Skip to main content

Table 2 Studies whereby trunk motion has observed to be contributory to KJLs

From: Biomechanical Determinants of Knee Joint Loads Associated with Increased Anterior Cruciate Ligament Loading During Cutting: A Systematic Review and Technical Framework

Study Participants Cuts used Findings
Chaudhari et al., 2005 [55] 11 healthy subjects (6 F, 5 M) 4 m approach 90° PP cut unconstrained, and three sport-specific conditions including holding a lacrosse stick and football in the cutting side arm, and a football in the non-cutting side arm. Constraining plant side arm with lacrosse stick and football result in ↑KAM of 60% and 29% respectively (p = 0.03)
Dempsey et al., 2007 [48] 15 M healthy team sports athletes PP 45°cut modifying different technical parameters such as foot-plant distance, contralateral trunk lean and foot progression angle ↑ Foot-plant distance and contralateral trunk lean resulted in ↑ KAMs (p < 0.0001 and 0.030 respectively)
Dempsey et al., 2009 [31] 12 M healthy team sports athletes PP and UP 45° cuts 6 weeks technique modification significantly ↓ in FP distance (p = 0.039 PP (ES = 0.55), UP (ES = 0.5)) and torso LF (p = .005 PP (ES = 1.09), UP (ES = 0.14)) leading to 36% ↓ in KAMs (p = 0.034; PP (ES = 0.58), UP (ES = 0.78)).
Both postural changes were correlated with the change in KAM: FP distance ( r = -0.468, p = 0.025), LTF (r = − 0.377, p = 0.135)
Jamison et al., 2012 [35] 29 (15 M, 14 F) healthy subjects Three steps at a self-selected pace UP 45° cut Torso angle (outside tilt = (p = 0.02)) and torso GRF shoulder angle (p = 0.036) ↑ KAMs.
Jamison et al., 2012 [40] 36 M high school American footballers Three steps at a self-selected pace UP 45° cut 6-week TS programme elicited no reduction in KAMs (p = 0.116)
Jamison et al., 2013 [50] 46 (23 M, 23 F) healthy subjects Three steps at a self-selected pace UP 45° cut All co-contraction indices and avg%diff of IO EO and L5 not significantly associated with KAMs or contralateral trunk lean p = 0.741, 0.782 and 0.233 for KAMs and p = 0.419, 0.947 and 0.439 for LTF.
Jones et al., 2015 [36] 26 elite and sub-elite F footballers 10 m approach 3 m exit of PP 90° cut LTF sig correlated to KAM (R = − .42, R2 = 18; p = 0.05)
Kristianslund et al., 2014 [61] 123 F handball players Handball-specific protocol—self-selected cut when receiving a ball and cutting around a static defender (mean cutting angle = 67°) 1 SD (8.6°) ↑ in LTF results in 7% ↑ KAM
LTF significant predictor of pKAM (ß = 0.0090, p < 0.001) and moment arm of GRF at time of pKAM (ß = 0.00032; p < 0.001)
Mornieux et al., 201 [52] 13 M amateur footballers 4 m approach PP and UP 45 cuts 850-, 600- and 500-ms delays in stimulus presentation for UP cuts LTF and KAM ↑ with reduced preparation time PP and 800 ms vs 500 ms (p = 0.05)
LTF sig correlated with KAM (r = 0.41; p = 0.009)
Weir et al., 2019 [54] 30 F hockey players (15 junior, 15 elite) UP 45° cutting task Linear regression revealed that LTF and TF sig predictors of KAM (p = 0.05)
Weltin et al., 2017 [41] 28 F elite and sub-elite team sports athletes UP 45° cutting task PPT ↓CTR (p = 0.008, η2 = 0.277), step width (p = 0.029, η2 = 0.199) and ↑ pelvic axial rotation (p = 0.049, η2 = 0.165). No ↓ in KAMs (p = 0.605)
  1. Avg%diff average percentage difference, CTR contralateral trunk rotation, TF trunk flexion, TS trunk stabilisation, IO internal obliques, EO external obliques, KAM knee abduction moment, L5 L5 extensors, LTF lateral trunk flexion, FP foot plant, ms milliseconds, PPT perturbed plyometric training, η2 partial eta squared, PP pre-planned, UP unplanned, SD standard deviation, M male, F female, ROM range of motion, ß beta value, ↑ increased, ↓ decreased, ES effect size