Skip to main content

Table 7 Studies identifying GRFs, penultimate foot contact and braking strategy as contributory to 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
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)
  1. FF forefoot, RF rearfoot, pKFM peak knee flexor moment, KAM peak knee abduction moment, vGRF vertical ground reaction force, pGRF posterior ground reaction force, hGRF horizontal ground reaction force, mGRF medial ground reaction force, LLPD lateral leg-plant distance, lGRF lateral ground reaction force, pHBFR peak horizontal braking force ratio, PEN penultimate, IC initial contact, PP pre-planned, UP unplanned, M male, F female, ↑ increased, ↓ decreased, R2 coefficient of determination, sig significantly, m s−1 metres per second