4.2 Article

The relationship between single-limb squat and jump-cut kinematics

Journal

SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 654-665

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2019.1674913

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; return to play

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates the relationship between jump-cut task and single-limb squat in both ACL reconstruction and healthy control groups. The results indicate that the ACLR group has poorer motion control and exhibits increased lateral trunk flexion, hip adduction, and medial knee displacement during the jump-cut task.
No objective criteria exist for progressing athletes into cutting manoeuvres following ACL reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between a jump-cut task (JC) and the single-limb squat (SLS) in both ACLR and healthy controls. Case-control, laboratory based. Twenty-three participants with a history of ACLR (Age = 21 +/- 3 years; Height = 174.5 +/- 7.2 cm; Mass = 76.2 +/- 9.9 kg) and 23 healthy controls participants (Age = 21 +/- 3 years; Height = 173.8 +/- 9.2 cm; Mass = 75.0 +/- 10.5 kg) were included. Kinematics were collected bilaterally. Correlations between tasks were evaluated for kinematics. Independent sample t-tests were used to evaluate differences between groups for each dependent variable. Peak trunk rotation and medial knee displacement were strongly correlated (p < 0.001, r(2) = 0.63), between tasks. ACLR group performed SLS and JC tasks with less sagittal plane motion compared to healthy controls (p < 0.05). Lack of frontal and transverse plane control during SLS resulted in positions of increased lateral trunk flexion, hip adduction, and medial knee displacement during JC. The SLS may be considered for use as a clinical predictor of JC during rehabilitation following ACLR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available