Effect of Prophylactic Knee Bracing on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Agonist and Antagonist Muscle Forces During Perturbed Walking. Issue 2 (5th February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Haddara, Raneem; Harandi, Vahidreza Jafari; Lee, Peter Vee Sin
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 9:Issue 2(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-02-05
• Subjects: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) -- perturbations -- musculoskeletal modeling -- injury -- muscle force -- prophylactic knee braces; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967120981641
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries most commonly occur after a perturbation. Prophylactic knee braces (PKBs) are off-the-shelf braces designed to prevent and reduce the severity of knee injuries during sports, yet their effectiveness has been debated. Purpose: To identify differences in ACL agonist and antagonist muscle forces, during braced and unbraced conditions, while walking with the application of unexpected perturbations. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 20 recreational athletes were perturbed during walking at a speed of 1.1 m/s, and motion analysis data were used to create patient-specific musculoskeletal models. Static optimization was performed to calculate the lower-limb muscle forces. Statistical parametric mapping was used to compare muscle forces between the braced and unbraced conditions during the stance phase of the perturbed cycle. Results: The brace reduced muscle forces in the quadriceps (QUADS), gastrocnemius (GAS), and soleus (SOL) but not in the hamstrings. The peak QUADS muscle force was significantly lower with the brace versus without at 49% to 60% of the stance phase (28.9 ± 12.98 vs 14.8 ± 5.06 N/kg, respectively; P < .001) and again at 99% of the stance phase (1.7 ± 0.4 vs 3.6 ± 0.13 N/kg, respectively; P = .049). The SOL muscle force peak was significantly lower with the brace versus without at 25% of the stance phase (1.9 ± 1.7 vs 4.6 ± 3.4 N/kg, respectively; P = .031) and at 39% of the stance phase (1.9 ± 1.4 vs 5.3 ± 5.6 N/kg, respectively; P = .007). In the GAS, there were no significant differences between conditions throughout the whole stance phase except between 97% and 100%, where the braced condition portrayed a smaller peak force (0.23 ± 0.13 vs 1.4 ± 1.1 N/kg for unbraced condition; P = .024). Conclusion: These findings suggested that PKBs that restrict knee hyperextension and knee valgus/varus motion can alter neuromuscular patterns, which result in a reduction of QUADS force. Clinical Relevance: Understanding the way PKBs alter muscle function and knee mechanics can provide invaluable information that will help in making decisions about their use. Further studies should investigate different types of braces and perturbations to evaluate the effectiveness of PKBs.