4.4 Article

The influence of gender-specific loading patterns of the stop-jump task on anterior cruciate ligament strain

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.12.024

关键词

anterior cruciate; ligament; gender; knee joint loading; strain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies have shown that women are at higher risk of sustaining non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in specific sports. Recent gait studies of athletic tasks have documented that gender differences in knee movement, muscle activation, and external loading patterns exist. The objective of this study was to determine in a knee cadaver model if application of female-specific loading and movement patterns characterised in vivo for a stop-jump task cause higher ACL strains than mate patterns. Methods: Gender-specific loading patterns of the landing phase of the vertical stop-jump task were applied to seven cadaver knees using published kinetic/kinematic results for recreational athletes. Loads applied consecutively included: tibial, compression, quadriceps, hamstrings, external posterior tibial shear, and tibial. torque. Knee flexion was fixed based on the kinematic data. Strain of the ACL was monitored by means of a differential variable reluctance transducer installed on the anteriormedial bundle of the ACL. Findings: The ACL strain was significantly increased (P < 0.05) for the female loading pattern relative to the mate loading pattern after the posterior tibial shear force was applied, and showed a similar trend (P = 0.1) to be increased after the final tibial torque was applied. Interpretation: This study suggests that female motor control strategies used during the stop-jump task may place higher strains on the ACL than mate strategies, thus putting females at greater risk of ACL injury. We believe these results suggest the potential effectiveness of using training programs to modify motor control strategies and thus modify the risk of injury. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据