Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Several risk factors have been identified for knee anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Yet, their contributions still raise questions when attempting to identify at-risk populations with whom they are associated. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify combinations of characteristics in athlete populations at risk of non-contact ACL injuries using principal component analysis. Methods: From a cohort of 161 sports practitioners aged 28.6 ± 8 years who had presented a non-contact ACL injury, five risk factors were assessed on the healthy contralateral knee: passive knee alignment (valgus and recurvatum), knee laxity (KT-1000 test), and isokinetic hamstring strength at 60°/s and at 180°/s. Female sex, age and BMI were considered as individual risk factors. The profile of the population at risk of non-contact ACL injury was determined using a principal component analysis. Results: A total of 31% of the patients were females, 34% were under 24 years old, and 63% had a BMI > 22.5 Kg/m2. The knee axis was valgus in 37% and recurvatum in 80%. An anterior–posterior laxity ≥ 4 mm was present in 38% of the cases. Weakness of the hamstring was present at 60°/s (<1.3 Nm/kg) and 180°/s (<1.0 Nm/kg) in 49% and 54% of the cases, respectively. The principal component analysis explained only 61% of the variance in non-contact ACL injury. Three profiles of the population could be identified: “female with dynamical factors” (knee valgus and weakness of the hamstring strength), “male with physiological factors” (old age and high BMI), and “knee morphology” (valgus, recurvatum and laxity). Conclusions: In the absence of a comparison with a non-injured population, combinations of the potential factors associated with non-contact ACL injuries have been identified, and three independent populations could be at risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dauty et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: