Skip to main content

Table 3 Studies identifying hip kinematics and kinetics in generating large 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
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 < 0.001 and 0.030 respectively)
Dempsey et al., 2009 [31] 12 M healthy team sports athletes PP and UP 45° cuts 6-week technique modification significantly ↓ in FP distance (p = .039) and torso LF (p = .005) leading to 36% ↓ in KAMs (p = 0.034)
Fedie et al., 2010 [59] 38 (19 M, 19 F) NCAA Div. 3 basketball players Basketball-specific cutting protocol 35°–60°. PP cut or UP cut consisting of possibly receiving a basketball pass ↑Hip ABD (p = 0.02) in UP conditions alongside ↑ KADM in UP conditions (p = 0.032)
Havens et al., 2015 [34] 25 (12 F, 13 M) healthy DIv1-3 soccer players 45° and 90° PP cuts with 7.5 m approach and 7.5 m exit ↓ Hip INT ROT = ↑ KAMs (R2 = 0.25; p = 0.005) in 90° cuts
Jones et al., 2015 [36] 26 elite and sub-elite F footballers 10 m approach 3 m exit of 90° cut ↑ LLPD sig predictor of KAM (R = .45, p = 0.05; R2 = 20%)
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 67° Hip ABD sig predictor of pKAM (ß = 0.0201; p < 0.001) and moment arm of GRF at pKAM (0.00068; p = <0.001)
Hip INT ROT sig predictor of pKAM (ß = 0.0111; p < 0.001)
McBurnie et al., 2019 [60] 34 elite and sub-elite M soccer players 70–90° PP cutting task with a 10 m approach and 3 m exit PHFM sig predictor of KAM (R = − .624; p = < 0.001) and kIRM (ρ = 0.517; p = 0.002)
McLean et al., 2005 [51] 20 NCAA athletes (10 M, 10 F) 45° PP cutting task ↑Hip INT ROT predictive of KAM (R2 = 0.56—males, R2 = 0.60—females; p = 0.05)
↑Hip FLX predictive of KAM (R2 = 0.16—males, R2 = 0.19—female; p = 0.05)
Sigward et al., 2007 [53] 61 F soccer players 45° PP cutting task High KAM group exhibited:
↑Hip ABD (p = 0.002, ES 0.79)
↑Hip INT ROT (p = 0.008, ES 0.71)
Sigward et al., 2015 [37] 45 (20 F, 25 M) healthy soccer players 45 and 110° UP cutting tasks with 7 m approach vGRF, lGRF, Hip INT ROT and KAA = R2 62.9% in 45° cuts (F4,40 = 19.654 , p < 0.001) in KAMS
pGRF, Hip INT ROT and KAA = R2 = 41.5(F3,41 = 11.413, p < 0.001) in KAMs
Weir et al., 2019 [54] 30 F hockey players (15 junior, 15 elite) UP 45° cutting task Peak Hip ABD angle = sig independent predictor of KAMs (ß = 0.011, p = 0.046)
Peak Hip ABD = sig independent predictor of kIRMs (ß = − 0.007; p = 0.002)
  1. INT ROT internal rotation, FLX flexion, PHFM peak hip flexor moment, Hip ABD hip abduction, KAA knee abduction angle, KAM knee abduction moment, pKAM peak knee abduction moment, KADM internal knee adduction moment, kIRM knee internal rotation moment, vGRF vertical ground reaction force, pGRF posterior ground reaction force, lGRF lateral ground reaction force, mlGRF medio-lateral ground reaction force, LLPD lateral leg-plant distance, PP pre-planned, UP unplanned, SD standard deviation, M male, F female, ß beta value, ↑ increased, ↓ decreased, R2 coefficient of determination