Hitoaki Numata1, Junsuke Nakase2, Katsuhiko Kitaoka3, Yosuke Shima4, Takeshi Oshima1, Yasushi Takata1, Kengo Shimozaki1, Hiroyuki Tsuchiya1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takara-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-8641, Japan. nakase1007@yahoo.co.jp. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kijima Hospital, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 920-0011, Japan. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, KKR Hokuriku Hospital, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 921-8035, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Female athletes are at greater risk of non-contact ACL injury. Three-dimensional kinematic analyses have shown that at-risk female athletes have a greater knee valgus angle during drop jumping. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between knee valgus angle and non-contact ACL injury in young female athletes using coronal-plane two-dimensional (2D) kinematic analyses of single-leg landing. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-one female high school athletes newly enrolled in basketball and handball clubs were assessed. Dynamic knee valgus was analysed during single-leg drop jumps using 2D coronal images at hallux-ground contact and at maximal knee valgus. All subjects were followed up for 3 years for ACL injury. Twenty-eight (9.6%) of 291 athletes had ACL rupture, including 27 non-contact ACL injuries. The injured group of 27 knees with non-contact ACL injury was compared with a control group of 27 randomly selected uninjured knees. The relationship between initial 2D movement analysis results and subsequent ACL injury was investigated. RESULTS: Dynamic knee valgus was significantly greater in the injured group compared to the control group at hallux-ground contact (2.1 ± 2.4 vs. 0.4 ± 2.2 cm, P = 0.006) and at maximal knee valgus (8.3 ± 4.3 vs. 5.1 ± 4.1 cm, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm that dynamic knee valgus is a potential risk factor for non-contact ACL injury in female high school athletes. Fully understanding the risk factors that increase dynamic knee valgus will help in designing more appropriate training and interventional strategies to prevent injuries in at-risk athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic studies, Level II.
PURPOSE: Female athletes are at greater risk of non-contact ACL injury. Three-dimensional kinematic analyses have shown that at-risk female athletes have a greater knee valgus angle during drop jumping. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between knee valgus angle and non-contact ACL injury in young female athletes using coronal-plane two-dimensional (2D) kinematic analyses of single-leg landing. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-one female high school athletes newly enrolled in basketball and handball clubs were assessed. Dynamic knee valgus was analysed during single-leg drop jumps using 2D coronal images at hallux-ground contact and at maximal knee valgus. All subjects were followed up for 3 years for ACL injury. Twenty-eight (9.6%) of 291 athletes had ACL rupture, including 27 non-contact ACL injuries. The injured group of 27 knees with non-contact ACL injury was compared with a control group of 27 randomly selected uninjured knees. The relationship between initial 2D movement analysis results and subsequent ACL injury was investigated. RESULTS: Dynamic knee valgus was significantly greater in the injured group compared to the control group at hallux-ground contact (2.1 ± 2.4 vs. 0.4 ± 2.2 cm, P = 0.006) and at maximal knee valgus (8.3 ± 4.3 vs. 5.1 ± 4.1 cm, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The results of this study confirm that dynamic knee valgus is a potential risk factor for non-contact ACL injury in female high school athletes. Fully understanding the risk factors that increase dynamic knee valgus will help in designing more appropriate training and interventional strategies to prevent injuries in at-risk athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic studies, Level II.
Authors: Darin T Leetun; Mary Lloyd Ireland; John D Willson; Bryon T Ballantyne; Irene McClay Davis Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Timothy E Hewett; Gregory D Myer; Kevin R Ford; Robert S Heidt; Angelo J Colosimo; Scott G McLean; Antonie J van den Bogert; Mark V Paterno; Paul Succop Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Thomas W Kernozek; Michael R Torry; Heather VAN Hoof; Hanni Cowley; Suzanne Tanner Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Bohdanna T Zazulak; Timothy E Hewett; N Peter Reeves; Barry Goldberg; Jacek Cholewicki Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Eric Swart; Lauren Redler; Peter D Fabricant; Bert R Mandelbaum; Christopher S Ahmad; Y Claire Wang Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Tyler J Collings; Matthew N Bourne; Rod S Barrett; William du Moulin; Jack T Hickey; Laura E Diamond Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Marcie Harris-Hayes; Travis J Hillen; Paul K Commean; Michael D Harris; Michael J Mueller; John C Clohisy; Gretchen B Salsich Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: M Christopher Zipser; Hillary A Plummer; Nathan Kindstrand; Johnathan C Sum; Bernard Li; Lori A Michener Journal: Int J Sports Phys Ther Date: 2021-04-01