Table 6 Studies identifying foot and ankle positioning as contributory to KJLs

Cortes et al., 2012 [47]

20 F soccer Division 1 athletes

UP 45° task

RF landing = ↓ KADM in 45° cut (F _(1,18) = 11.882; p = 0.003)

David et al., 2017 [56]

50 participants (23 M, 27 F)

90° PP cutting task with 3 m approach

Habitual RF landing exhibited ↑ pKAM 11–19% of stance phase (p = 0.008)

Donnelly et al., 2017 [49]

19 elite F hockey players

45° UP cutting task

Habitual RF possess sig ↑ pKAM to FF (1.4 ± 0.5 Nm kg⁻¹ vs. 0.5 ± 0.4 Nm kg⁻¹; p = 0.001)

Habitual FF = sig ↓ power absorption at knee (− 32.0 ± 7.5 W kg⁻¹ vs −68.8 ± 18.5 W kg⁻¹; p = < 0.001) and sig ↑ at ankle (− 15.3 ± 4.4 vs. − 5.8 ± 1.8 W kg⁻¹; p = < 0.001)

Jones et al., 2015 [36]

26 elite and sub-elite F soccer players

10 m approach 3 m exit of PP 90° cut

“High-risk” group (exhibiting KAMs + 0.5 SD above the mean) had a substantially greater inward foot rotation compared to the low-risk cohort (0.5 SD below the mean) (14.7 ± 0.9° vs. 5.5 ± 1.2° respectively).

Kristianslund et al., 2014 [61]

123 F handball players

Handball-specific protocol—self-selected PP cut when receiving a ball and cutting around a static defender mean 67°

1SD (16°) increase in plantarflexion/toe landing corresponds to approximately a 13% decrease in KAM

Sigward et al., 2007 [53]

61 F soccer players

45° PP cutting task

↑ KAM group exhibit sig ↑ foot progression angle (p = 0.04, ES = 0.55).

Foot progression angle sig correlated to pKAM (R = 0.39, p = < 0.001)