2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.08.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of static and dynamic knee kinematics during squatting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, Pinskerova et al [9] used the centers of the posterior circular portions of the medial and lateral femoral condyles (termed the Flexion Facet Centers) and reported that the medial condyle moved back 8 mm and the lateral 5 mm from 120° to 160°. Variations in the anteroposterior translations could be explained by different anatomic coordinate systems, activity, and foot position [3, 5, 13]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, Pinskerova et al [9] used the centers of the posterior circular portions of the medial and lateral femoral condyles (termed the Flexion Facet Centers) and reported that the medial condyle moved back 8 mm and the lateral 5 mm from 120° to 160°. Variations in the anteroposterior translations could be explained by different anatomic coordinate systems, activity, and foot position [3, 5, 13]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The minimal medial femoral condyle motion during flexion was also reported using sagittal plane fluoroscopy. 26 The observation on lager lateral femoral condyle motions than medial side resulted in a tibial internal rotation with flexion around an axis located at the medial side of the knee that led to the concept of medial-pivoting of the knee during flexion. 18, 24, 25 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as Mu et al 50 report, there is no significant difference between kinematic patterns measured by static or dynamic simulation. The amount of IE rotation achieved for high flexion activities is in agreement with what has been reported for 0°-120°of flexion of the healthy normal knee joints by Mu et al 50 and Qi et al 51 Analysis of the effect of the shear forces in AP and ML directions on the behavior of the implant under high flexion knee bend activity shows that even when the shear forces are ignored in the simulation, the general pattern of motion of the implant is in agreement with the desired target kinematics. Only an average deviation of 0.32°6 0.34°and 0.3 6 0.3 mm is observed, respectively, for IE rotation angle of the tibia and the AP distance of the lateral center to the tibia posterior cortex.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%