Hop Distance Symmetry Moderately Reflects Knee Biomechanics Symmetry During Landing But Not For Controlled Propulsions.

Background: Landing with poor knee sagittal plane biomechanics has been identified as a risk factor for Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury. However, it is unclear if the horizontal hop test battery reflects knee function and biomechanics.
Hypothesis/purpose: To investigate the correlation between clinical limb symmetry index (LSI) and landing and propulsion knee biomechanics during the hop test battery using markerless motion capture.
Study Design: Cross-sectional biomechanics laboratory study.
Methods: Forty-two participants with and without knee surgery (age 28.0 ± 8.0 years) performed the hop test battery which consisted of a single hop for distance, crossover hop, triple hop, and 6-m timed hop in the order listed. Eight high speed cameras were used to collect simultaneous 3D motion data and Theia 3D (Theia Markerless Inc.) was used to generate 3D body model files. Lower limb joint kinematics were calculated in Visual3D. Correlation (Spearman's ρ) was computed between clinical LSI and symmetry in peak and initial contact (IC) knee flexion angle during propulsion and landing phases of each movement.
Results: In the single hop, clinical LSI showed positive correlation with kinematic LSI at peak landing (ρ= 0.39, p=0.011), but no correlation at peak propulsion (ρ= -0.03, p=0.851). In the crossover hop, non-significant correlations were found in both propulsion and landing. In the triple hop, positive correlation was found at peak propulsion (ρ= 0.38, p=0.027), peak landing (ρ= 0.48 - 0.66, p<0.001), and last landing IC (ρ= 0.45, p=0.009). In the timed hop, peak propulsion showed positive correlation (ρ= 0.51, p=0.003).
Conclusions: Single hop and triple hop distance symmetry reflected landing biomechanical symmetry better than propulsion symmetry. Poor scores on the hop test battery reflect asymmetrical knee landing biomechanics, emphasizing the importance of continuing to use the hop test battery as part of clinical decision making.
Level of Evidence: 3b.
Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
(© The Author(s).)