Table 7 Studies identifying GRFs, penultimate foot contact and braking strategy as contributory to KJLS
Study | Participants | Cuts used | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
David et al., 2018 [57] | 67 healthy participants (35 M, 32 F) | 90° PP cutting manoeuvre | EARLY pre-orientation = ↓ PEN step width and ↑ pelvis rotation leading to FF strike pattern and sig ↑ load absorbed through the ankle as opposed to knee (43.8% vs 32.5% and 35% vs 40% respectively) |
Jones et al., 2015 [36] | 26 elite and sub-elite F soccer players | 10 m approach 3 m exit of PP 90° cut | pHBFR exhibits no relationship to KAM (R = .03, R2 = < 1%) LLPD = moderately correlated with KAM (R = .59) mGRF sig correlated to LLPD (R = .45, p = 0.05; R2 = 20%) “High risk” (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). |
Jones et al., 2016 [58] | 22 elite F soccer players | PP 10 m approach 90° cutting task with 5 m exit | Average hGRF during PEN sig related to KAM in cutting (R = − 0.569, R2 = 32%, P = 0.006) |
McBurnie et al., 2019 [60] | 34 elite and sub-elite M soccer players | PP 70–90° cutting task with a 10-m approach and 3 m exit | No sig relationships observed between any PEN hGRF variables. Moderate effect size (d = 0.9, p = 0.05) for average hGRF in PEN between fast and slow performers Horizontal approach velocity sig moderately correlated to KAM (R = 0.414, p = 0.015) |
Sigward et al., 2007 [53] | 61 F soccer players | 45° PP cutting task | Sig ↑ lGRF in “excessive valgus” group (1.5 ± 0.9 vs 0.4 ± 0.5 N/Kg BW; p = < 0.001) |
Sigward et al., 2015 [37] | 45 (20 F, 25 M) healthy soccer players | 45 and 110° UP cutting tasks with 7 m approach | vGRF = R2 = 37%, R = 0.607, p = < 0.001 of KAMs in 45° cuts pGRF = R2 = 19%, R = 0.460, p = 0.001 of KAMs in 110° cuts |
Vanrenterghem et al., 2012 [38] | 14 healthy F athletes | 45° PP cutting task at incrementally increasing velocities 2 m s−1 3 m s−1 4 m s−1 5 m s−1 | Increased approach velocity = sig ↑ KAMs (p = 0.05), sig ↑ pGRFs (p = 0.0005), sig ↑ mGRFs (p = 0.0005) |