2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.05.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of two methods of determining patellofemoral joint stress during dynamic activities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(25 reference statements)
1
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As this study found no significant differences between limbs or groups for the motion and moments in the transverse and frontal plane, it is likely to have had to influence on the results. Another limitation was that the model may have underestimated the quadriceps muscle force in comparison to models that account for co-contraction of the muscles that surround the knee joint (30). This means the absolute values provided in this paper may have underestimated the PFJ contact forces.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As this study found no significant differences between limbs or groups for the motion and moments in the transverse and frontal plane, it is likely to have had to influence on the results. Another limitation was that the model may have underestimated the quadriceps muscle force in comparison to models that account for co-contraction of the muscles that surround the knee joint (30). This means the absolute values provided in this paper may have underestimated the PFJ contact forces.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Second, the model may have underestimated the quadriceps muscle force in comparison to models that account for co-contraction of the muscles that surround the knee joint. 15 This means that the absolute values provided in this article may have underestimated the PFJ contact forces.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Some studies have attempted to identify overload patterns when there was a change in the distance between the feet, in the frontal plane, and during the squatting movement, but no difference in the patellofemoral ligament overload has been demonstrated with the distance between feet [ 22 , 35 , 50 ]. However, other authors describe that there would be tension overload on the patellofemoral joint when there is a contraction of the quadriceps muscle, regardless of different distances [ 22 , 25 , 26 , 36 ].…”
Section: Discussion Summary Of Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Tibiofemoral joint kinematics. )/“Ground reaction forces (A—Tibiofemoral joint moment, B—Patellofemoral joint reaction force) Patellofemoral joint stress.” Healthy Subject Collegiate women athletes Female: 5 NA Female: 19 ± 1.4 Female: 23.49 Patellofemoral joint stress at knee Flexion: 72.8° = 4319.2 N 91.5° = 5065.7 N 109.7° = 5097.1 N NA [ 36 ] Squatting Running 1—joint kinematics 2—kinetics 3—muscle forces pPFJS indicates the peak patellofemoral joint stress (MPa); PFJS-TI = patellofemoral joint stress time integral (MPa s); (pQF) indicates the peak quadriceps force (pQF) Healthy subject Subject with strength training experience Female: 11 NA Overall: 22 ± 1.8 Overall: 22.47 Squat trials Methods NA ID—Inverse dynamics IDO—Inverse dynamics and static optimisation PPFJS 9.81 (sd 3.36) 17.06 (sd 4.34) PFJS-TI 7.51 (sd 1.98) 12.87 (sd 2.33) pQF 3.81 (sd 0.72) 5.16 (sd 0.82) [ 37 ] “Squat with three displacements. Displacing the Knee anteriorly (AP malaligned), displacing the Knee medially (ML malaligned).…”
Section: Table A1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2,[8][9][10] Musculoskeletal modeling studies have investigated PFJS during various movements to characterize this loading. [11][12][13][14] Patellofemoral (PF) joint stress is determined by dividing the PF joint reaction force by the PF contact area. Knee flexion angle influences PF joint contact area 2,15 while the interaction of quadriceps force and knee flexion influence the magnitude of PF joint reaction force.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%