Table 3 Studies identifying hip kinematics and kinetics in generating large KJLs.

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 (F_4,40 = 19.654 , p < 0.001) in KAMS

pGRF, Hip INT ROT and KAA = R² = 41.5(F_3,41 = 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)