HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Osternig, L. R. Articles by Robertson, R. N. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Osternig, L. R. Articles by Robertson, R. N.

Effects of prophylactic knee bracing on lower extremity joint position and muscle activation during running

Department of Exercise and Movement Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon

Rick N. Robertson, PhD

Department of Exercise and Movement Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon

The primary purpose of a prophylactic knee brace is to decrease injury potential without compromising joint function; however, the extent that these devices can alter knee muscle function is not clear. This study investigated effects of nonprescription prophylactic knee bracing on lower extremity joint position and muscle activation during running. Six healthy male col lege-aged recreational runners used a motor-driven treadmill under 6 conditions: fast or slow speeds, with and without wearing a prophylactic knee brace, and with and without wearing a weighted vest. Changes in hip, knee, and ankle joint position and electromyo graphic activity from 9 lower extremity muscles were monitored during the running cycle weightbearing phase. Results revealed significant changes (P < 0.05) in joint position and electromyographic activity for com parisons of slow versus fast, braced versus nonbraced, and weighted versus nonweighted conditions. From 83% to 89% of the braced and nonbraced comparisons generated significant differences in knee joint position while significant hip and ankle joint position changes occurred in 50% to 58% of comparisons. From 67% to 83% of braced and nonbraced comparisons for the 9 muscles produced significant differences in electromyo graphic activity. Findings suggest that neuromuscular control is altered when external prophylactic devices are applied.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Najibi and J. P. Albright The Use of Knee Braces, Part 1: Prophylactic Knee Braces in Contact Sports Am. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2005; 33(4): 602 - 611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Greene, K. R. Hamson, R. C. Bay, and C. D. Bryce Effects of Protective Knee Bracing on Speed and Agility Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2000; 28(4): 453 - 459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Nemeth, M. Lamontagne, Kam San Tho, and E. Eriksson Electromyographic Activity in Expert Downhill Skiers Using Functional Knee Braces After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 1997; 25(5): 635 - 641. [Abstract] [PDF]