Landing Biomechanics in Participants With Different Static Lower Extremity Alignment Profiles

Abstract

Context Whereas static lower extremity alignment (LEA) has been identified as a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament injury, little is known about its influence on joint motion and moments commonly associated with anterior cruciate ligament injury. Objective To cluster participants according to combinations of LEA variables and compare these clusters in hip- and knee-joint kinematics and kinetics during the landing phase of a drop-jump task. Design Descriptive laboratory study. Setting Research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants A total of 141 participants (50 men: age = 22.2 ± 2.8 years, height = 177.9 ± 9.3 cm, weight = 80.9 ± 13.3 kg; 91 women: age = 21.2 ± 2.6 years, height = 163.9 ± 6.6 cm, weight = 61.1 ± 8.7 kg). Main Outcome Measure(s) Static LEA included pelvic angle, femoral anteversion, quadriceps angle, tibiofemoral angle, genu recurvatum, tibial torsion, and navicular drop. Cluster analysis grouped participants according to their static LEA profiles, and these groups were compared on their hip- and knee-joint kinematics and external moments during the landing phase of a double-legged drop jump. Results Three distinct clusters (C1–C3) were identified based on their static LEAs. Participants in clusters characterized with static internally rotated hip and valgus knee posture (C1) and externally rotated knee and valgus knee posture (C3) alignments demonstrated greater knee-valgus motion and smaller hip-flexion moments than the cluster with more neutral static alignment (C2). Participants in C1 also experienced greater hip internal-rotation and knee external-rotation moments than those in C2 and C3. Conclusions Static LEA clusters that are positioned anatomically with a more rotated and valgus knee posture experienced greater dynamic valgus along with hip and knee moments during landing. Whereas static LEA contributes to differences in hip and knee rotational moments, sex may influence the differences in frontal-plane knee kinematics and sagittal-plane hip moments.

Prevention of Lower Extremity Injuries in Basketball

“…For example, increased risk of ACL injury can be attributed to biomechanical factors at the knee and hip, 26 deficits in neuromuscular control of the trunk, 75 and anatomic factors at the hip and knee. 53 , 69 “General lower extremity injuries” as a category encapsulates a heterogeneous group of injuries involving multiple joints and multiple mechanisms. Therefore, improving risk factors for 1 pathology may increase the risk for another.…”

Factors affecting knee abduction during weight-bearing activities in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

“…However, in contrast to knee abduction excursion [44,45], peak knee abduction during movements does not seem to be related to static alignment [46,47]. Peak knee abduction may, thus, be a more representative measure of neuromuscular function than for example knee abduction excursion.…”

An evidence-based review of hip-focused neuromuscular exercise interventions to address dynamic lower extremity valgus

“… 82 – 87 Even with the addition of feedback, hip-targeted strengthening alone is not the answer. Dynamic lower extremity valgus and hip muscle inhibition is likely influenced by pain or inflammation, 88 body structure, 89 , 90 fatigue, 91 – 94 pubertal age and maturation, 9 , 31 , 95 fear and other psychosocial variables, 96 – 98 and prior injury. 99 , 100 With the evidence and these variables in mind, a focus on strengthening the hip to control dynamic valgus is a great start for many reasons, including that it helps clinicians move away from a local focus to a more regional focus for pathologies at the knee.…”