Risk Factors Associated with Noncontact Injuries of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) in male athletes

8/14/2019 Risk Factors Associated with Noncontact Injuries of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) in male athletes

1/23

Risk FactorsAssociated with NoncontactInjuries of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

(ACL) in male athletes

By:

D. Amraee: MS of Sport Injuries

Dr. Alizadeh. M.H, PhD

Dr. Razi . M, MDDr .Yazdi. H.R, MD

Dr. Minoonejhad. H, PhDTehran University of Medical Sciences &University of Tehran
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/Mary%20Pierce%20tored%20her%20ACL2.wmvhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/Mary%20Pierce%20tored%20her%20ACL2.wmv


2/23

Objective The purpose of the present study was to compare the risk factors related to

Noncontact ACL injury:

1. navicular drop

2. Q angle

3. internal tibial torsion4. knee hyper extension

5. hip internal and external rotation ROM

6. hip anteversion ROM7. ankle dorsiflexion ROM

8 November 2013 2


3/23

Statistical Populations

All the athletes had a complete tear of ACL

(grade III)

male athletes

Noncontact ACL Injuries

with minimum of 3 years experience

Athletes is injured during Competition orPractice Subjects who have suffered over the past six months

were excluded

8 November 2013 3


4/23

Statistical Samples

106 male athletes

Group1: 53subjects had a complete ACL

injury.

Group2: 53subjects had no history of ACL

injury that selected as controls.

8 November 2013 4


5/23

Measurement of Navicular drop

(Brody Test)Brody DM (1982)

Sitting position

Standing position

Measurement of ankle

dorsiflexion ROM

8 November 2013 5

Venturini C, et al. 2006


6/23

6

Measurement of Q angleMeasurement of knee

hyperextension

8 November 2013

Livingston LA, et al. 1997Nguyen AD, et al 2007


7/23

7

Measurement of hip Internal

rotation

Measurement of hip

external rotation

8 November 2013

Norkin CC, White DJ (2003)

Measurement of joint motion. USA.Philadelphia 200-210


8/23

8

Measurement of tibial torsion

(Thigh foot angle)

Measurement of hip

anteversion (Craig's Test)

8 November 2013

Ruwe PA, et al. 1992Staheli LT (1977)


9/23

9

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed by SPSS softwareversion 16.

The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was

used to distinguish the normal distribution ofdata.

The Mann- Whitney U test &T-test was used to

compare variables between the two groups. The level of significance was established at (P


10/23

10

Intraclass correlation coefficients

Variables ICC SEM

Navicular drop (mm) ./92 ./20

Tibial torsion () ./99 ./09

Q angle () ./94 ./35

Knee hyperextention() ./86 ./10

Hip anteversion () ./95 ./37

Hip internal rotation () ./97 ./61

Hip external rotation () ./92 ./20

Dorsiflexion ROM () ./99 ./09

8 November 2013


11/23

11

Characteristics of the Study Sample

Characteristics Injured group

(M SD)

uninjured group

(M SD)

Age(yr) 24/984/83 24/624/46

Weight(kg) 79/0312/83 77/899/86

Height(cm) 178/096/74 178/455/54

Sport history(yr) 3/062/61 3/642/28

Session(day per week) 3/851/15 3/911/13

8 November 2013

The average age of injured athletes 24/98 4/83 years


12/23

8 November 2013 12

Discussion


13/23


14/23

14

2) Q angle: The difference was not significant(-)

Shambaugh et al. (1991) , Puckree et al. (2007)(+)

A possible reason for above studies lower limb injuries,

whereas the present study ACLinjuries.

more research from different genders in Iran.

Group Mean SD t P value Result

Injured 14.36 2.59

0.91 0.365 -uninjured 13.96 1.58


15/23

15

3) Hip anteversion: The difference was significant(+)

Gulan G, et al.(2000) +

Quatman CE, et al.(2009) + valgus collapse


Injured 12.37 2.73

3.62 0.001 +uninjured 10.90 1.10


16/23

16

4) Hip external rotation: The difference was not significant(-)

Daneshmandi and Sakis (2009) -

Little information is available on this topic


Injured 32.81 5.87

0.876 0.383

-uninjured 33.64 3.63


17/23

17

5) Internal Tibia torsion: The difference was significant(+)

Daneshmandi et al. (2009)+

loudon JK, et al (1996)& Beckett ME, et al. (1992)+

Group Mean SD P value Result

Injured11.74 7.93

0.004 +uninjured14.04 9.80


18/23

18

6) Knee hyper extension: The difference was not significant(-)

noncontact ACL injuries may beproduced by knee

hyperextension or loaded internal tibial rotation, abnormal postures

that confirm these positions to occur may also increase stress to the

ACL and made of lead to injury. (loudon JK, et al (1996)


Injured1.04 0.78

0.842 -uninjured 1.00 0.70


19/23

19

7) Hip Internal rotation: The difference was significant(+)

The reduce of hip internal rotation probably due to

increased hip anteversion. hip adduction & knee valgus

seemed to be the main mechanism for ACL injuries.

( Hideyuki koga, et al. 2010)There was a strong association between decreased hip range of

motion and ACL ruptures in soccer players, not only but mainly

because of internal rotation lessening (Gomes JL 2008)


Injured 35.11 4.510.002 +

uninjured 37.29 4.49


20/23

20

8) Dorsiflexion ROM: The difference was significant(+)

ankle dorsiflexion ROM during landing knee flexion

ROM & greater ground reaction forces, & kneevalgus displacement. ACL injury. Chun-Man Fong , et al.(2011)


Injured8.95 1.67

0.006 +uninjured 9.69 1.44


21/23

Conclusion

According to the finding of the current research:

decreased ROM :

ankle dorsiflexion

hip internal rotation

internal tibial torsion

increased ROM:

navicular drop

hip anteversion

8 November 2013 21

as risk factors to noncontact ACL injury


22/23


23/23

Your welcome

8 November 2013 23

Documents

Risk Factors Associated with Noncontact Injuries of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) in male athletes