ArticleScientific reports2019
Force, impulse and energy during falling with and without knee protection: an in-vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison between natural rubber knee support and sponge knee support on the protection of knee joint: A crossover randomized controlled study among patients with bleeding disorders.Health science reports · 2024Article
- The Role of Fall Biomechanics in the Cause and Prevention of Bone Fractures in Older Adults.Current osteoporosis reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mechanics of protective knee padding mitigating injury from a high-force fall have not been investigated in real-life scenarios to date. This study compares the effect of wearing knee pads to unprotected impact on a hard surface. We hypothesized that knee pads reduce the force and energy transmitted to the bony structures of the knee cap compared with unprotected conditions. Eight human knee cadaver specimens were embedded and fixed with a flexion angle of 100 degrees in a custom-made drop testing device (75 kg including the knee). The usage of a knee pad led to an average peak force attenuation on impact of 15% (no pad: 5932 N SD: 2472 N; pad: 4210 N SD: 2199 N; p < 0.001). Contact time on the plate was higher with a knee pad (no pad: 0.015 s SD: 0.009 s; pad: 0.028 s SD: 0.014 s; p < 0.001). Therefore, the observed impulse was also increased (no pad: 62.2 Ns SD: 17.8 Ns; pad: 74.6 Ns SD: 18.6 Ns; p < 0.001). This effect diminished as drop height was increased. Energy dissipation, defined as the difference between kinetic energy pre-impact and peak potential energy post-impact, was higher without a knee pad (no pad: 10.5 J SD: 6.2 J; pad: 4.2 J SD: 5.0 J; p < 0.001). The results from this study illustrate the magnitude of influence that knee pads have on peak forces, transmitted impulse, and energy transfer from a high-force impact in real-life scenarios. Contrary to expectations, the knee pad did not act as a mechanical damper. The mechanical behavior more closely resembled a spring that temporarily stores energy and consequentially reduces peak forces upon impact. Based on this study, future developments in padding might benefit from focusing on the aspect of energy storage and temporarily delayed energy dissipation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.