Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32984272›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020

Effect of Different Knee Braces in ACL-Deficient Patients.

Anne Focke, Hannah Steingrebe, Felix Möhler, Steffen Ringhof, Stefan Sell, Wolfgang Potthast, Thorsten Stein

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Can a Knee Brace Prevent ACL Reinjury: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne FockeBioMotion Center, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Hannah SteingrebeBioMotion Center, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Felix MöhlerBioMotion Center, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Steffen RinghofBioMotion Center, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Stefan SellSports Orthopedics, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Wolfgang PotthastInstitute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thorsten SteinBioMotion Center, Institute of Sports and Sports Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology · DEGerman Sport University Cologne · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Knee braces are often used during rehabilitation after ACL injury. There are two main concepts, rigid and soft braces, but studies comparing the two show conflicting results. Most studies used movement tasks with low translational or rotational loads and did not provide joint kinematics. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of two different knee braces (rigid vs. soft) on knee joint kinematics in ACL-deficient patients compared to an unbraced control condition using two tasks (walking and 180° cutting) provoking knee movements in the frontal and transverse planes. 17 subjects with ACL-deficient knees participated in this study. 3D knee joint kinematics were recorded. To provoke frontal plane knee joint motion a laterally tilting plate was applied during a walking task. Both braces reduced the maximum valgus angle compared to the unbraced condition, stabilizing the knee joint against excessive valgus motion. Yet, no differences in peak abduction angle between the two braces were found. However, a significant extension deficit was observed with the rigid brace. Moreover, both braces increased transverse plane RoM and peak internal rotation angle, with the effects being significantly larger with the rigid brace. These effects have been associated with decreased knee stability and unphysiological cartilage loading. Therefore, the soft brace seems to be able to limit peak abduction with a lesser impact on physiological gait compared to the rigid brace. The cutting task was selected to provoke transverse plane knee movement and large external knee rotation was expected. However, none of the braces was able to reduce peak external knee rotation. Again, an increase in transverse plane RoM was observed with both braces. Based on these results, no brace outmatched the other in the second task. This study was the first attempt to clarify the effect of brace design for the stabilization of the knee joint during movements with frontal and transverse plane loading. However, to provide physicians and patients with a comprehensive guideline for brace usage, future studies will have to extent these findings to other daily or sportive movement tasks.

Indexed as

3Dcuttingkinematicsknee jointrigidsoftwalking

Identifiers

PMID32984272
PMCPMC7479127
OpenAlexW3080844064

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.