Abstract
Objectives This study was aimed to reveal the differences in knee valgus angle at landing as a static indicator and wobbling movement of the knee during landing as a dynamic indicator between ACL injury and uninjured athletes.
Methods This study was case-control study. There were 6 female basketball players with ACL injuries and 38 female basketball players without them, whose knee kinematics were measured using 2-dimensional video cameras during single-leg jump landings. The task was performed from 30cm-box. Knee kinematics and wobbling of the knee which was calculated by relative frontal motion to the flexion movement were compared between knees with ACL-injured and uninjured.
Results Six athletes who had confirmed ACL injuries, did not demonstrate significantly different knee valgus angle at initial contact and maximum knee flexion during landing, compared to 38 uninjured athletes. The knee valgus angles at initial contact for injured and uninjured athletes were 12.3° and 14.8° (p = 0.15), respectively. Five of six anterior cruciate ligament injured knees presented knee wobbling during landing. Relative frontal motion at 18° knee flexion was significantly greater in athletes with ACL-injured (p = 0.02).
Conclusions 84% of ACL injury presented with the knee wobbling and the frontal knee motion was greater with low knee flexion during knee wobbling, while the knee valgus angle was not significantly different. This study suggests that knee wobbling may be a biomechanical and dynamic risk factor for ACL injury in female basketball players.
Summary Box What is already known on this topic – summarise the state of scientific knowledge on this subject before you did your study and why this study needed to be done
Biomechanical risk factor for ACL injury was revealed as dynamic knee valgus and low knee flexion which increases ACL strain. However, previous study focused only static index which are knee angle at initial contact or maximum. This study aimed to establish new dynamic index for screening of ACL injury.
What this study adds – summarise what we now know as a result of this study that we did not know before
Although a previous study identified knee valgus angle and knee valgus moment as predictors of ACL injury, many athletes who demonstrates knee valgus motion does not suffer ACL injury. Cadaveric studies show that ACL strain did not increase when knee valgus occurred with slowed knee flexion movement. We identified an abnormal knee movement involving the dynamic knee valgus with low knee flexion, which we call “knee wobbling.”
How this study might affect research, practice or policy – summarise the implications of this study
ACL injury has been difficult to predict; however, we found that knee wobbling, which is new parameter of abnormal knee movement, including rapid knee valgus/varus, is a potential predictor of ACL injury.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sadamatsu Hospital in Nagasaki, Japan.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
