4.5 Article

Timing, not magnitude, of force may explain sex-dependent risk of ACL injury

Journal

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
Volume 26, Issue 8, Pages 2424-2429

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-4859-9

Keywords

Knee; ACL; Biomechanics; Injury prevention; Motion analysis

Funding

  1. Icelandic Centre for Research (Rannis-Rannis.is) [120410021, 903271305, 1203250031]
  2. Football Association of Iceland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The anterior cruciate ligament is loaded through valgus moment, vertical ground reaction force, and internal rotation moment. The aim of this study was to compare the timing of force peaks during early stance between youth girls and boys. One-hundred and twenty-nine team sport athletes aged 9-12 completed a total of 2540 cutting maneuvers captured with an 8-camera motion capture system. Timing of early force peaks was analyzed within 100 ms after ground contact. Genders showed different mean (95% CI) time to peak valgus-(32 ms (30-33 ms) vs 37 ms (36-38 ms), P < 0.001) and time to peak internal rotation moments (36 ms (35-37 ms) vs 38 ms (37-39 ms), P = 0.029) but not time to peak vertical ground reaction force [38 ms (37-40 ms) vs 37 ms (36-38 ms, n.s.)]. Girls showed a smaller time between vertical ground reaction force and valgus moment peaks (mean (95% CI) of 1 ms (1-2 ms) vs 7 ms (5-9 ms), P < 0.001), and valgus- and internal rotation moment peaks (0 ms (- 2 to 1.0 ms) vs - 5 ms (- 6 to - 3 ms), P = 0.0003) but not between internal rotation moment and vertical ground reaction force. Concurrent force peaks are more common for girls compared with boys, leading to more frequent multi-planar loading of the knee. Timing may explain sex-dependent risk of ACL injuries. Exposure to repeated cutting movements may result in greater ACL injury risk due to timing of knee forces as well as magnitude. Such exposure should be minimized for at-risk athletes. III.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available