Back to all available

The effect of injury prevention methods on the biomechanical metrics related to anterior cruciate ligament injuries in males: a systematic review and meta-analysis

sports-injury
sports-medicine

Abstract

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury prevention programs (IPPs) are widely acknowledged for their potential to lower injury risk by targeting biomechanical factors underlying injury mechanisms. However, the existing literature has predominantly focused on female populations, resulting in a paucity of comprehensive evidence on males.

Purpose: Our study endeavors to synthesize current evidence regarding the effects of IPPs on landing biomechanics linked to ACL injury risk in male populations.

Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods: Four electronic scientific databases were systematically retrieved for studies examining the efficacy of ACL IPPs. Studies were encompassed if they unraveled the effects of IPPs on biomechanical risk factors correlating with ACL injuries among healthy adult males.

Results: 11 studies involving 240 male participants met the eligibility criteria. All studies assessed young recreational athletes, with most outcomes related to biomechanical variables linked to ACL injury risk. Among kinematic parameters, knee flexion angle significantly increased ( p < 0.0001), while knee valgus angle significantly decreased ( p = 0.013) following IPP implementation. Regarding kinetic variables, vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) was significantly reduced, whereas other kinetic measures did not demonstrate statistically significant changes.

Conclusion: In healthy adult males, ACL IPPs significantly enhance landing biomechanics by increasing knee flexion angle, decreasing knee valgus angle, and reducing vertical ground reaction forces (vGRFs). These adaptations may help lower the ACL injury risk.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].