Examines knee loading during curved versus straight deceleration tasks, suggesting risk for ACL injuries.
Background Non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries often occur during rapid decelerations and change-of-direction tasks. Although most high-intensity movements in team sports follow curved trajectories, the biomechanical consequences of curvilinear deceleration remain unclear. This study examined whether curved decelerations increase frontal-plane knee loading associated with ACL injury risk compared with straight-line tasks. Methods Twelve healthy, recreationally active males performed three maximal deceleration tasks in randomized order: (1) straight-line sprint and deceleration (Straight:Straight), (2) curved sprint with straight-line deceleration (Curved:Straight), and (3) curved sprint with curved deceleration (Curved:Curved). Three-dimensional motion capture and embedded force plates were used to compute center of mass (COM) velocity, peak external knee abduction moment (KAM), resultant ground reaction force (GRF), and frontal-plane moment arm. Repeated-measures ANOVAs with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests assessed differences across tasks. Results COM velocity prior to deceleration was similar across tasks ( P = 0.36). Peak KAM was significantly greater during Curved:Curved compared with both Curved:Straight ( P = 0.007, dz = 1.13) and Straight:Straight ( P = 0.036, dz = 0.87). The resultant GRF did not differ significantly between tasks ( P = 0.056), whereas the frontal-plane moment arm was significantly longer in Curved:Curved ( P = 0.004, dz = 1.04). Conclusion Curved deceleration, independent of approach trajectory, increased knee joint loading through longer frontal-plane moment arms despite comparable entry velocities. These findings identify curvilinear deceleration as an underexplored game situation that may contribute to non-contact ACL injury mechanisms and support the inclusion of curved braking drills in athlete screening and injury mitigation programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galmiche et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: