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

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)