Hip biomechanics differ in responders and non-responders to an ACL injury prevention program.

PURPOSE: To investigate the differences in demographic, anthropometric, biomechanical, and/or performance variables between those that do (responders) and do not (non-responders) exhibit reductions in knee abduction moments after an anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention program (ACL-IPP). METHODS: Forty-three adolescent female athletes completed biomechanical (3D motion analysis of a drop vertical jump) and performance testing before and after randomization into a 6-week ACL-IPP. Participants were classified into responders and non-responders based on their level of reduction of knee abduction moment from pre- to post-test. RESULTS: Compared to non-responders, responders exhibited increased hip adduction excursion at baseline (p = 0.02) and trended towards attending more training sessions (p = 0.07) and participating in soccer and not basketball (p = 0.07). Responders also showed greater improvements in hip flexion angles (p = 0.02) and moments (p < 0.001), and knee abduction angles (p < 0.001) and excursions (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in age or experience with prior injury prevention programs (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: After an ACL-IPP, athletes that exhibit the greatest reduction in knee abduction moments exhibit greater hip adduction excursion at baseline and show corresponding improvements in hip flexion and knee abduction kinematics and hip flexion moments. These results can help clinicians prospectively identify individuals that may not respond to an ACL-IPP and target individualized training for those at risk of injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02530333.

A 6-week warm-up injury prevention programme results in minimal biomechanical changes during jump landings: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To examine the extent to which an ACL injury prevention programme modifies lower extremity biomechanics during single- and double-leg landing tasks in both the sagittal and frontal plane. It was hypothesized that the training programme would elicit improvements in lower extremity biomechanics, but that these improvements would be greater during a double-leg sagittal plane landing task than tasks performed on a single leg or in the frontal plane. METHODS: Ninety-seven competitive multi-directional sport athletes that competed at the middle- or high-school level were cluster randomized into intervention (n = 48, age = 15.4 ± 1.0 years, height = 1.7 ± 0.07 m, mass = 59.9 ± 11.0 kg) and control (n = 49, age = 15.7 ± 1.6 years, height = 1.7 ± 0.06 m, mass = 60.4 ± 7.7 kg) groups. The intervention group participated in an established 6-week warm-up-based ACL injury prevention programme. Three-dimensional biomechanical analyses of a double- (SAG-DL) and single-leg (SAG-SL) sagittal, and double- (FRONT-DL) and single-leg (FRONT-SL) frontal plane jump landing tasks were tested before and after the intervention. Peak angles, excursions, and external joint moments were analysed for group differences using 2 (group) × 4 (task) repeated measures MANOVA models of delta scores (post-pre-test value) (α < 0.05). RESULTS: Relative to the control group, no significant biomechanical changes were identified in the intervention group for any of the tasks (n.s.). However, a group by task interaction was identified for knee abduction (λ = 0.80, p = 0.02), such that participants in the intervention group showed relative decreases in knee abduction moments during the SAG-DL compared to the SAG-SL (p = 0.005; d = 0.45, CI = 0.04-0.85) task. CONCLUSION: A 6-week warm-up-based ACL injury prevention programme resulted in no significant biomechanical changes during a variety of multi-directional jump landings. Clinically, future prevention programmes should provide a greater training stimulus (intensity, volume), more specificity to tasks associated with the mechanism of ACL injury (single-leg, non-sagittal plane jump landings), and longer programme duration (> 6 weeks) to elicit meaningful biomechanical changes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.