Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose To compare the dynamic knee stabilization effects of an adaptive dynamic brace (ADB) with those of a standard passive brace in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)‐deficient men. Methods ACL‐deficient participants were included. The subjects performed 3 single‐leg functional hop tests: drop jump, crossover hop, and 90° rotational hop. Each task was performed once while wearing the ADB and once while wearing a traditional passive brace. Three‐dimensional kinematic data were collected using an 8‐camera optoelectronic motion‐capture system. Repeated‐measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effects of brace condition and time. An a priori power analysis indicated that a minimum of 12 participants were required. Results Twelve ACL‐deficient participants were included (age: 30.2 ± 3.4 years; time since injury: 32 ± 6 months; ACL‐Return to Sport after Injury score: 70 ± 3). No significant differences in knee flexion angles were observed between braces. Knee flexion during landing was significantly lower in the crossover hop compared with the drop jump and rotational hop tasks ( P < .01). During the drop jump task, the ADB significantly reduced knee valgus angles ( P < .01). In the crossover hop task, the ADB significantly reduced both knee valgus and rotational angles ( P < .01). During the rotational hop task, a significant brace‐by‐time interaction was observed for knee valgus ( P < .05) and rotational angles ( P < .05). Conclusions The ADB showed improved dynamic stabilization particularly during high‐risk landing and rotational movement compared with a standard passive brace. Clinical Relevance The ADB may enhance the effectiveness of rehabilitation strategies in ACL‐deficient individuals by improving dynamic knee stability during functional activities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greenberg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: