Measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during soft and stiff drop landings using biplane fluoroscopy

Casey A. Myers, Michael R. Torry, Daniel Peterson, Kevin B. Shelburne, J. Erik Giphart, Jacob P. Krong, Savio L Y Woo, J. Richard Steadman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Previous laboratory studies of landing have defined landing techniques in terms of soft or stiff landings according to the degree of maximal knee flexion angle attained during the landing phase and the relative magnitude of the ground-reaction force. Current anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention programs are instructing athletes to land softly to avoid excessive strain on the anterior cruciate ligament. Purpose: This study was undertaken to measure, describe, and compare tibiofemoral rotations and translations of soft and stiff landings in healthy individuals using biplane fluoroscopy. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: The in vivo, lower extremity, 3-dimensional knee kinematics of 16 healthy adults (6 male and 10 female) instructed to land softly and stiffly in different trials were collected in biplane fluoroscopy as they performed the landing from a height of 40 cm. Results: Average and maximum relative anterior tibial translation (average, 2.8 ± 1.2 mm vs 3.0 ± 1.4 mm; maximum, 4.7 ± 1.6 mm vs 4.4 ± 0.8 mm), internal/external rotation (average, 3.7° ± 5.1° vs 2.7° ± 4.3°; maximum, 5.6° ± 5.5° vs 4.9° ± 4.7°), and varus/valgus (average, 0.2° ± 1.2° vs 0.2° ± 1.0°; maximum, 1.7° ± 1.2° vs 1.6° ± 0.9°) were all similar between soft and stiff landings, respectively. The peak vertical ground-reaction force was significantly larger for stiff landings than for soft landings (2.60 6 1.32 body weight vs 1.63 6 0.73; P≤.001). The knee flexion angle total range of motion from the minimum angle at contact to the maximum angle at peak knee flexion was significantly greater for soft landings than for stiff (55.4° ± 8.8°vs 36.8° ± 11.1°; P≤.01). Conclusion: Stiff landings, as defined by significantly lower knee flexion angles and significantly greater peak ground-reaction forces, do not result in larger amounts of anterior tibial translation or knee rotation in either varus/valgus or internal/external rotation in healthy individuals. Clinical Relevance: In healthy knees, the musculature and soft tissues of the knee are able to maintain translations and rotations within a small, safe range during controlled landing tasks of differing demand. The knee kinematics of this healthy population will serve as a comparison for injured knees in future studies. It should be stressed that because the authors did not compare how the loads were distributed over the soft tissues of the knee between the 2 landing styles, the larger ground-reaction forces and more extended knee position observed during stiff landings should still be considered dangerous to the anterior cruciate ligament and other structures of the lower extremities, particularly in competitive settings where movements are often unanticipated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1714-1722
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume39
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Fluoroscopy
Biomechanical Phenomena
Knee
Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Lower Extremity
Articular Range of Motion
Athletes
Body Weight

Keywords

  • Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)
  • Biplane fluoroscopy
  • Kinematics
  • Landing
  • Prevention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during soft and stiff drop landings using biplane fluoroscopy. / Myers, Casey A.; Torry, Michael R.; Peterson, Daniel; Shelburne, Kevin B.; Giphart, J. Erik; Krong, Jacob P.; Woo, Savio L Y; Steadman, J. Richard.

In: American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 39, No. 8, 08.2011, p. 1714-1722.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Myers, CA, Torry, MR, Peterson, D, Shelburne, KB, Giphart, JE, Krong, JP, Woo, SLY & Steadman, JR 2011, 'Measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during soft and stiff drop landings using biplane fluoroscopy', American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1714-1722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511404922
Myers, Casey A. ; Torry, Michael R. ; Peterson, Daniel ; Shelburne, Kevin B. ; Giphart, J. Erik ; Krong, Jacob P. ; Woo, Savio L Y ; Steadman, J. Richard. / Measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during soft and stiff drop landings using biplane fluoroscopy. In: American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 39, No. 8. pp. 1714-1722.
@article{d26b000be1fb4220a9e2d32aa5d7c60d,
title = "Measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during soft and stiff drop landings using biplane fluoroscopy",
abstract = "Background: Previous laboratory studies of landing have defined landing techniques in terms of soft or stiff landings according to the degree of maximal knee flexion angle attained during the landing phase and the relative magnitude of the ground-reaction force. Current anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention programs are instructing athletes to land softly to avoid excessive strain on the anterior cruciate ligament. Purpose: This study was undertaken to measure, describe, and compare tibiofemoral rotations and translations of soft and stiff landings in healthy individuals using biplane fluoroscopy. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: The in vivo, lower extremity, 3-dimensional knee kinematics of 16 healthy adults (6 male and 10 female) instructed to land softly and stiffly in different trials were collected in biplane fluoroscopy as they performed the landing from a height of 40 cm. Results: Average and maximum relative anterior tibial translation (average, 2.8 ± 1.2 mm vs 3.0 ± 1.4 mm; maximum, 4.7 ± 1.6 mm vs 4.4 ± 0.8 mm), internal/external rotation (average, 3.7° ± 5.1° vs 2.7° ± 4.3°; maximum, 5.6° ± 5.5° vs 4.9° ± 4.7°), and varus/valgus (average, 0.2° ± 1.2° vs 0.2° ± 1.0°; maximum, 1.7° ± 1.2° vs 1.6° ± 0.9°) were all similar between soft and stiff landings, respectively. The peak vertical ground-reaction force was significantly larger for stiff landings than for soft landings (2.60 6 1.32 body weight vs 1.63 6 0.73; P≤.001). The knee flexion angle total range of motion from the minimum angle at contact to the maximum angle at peak knee flexion was significantly greater for soft landings than for stiff (55.4° ± 8.8°vs 36.8° ± 11.1°; P≤.01). Conclusion: Stiff landings, as defined by significantly lower knee flexion angles and significantly greater peak ground-reaction forces, do not result in larger amounts of anterior tibial translation or knee rotation in either varus/valgus or internal/external rotation in healthy individuals. Clinical Relevance: In healthy knees, the musculature and soft tissues of the knee are able to maintain translations and rotations within a small, safe range during controlled landing tasks of differing demand. The knee kinematics of this healthy population will serve as a comparison for injured knees in future studies. It should be stressed that because the authors did not compare how the loads were distributed over the soft tissues of the knee between the 2 landing styles, the larger ground-reaction forces and more extended knee position observed during stiff landings should still be considered dangerous to the anterior cruciate ligament and other structures of the lower extremities, particularly in competitive settings where movements are often unanticipated.",
keywords = "Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), Biplane fluoroscopy, Kinematics, Landing, Prevention",
author = "Myers, {Casey A.} and Torry, {Michael R.} and Daniel Peterson and Shelburne, {Kevin B.} and Giphart, {J. Erik} and Krong, {Jacob P.} and Woo, {Savio L Y} and Steadman, {J. Richard}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1177/0363546511404922",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "1714--1722",
journal = "American Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0363-5465",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measurements of tibiofemoral kinematics during soft and stiff drop landings using biplane fluoroscopy

AU - Myers, Casey A.

AU - Torry, Michael R.

AU - Peterson, Daniel

AU - Shelburne, Kevin B.

AU - Giphart, J. Erik

AU - Krong, Jacob P.

AU - Woo, Savio L Y

AU - Steadman, J. Richard

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Background: Previous laboratory studies of landing have defined landing techniques in terms of soft or stiff landings according to the degree of maximal knee flexion angle attained during the landing phase and the relative magnitude of the ground-reaction force. Current anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention programs are instructing athletes to land softly to avoid excessive strain on the anterior cruciate ligament. Purpose: This study was undertaken to measure, describe, and compare tibiofemoral rotations and translations of soft and stiff landings in healthy individuals using biplane fluoroscopy. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: The in vivo, lower extremity, 3-dimensional knee kinematics of 16 healthy adults (6 male and 10 female) instructed to land softly and stiffly in different trials were collected in biplane fluoroscopy as they performed the landing from a height of 40 cm. Results: Average and maximum relative anterior tibial translation (average, 2.8 ± 1.2 mm vs 3.0 ± 1.4 mm; maximum, 4.7 ± 1.6 mm vs 4.4 ± 0.8 mm), internal/external rotation (average, 3.7° ± 5.1° vs 2.7° ± 4.3°; maximum, 5.6° ± 5.5° vs 4.9° ± 4.7°), and varus/valgus (average, 0.2° ± 1.2° vs 0.2° ± 1.0°; maximum, 1.7° ± 1.2° vs 1.6° ± 0.9°) were all similar between soft and stiff landings, respectively. The peak vertical ground-reaction force was significantly larger for stiff landings than for soft landings (2.60 6 1.32 body weight vs 1.63 6 0.73; P≤.001). The knee flexion angle total range of motion from the minimum angle at contact to the maximum angle at peak knee flexion was significantly greater for soft landings than for stiff (55.4° ± 8.8°vs 36.8° ± 11.1°; P≤.01). Conclusion: Stiff landings, as defined by significantly lower knee flexion angles and significantly greater peak ground-reaction forces, do not result in larger amounts of anterior tibial translation or knee rotation in either varus/valgus or internal/external rotation in healthy individuals. Clinical Relevance: In healthy knees, the musculature and soft tissues of the knee are able to maintain translations and rotations within a small, safe range during controlled landing tasks of differing demand. The knee kinematics of this healthy population will serve as a comparison for injured knees in future studies. It should be stressed that because the authors did not compare how the loads were distributed over the soft tissues of the knee between the 2 landing styles, the larger ground-reaction forces and more extended knee position observed during stiff landings should still be considered dangerous to the anterior cruciate ligament and other structures of the lower extremities, particularly in competitive settings where movements are often unanticipated.

AB - Background: Previous laboratory studies of landing have defined landing techniques in terms of soft or stiff landings according to the degree of maximal knee flexion angle attained during the landing phase and the relative magnitude of the ground-reaction force. Current anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention programs are instructing athletes to land softly to avoid excessive strain on the anterior cruciate ligament. Purpose: This study was undertaken to measure, describe, and compare tibiofemoral rotations and translations of soft and stiff landings in healthy individuals using biplane fluoroscopy. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: The in vivo, lower extremity, 3-dimensional knee kinematics of 16 healthy adults (6 male and 10 female) instructed to land softly and stiffly in different trials were collected in biplane fluoroscopy as they performed the landing from a height of 40 cm. Results: Average and maximum relative anterior tibial translation (average, 2.8 ± 1.2 mm vs 3.0 ± 1.4 mm; maximum, 4.7 ± 1.6 mm vs 4.4 ± 0.8 mm), internal/external rotation (average, 3.7° ± 5.1° vs 2.7° ± 4.3°; maximum, 5.6° ± 5.5° vs 4.9° ± 4.7°), and varus/valgus (average, 0.2° ± 1.2° vs 0.2° ± 1.0°; maximum, 1.7° ± 1.2° vs 1.6° ± 0.9°) were all similar between soft and stiff landings, respectively. The peak vertical ground-reaction force was significantly larger for stiff landings than for soft landings (2.60 6 1.32 body weight vs 1.63 6 0.73; P≤.001). The knee flexion angle total range of motion from the minimum angle at contact to the maximum angle at peak knee flexion was significantly greater for soft landings than for stiff (55.4° ± 8.8°vs 36.8° ± 11.1°; P≤.01). Conclusion: Stiff landings, as defined by significantly lower knee flexion angles and significantly greater peak ground-reaction forces, do not result in larger amounts of anterior tibial translation or knee rotation in either varus/valgus or internal/external rotation in healthy individuals. Clinical Relevance: In healthy knees, the musculature and soft tissues of the knee are able to maintain translations and rotations within a small, safe range during controlled landing tasks of differing demand. The knee kinematics of this healthy population will serve as a comparison for injured knees in future studies. It should be stressed that because the authors did not compare how the loads were distributed over the soft tissues of the knee between the 2 landing styles, the larger ground-reaction forces and more extended knee position observed during stiff landings should still be considered dangerous to the anterior cruciate ligament and other structures of the lower extremities, particularly in competitive settings where movements are often unanticipated.

KW - Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)

KW - Biplane fluoroscopy

KW - Kinematics

KW - Landing

KW - Prevention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052552854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052552854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0363546511404922

DO - 10.1177/0363546511404922

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 1714

EP - 1722

JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0363-5465

IS - 8

ER -