Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 26:10:899799.
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.899799. eCollection 2022.

Effect of different landing actions on knee joint biomechanics of female college athletes: Based on opensim simulation

Liang Chen  1   2 , Ziang Jiang  2   3 , Chen Yang  1 , Rongshan Cheng  2   3 , Size Zheng  4 , Jingguang Qian  1
Affiliations

Effect of different landing actions on knee joint biomechanics of female college athletes: Based on opensim simulation

Liang Chen et al. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. .

Abstract

Background: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most injurious parts of the knee in the biomechanical environment during landing actions. The purpose of this study was to compare the lower limb differences in movement patterns, muscle forces and ACL forces during drop landing (DL), drop vertical jump (DVJ) and forward vertical jump (FVJ). Methods: Eleven basketball and volleyball female college athletes (Division II and I) were recruited. Landing actions of DL, DVJ and FVJ, kinematics and dynamics data were collected synchronously using a motion capture system. OpenSim was used to calculate the ACL load, knee joint angle and moment, and muscle force. Results: At initial contact, different landing movements influenced knee flexion angle; DL action was significantly less than FVJ action (p = 0.046). Different landing actions affected quadriceps femoris forces; FVJ was significantly greater than DL and DVJ actions (p = 0.002 and p = 0.037, respectively). However, different landing movements had no significant effects on other variables (knee extension moment, knee valgus angle and moment, hamstring and gastrocnemius muscle forces, and ACL forces) (p > 0.050). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the knee valgus, knee valgus moment, and the ACL forces between the three landing actions. However, knee flexion angle, knee extension moments sagittal factors, and quadriceps and gastrocnemius forces are critical factors for ACL injury. The DL action had a significantly smaller knee flexion angle, which may increase the risk of ACL injury, and not recommended to assess the risk of ACL injuries. The FVJ action had a larger knee flexion angle and higher quadriceps femoris forces that were more in line with daily training and competition needs. Therefore, it is recommended to use FVJ action in future studies on risk assessment of ACL injuries and injury prevention in female college athletes.

Keywords: ACL; biomechanics; knee joint; landing test movements; opensim.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Schematic representation of the placements of the marker. (A) The front vision of the marker set; (B) the back vision of the marker set.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
DL, DVJ and FVJ landing test action.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Gait2392 model with ACL model imported in OpenSim.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Schematic of the OpenSim simulation results. Note: Since the main bearing stage of ACL during landing occurs from the IC to MKF, the simulation results of the three landing test actions in this study were taken during the IC-MKF (0%–100%) stage (Panel).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Comparisons between EMG signal and muscle activation estimated from CMC in OpenSim.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Ensemble average and SPM{F} evaluation of right knee variables against percentage time obtained from 11 subjects participating in the three landing actions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agel J., Arendt E. A., Bershadsky B. (2005). Anterior cruciate ligament injury in national collegiate athletic association basketball and soccer: A 13-year review. Am. J. Sports Med. 33 (4), 524–531. 10.1177/0363546504269937 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alentorn-Geli E., Myer G. D., Silvers H. J., Samitier G., Romero D., Lazaro-Haro C., et al. (2009). Prevention of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in soccer players. Part 1: Mechanisms of injury and underlying risk factors. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 17 (7), 705–729. 10.1007/s00167-009-0813-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson F. C., Pandy M. G. (2003). Individual muscle contributions to support in normal walking. Gait posture 17 (2), 159–169. 10.1016/s0966-6362(02)00073-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arms S. W., Pope M. H., Johnson R. J., Fischer R. A., Arvidsson I., Eriksson E. (1984). The biomechanics of anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation and reconstruction. Am. J. Sports Med. 12 (1), 8–18. 10.1177/036354658401200102 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bendjaballah M., Shirazi-Adl A., Zukor D. (1997). Finite element analysis of human knee joint in varus-valgus. Clin. Biomech. 12 (3), 139–148. 10.1016/s0268-0033(97)00072-7 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources