (pKFM) provides unique and meaningful information about peak medial compartment loading above and beyond what is obtained from the peak knee adduction moment. METHODS: Standard video-based motion capture and EMG recordings were collected for 10 anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructed subjects walking at a self-selected speed. Knee joint moments were obtained using inverse dynamics and medial contact force was computed using an EMG-driven musculoskeletal model. Linear regression with the peak adductor moment entered first was implemented to isolate the unique contribution of the peak flexor moment to peak medial loading. RESULTS: Peak moments and medial contact force occurred during weight acceptance at approximately 23% of stance. The peak knee adduction moment (pKAM) was a significant predictor of peak medial loading (P = 0.004) accounting for approximately 63% of the variance. The pKFM was also a significant predictor (P = 0.009) accounting for an additional 22% of the variance. When entered together pKAM and pKFM accounted for more than 85% of the variance in peak medial compartment loading. CONCLUSION: The combined use of the peak knee flexor and adductor moments provides a significantly more accurate estimate of peak medial joint loading than the peak adduction moment alone. More accurate inferences of joint contact force will assist clinicians and researchers investigating relationships between joint loading and the onset and progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA).
Authors: Milena Simic; Rana S Hinman; Tim V Wrigley; Kim L Bennell; Michael A Hunt Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Dong Zhao; Scott A Banks; Kim H Mitchell; Darryl D D'Lima; Clifford W Colwell; Benjamin J Fregly Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: M W Creaby; Y Wang; K L Bennell; R S Hinman; B R Metcalf; K-A Bowles; F M Cicuttini Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Björn Barenius; Sari Ponzer; Adel Shalabi; Robert Bujak; Louise Norlén; Karl Eriksson Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Georg Bergmann; Alwina Bender; Friedmar Graichen; Jörn Dymke; Antonius Rohlmann; Adam Trepczynski; Markus O Heller; Ines Kutzner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ashutosh Khandha; Kurt Manal; Jacob Capin; Elizabeth Wellsandt; Adam Marmon; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; Thomas S Buchanan Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Michael A Samaan; Luca Facchetti; Valentina Pedoia; Matthew S Tanaka; Thomas M Link; Richard B Souza; C Benjamin Ma; Xiaojuan Li Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Cory L Christiansen; Michael J Bade; Bradley S Davidson; Michael R Dayton; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Claudio Pizzolato; Monica Reggiani; David J Saxby; Elena Ceseracciu; Luca Modenese; David G Lloyd Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Luiz Fernando Approbato Selistre; Glaucia Helena Gonçalves; Fernando Augusto Vasilceac; Paula Regina Mendes da Silva Serrão; Theresa Helissa Nakagawa; Marina Petrella; Richard Keith Jones; Stela Márcia Mattiello Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Jack R Williams; Kelsey Neal; Abdulmajeed Alfayyadh; Kendra Lennon; Jacob J Capin; Ashutosh Khandha; Kurt Manal; Hollis G Potter; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; Thomas S Buchanan Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 3.494