Kinetic and kinematic differences between first and second landings of a drop vertical jump task: Implications for injury risk assessments?

Nathaniel A. Bates, Kevin R. Ford, Gregory D. Myer, Timothy Hewett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Though the first landing of drop vertical jump task is commonly used to assess biomechanical performance measures that are associatedwith anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in athletes, the implications of the second landing in this task have largely been ignored.We examined the first and second landings of a drop vertical jump for differences in kinetic and kinematic behaviors at the hip and knee. Methods: A cohort of 239 adolescent female basketball athletes (age = 13.6 (1.6) years) completed drop vertical jump tasks froman initial height of 31 cm. A three dimensional motion capture systemrecorded positional data while dual force platforms recorded ground reaction forces for each trial. Findings: The first landing demonstrated greater hip adduction angle, knee abduction angle, and knee abduction moment than the second landing (P-values b 0.028). The second landing demonstrated smaller flexion angles and moments at the hip and knee than the first landing (P-values b 0.035). The second landing also demonstrated greater side-to-side asymmetry in hip and knee kinematics and kinetics for both the frontal and sagittal planes (P-values b 0.044). Interpretation: The results have important implications for the future use of the drop vertical jump as an assessment tool for anterior cruciate ligament injury risk behaviors in adolescent female athletes. The second landingmay be a more rigorous task and provides a superior tool to evaluate sagittal plane risk factors than the first landing, which may be better suited to evaluate frontal plane risk factors.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)459-466
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Biomechanics
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Biomechanical Phenomena
Knee
Hip
Athletes
Wounds and Injuries
Basketball
Risk-Taking
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

Keywords

  • ACL injury risk
  • Drop vertical jump
  • Kinematics
  • Kinetics
  • Knee biomechanics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Biophysics
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Kinetic and kinematic differences between first and second landings of a drop vertical jump task : Implications for injury risk assessments? / Bates, Nathaniel A.; Ford, Kevin R.; Myer, Gregory D.; Hewett, Timothy.

In: Clinical Biomechanics, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2013, p. 459-466.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9de8c5906a194e608dcea7a4a447078a,
title = "Kinetic and kinematic differences between first and second landings of a drop vertical jump task: Implications for injury risk assessments?",
abstract = "Background: Though the first landing of drop vertical jump task is commonly used to assess biomechanical performance measures that are associatedwith anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in athletes, the implications of the second landing in this task have largely been ignored.We examined the first and second landings of a drop vertical jump for differences in kinetic and kinematic behaviors at the hip and knee. Methods: A cohort of 239 adolescent female basketball athletes (age = 13.6 (1.6) years) completed drop vertical jump tasks froman initial height of 31 cm. A three dimensional motion capture systemrecorded positional data while dual force platforms recorded ground reaction forces for each trial. Findings: The first landing demonstrated greater hip adduction angle, knee abduction angle, and knee abduction moment than the second landing (P-values b 0.028). The second landing demonstrated smaller flexion angles and moments at the hip and knee than the first landing (P-values b 0.035). The second landing also demonstrated greater side-to-side asymmetry in hip and knee kinematics and kinetics for both the frontal and sagittal planes (P-values b 0.044). Interpretation: The results have important implications for the future use of the drop vertical jump as an assessment tool for anterior cruciate ligament injury risk behaviors in adolescent female athletes. The second landingmay be a more rigorous task and provides a superior tool to evaluate sagittal plane risk factors than the first landing, which may be better suited to evaluate frontal plane risk factors.",
keywords = "ACL injury risk, Drop vertical jump, Kinematics, Kinetics, Knee biomechanics",
author = "Bates, {Nathaniel A.} and Ford, {Kevin R.} and Myer, {Gregory D.} and Timothy Hewett",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.02.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "459--466",
journal = "Clinical Biomechanics",
issn = "0268-0033",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Kinetic and kinematic differences between first and second landings of a drop vertical jump task

T2 - Implications for injury risk assessments?

AU - Bates, Nathaniel A.

AU - Ford, Kevin R.

AU - Myer, Gregory D.

AU - Hewett, Timothy

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Background: Though the first landing of drop vertical jump task is commonly used to assess biomechanical performance measures that are associatedwith anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in athletes, the implications of the second landing in this task have largely been ignored.We examined the first and second landings of a drop vertical jump for differences in kinetic and kinematic behaviors at the hip and knee. Methods: A cohort of 239 adolescent female basketball athletes (age = 13.6 (1.6) years) completed drop vertical jump tasks froman initial height of 31 cm. A three dimensional motion capture systemrecorded positional data while dual force platforms recorded ground reaction forces for each trial. Findings: The first landing demonstrated greater hip adduction angle, knee abduction angle, and knee abduction moment than the second landing (P-values b 0.028). The second landing demonstrated smaller flexion angles and moments at the hip and knee than the first landing (P-values b 0.035). The second landing also demonstrated greater side-to-side asymmetry in hip and knee kinematics and kinetics for both the frontal and sagittal planes (P-values b 0.044). Interpretation: The results have important implications for the future use of the drop vertical jump as an assessment tool for anterior cruciate ligament injury risk behaviors in adolescent female athletes. The second landingmay be a more rigorous task and provides a superior tool to evaluate sagittal plane risk factors than the first landing, which may be better suited to evaluate frontal plane risk factors.

AB - Background: Though the first landing of drop vertical jump task is commonly used to assess biomechanical performance measures that are associatedwith anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in athletes, the implications of the second landing in this task have largely been ignored.We examined the first and second landings of a drop vertical jump for differences in kinetic and kinematic behaviors at the hip and knee. Methods: A cohort of 239 adolescent female basketball athletes (age = 13.6 (1.6) years) completed drop vertical jump tasks froman initial height of 31 cm. A three dimensional motion capture systemrecorded positional data while dual force platforms recorded ground reaction forces for each trial. Findings: The first landing demonstrated greater hip adduction angle, knee abduction angle, and knee abduction moment than the second landing (P-values b 0.028). The second landing demonstrated smaller flexion angles and moments at the hip and knee than the first landing (P-values b 0.035). The second landing also demonstrated greater side-to-side asymmetry in hip and knee kinematics and kinetics for both the frontal and sagittal planes (P-values b 0.044). Interpretation: The results have important implications for the future use of the drop vertical jump as an assessment tool for anterior cruciate ligament injury risk behaviors in adolescent female athletes. The second landingmay be a more rigorous task and provides a superior tool to evaluate sagittal plane risk factors than the first landing, which may be better suited to evaluate frontal plane risk factors.

KW - ACL injury risk

KW - Drop vertical jump

KW - Kinematics

KW - Kinetics

KW - Knee biomechanics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894480174&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84894480174&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.02.013

DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.02.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 23562293

AN - SCOPUS:84894480174

VL - 28

SP - 459

EP - 466

JO - Clinical Biomechanics

JF - Clinical Biomechanics

SN - 0268-0033

IS - 4

ER -