
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

36793574
67775
10.26603/001c.67775
Original Research
Video Analysis of 26 Cases of Second ACL Injury Events in Collegiate and Professional Athletes
Vargas Manuela 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6872-3422
Chaney Grace K 2 3
Mejía Jaramillo María C. 1 2
Cummings Paige 4
McPherson April 3 5
Bates Nathaniel A. 2 3 6
1 Biomedical Engineering Universidad EIA
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery Mayo Clinic https://ror.org/03zzw1w08
3 Sports Medicine Center Mayo Clinic https://ror.org/03zzw1w08
4 Alix School of Medicine Mayo Clinic https://ror.org/03zzw1w08
5 United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee https://ror.org/000ch3x42
6 Orthopaedics The Ohio State University https://ror.org/00rs6vg23
Corresponding author: Nathaniel Bates Email: batesna@gmail.com Address: Mayo Clinic 200 First St SW Rochester MN, 55902
1 2 2023
2023
18 1 122131
16 2 2022
10 10 2022
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Significant effort has gone into the identification and quantification of the underlying mechanisms of primary ACL injury. Secondary ACL injury is observed in approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of athletes who return to sport following ACL reconstruction. However, little has been done to evaluate the mechanisms and playing circumstances surrounding these repeat injuries.

Hypothesis/Purpose

The purpose of this study was to characterize the mechanisms of non-contact secondary ACL injuries using video analysis. It was hypothesized that in video recordings of secondary ACL injury, athletes would exhibit greater frontal plane hip and knee angles, but not greater hip and knee flexion, at 66 ms following initial contact (IC) as compared to at IC and 33ms following IC.

Study Design

Cross-Sectional Study

Methods

Twenty-six video recordings of competitive athletes experiencing secondary ACL ruptures via noncontact mechanisms were analyzed for lower extremity joint kinematics, playing situation, and player attention. Kinematics were assessed at IC as well as 33 ms (1 broadcast frame) and 66 ms (2 broadcast frames) following IC.

Results

Knee flexion and knee frontal plane angles were greater at 66 ms than IC (p ≤ 0.03). Hip, trunk, and ankle frontal plane angles were not greater at 66 ms than IC (p ≥ 0.22). Injuries were distributed between attacking play (n=14) and defending (n=8). Player attention was most commonly focused on the ball (n=12) or an opponent (n=7). A single-leg landing accounted for just over half of the injuries (54%), while a cutting motion accounted for the remainder of the injuries (46%).

Conclusion

Secondary ACL injury was most likely to occur during landing or a sidestep cut with player attention external to their own body. Knee valgus collapse combined with limited hip motion was identified in the majority of secondary injuries.

Level of Evidence

Level IIIb

ACL injury
sports injury
video review
secondary injury
kinematics
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears present a challenging injury for athletes to recover from and return to sport. While the mechanisms of primary injury have been well defined,1 risk factors and mechanisms for contact and non-contact secondary ACL injury continue to be investigated.2,3 Risks for both primary and secondary ACL tears occur during sports that involve cutting, pivoting, and landing maneuvers such as basketball, football, rugby, and soccer.4–6 Although surgical treatment and rehabilitation protocols have improved over past few decades thanks to increased research investigation,7 only 63% of athletes, across levels of competition, have been reported to return to pre-injury sports participation level and only 44% returned to competitive sport level following primary ACL reconstruction at a mean follow up of 41.5 months.8 Moreover, with the increasing rate of athletes who return-to-play (RTP) after primary ACL injury, the incidence of secondary ACL injury has become a more prominent topic of interest. Recent studies have reported rates of secondary ACL injury to be between 5-34% of athletes following RTP.9–11

Secondary ACL injuries include both ACL graft ruptures and contralateral (uninjured) side ACL tears. Factors that have been identified that increase the risk of non-contact secondary ACL injury include age, sex, rehabilitation time after primary ACL injury, graft type, biomechanical deficits, lower limb kinematics and muscle strength.10,12 Regarding biomechanical deficits, prospective screening after ACL reconstruction revealed transverse plane hip kinematics and frontal plane knee kinematics during landing, sagittal plane knee moments at landing, and postural stability deficits predict secondary ACL injury (C statistic = .94) with excellent sensitivity (0.92) and specificity (0.88).2,3 More specifically, using the Biodex stability system, Capin et al. found an increase in total frontal plane (valgus) movement, greater asymmetry in internal knee extensor moment at initial contact, and a deficit in single-leg postural stability of the involved limb, to be predictive of secondary ACL injury. In a separate investigation of gait mechanics after primary ACL injury, despite the absence of clinical or gait impairments, athletes who returned to sport sooner were at a greater risk for secondary ACL injury.5 Although identification of functional joint biomechanics during an injury screening movement can provide important information for injury prevention and training, it may not be sufficient to identify athletes at risk for second injury due to biological considerations such as graft maturation, religamentization, and proprioceptive compensation.4,5

In addition to the intrinsic factors and biomechanical mechanisms that contribute to an injury mechanism, player behaviors and the playing situation have also been reported to influence the overall injury mechanism and are important factors to consider in a comprehensive model of injury causation.13 Previously, researchers have used publically available video footage of injury situations in collegiate and professional basketball games to identify factors such as kinematics, playing situation, and player behavior involved in primary ACL injury mechanisms.14,15 Significant differences were observed in both frontal and sagittal plane kinematics between male and female athletes as measured from video captured during a play where ACL injury occurred.14,15 In addition, analysis of the playing situation and playing behavior indicated that although 72% of the injuries were classified as non-contact, perturbations in the playing environment may have influenced the movement patterns leading to injury.14 However, similar quantifications of scenario and behavior have not been described for secondary ACL injury events.

Publically available high quality video footage of secondary ACL injuries can similarly be evaluated for comprehensive secondary ACL injury mechanism analysis. Therefore, purpose of this study was to characterize the mechanisms of non-contact secondary ACL injuries using video analysis. It was hypothesized that during secondary ACL videos athletes would exhibit greater frontal plane hip and knee angles, but not greater hip and knee flexion, at 66 ms following IC than they would at IC and 33 ms following IC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data Collection

An exhaustive google search for news articles was completed using the search terms “ACL injury” AND “Basketball” OR “Soccer” OR “Football” OR “Rugby” OR “AFL” AND “secondary” OR “second”. News articles were used to identify athletes who suffered secondary ACL injury. Videos of these injuries were then obtained by searching through publicly available records, highlights, news reports and game replays available from January 2010 through April 2017. A total of 78 videos of non-contact secondary ACL injuries suffered by male and female collegiate and professional athletes across various sports that incorporate jumping and cutting maneuvers were identified and 26 (10 contralateral and 16 graft rupture) were included for analysis (Table 1). From the initial search, 52 videos were excluded due to poor video quality in the frontal or sagittal planes at IC or thereafter. Poor video quality was determined by direct obstruction of the knee or hip during the targeted landing or change of direction event. Furthermore, as this investigation was targeted to non-contact secondary ACL ruptures, contact injuries that were incurred by a direct blow of force to the knee were excluded.

134358 Table 1. Injury breakdown by sport, country, and league.

Video Numbers	Sport	Country	League	
9	American Football	USA	NFL	
1	American Football	USA	College	
2	Basketball	USA	NBA	
3	Soccer	Spain	La Liga	
1	Rugby	Australia	NRL	
1	Baseball	USA	MLB	
9	Australian Rules Football	Australia	AFL	
NFL= National Football League, NBA= National Basketball Association, MLB= Major League Baseball, NRL=National Rugby League, AFL= Australian Football League

Videos were analyzed in both the frontal and sagittal planes dependent on the camera angles available for each athlete. Out of 26 videos, six allowed for complete angle measurement of the hip and knee joints in both planes, eight were restricted to frontal plane analysis, and twelve were restricted to the sagittal plane. For trunk angles, six videos allowed for both frontal plane and sagittal plane measurements, eight were restricted to frontal plane only, and twelve were restricted to sagittal plane only.

Video Analysis

Videos obtained from the internet were recorded using Screencast-O-Matic (free version, Big Nerd Software, Seattle, WA). Full screen recordings were made from broadcast footage and saved in MP4 format and imported to Kinovea (v0.8.15, Kinovea, France). Inter and intrarater reliability of the assessment of angular measurements was established with a subcohort from the total sample of this investigation. Twenty videos were randomly selected to comprise this cohort. Two investigators determined the initial contact (IC) frame for the injured leg in each video and used this as the reference frame for analysis. Initial contact frame was selected as the instant where the athlete’s whole foot had come in contact with the ground. A second set of angular measurements was collected at 33 ms (one broadcast frame) following IC. A third set of angular measurements was collected at 66 ms (two broadcast frames) following IC. Any disagreements between the two investigators were resolved by the senior author. Interrater reliability was excellent for frontal and sagittal plane knee (ICC ≥ 0.975), hip (ICC ≥ 0.973), trunk (ICC ≥ 0.977), and ankle dorsiflexion (ICC ≥ 0.973) angle measurements each at IC as well as 33 ms and 66 ms following IC. Once interrater reliability was established, one investigator completed angular analysis of all 26 included videos.

In previous video analysis and simulation-based studies, ACL injury was thought to occur promptly following IC.16,17 More recent literature, however, has shown that an ACL injury event is expected to occur between 0 and 61 ms after IC, with mean time to peak strain roughly 53 ms after IC.18,19 Common media capture frame rate is 30 Hz, therefore, two broadcast frames are expected to be recorded in the injury event period following IC. Because the authors were unable to manipulate the playback rate of publically available video footage, IC as well as 33 ms and 66 ms following IC were examined, which corresponds to one and two frames following IC.

A kinematic joint analysis protocol was designed to extract frontal plane angles (knee valgus-varus, hip abduction-adduction, trunk left-right sway) and sagittal plane angles (knee flexion-extension, hip flexion extension, ankle flexion and trunk flexion; Figure 1). All angle measurements for the kinematic joint analysis protocol (see supplemental file) were completed using Kinovea software. Knee flexion-extension angle was measured as the angle between a line that started immediately superior to the greater trochanter and passed through the femoral epicondyle at the knee and a second line that started at the anterior-posterior midpoint of the ankle and passed through the center of the femoral epicondyle at the knee. Hip flexion-extension angle was measured as the angle between a line that started at the acromion and stopped immediately superior to the greater trochanter and a second line that started immediately superior to the greater trochanter and passed through the center of the femoral epicondyle. Trunk flexion angle was measured as the angle between a vertical line passing through the hip joint and a second line that started at the acromion and ended immediately superior to the greater trochanter. Knee varus-valgus angle was measured as the angle between a line that passes through the middle of the femoral shaft and the second line through the middle of the tibial shaft. The femoral shaft was determined by drawing a line perpendicular to the long axis of the thigh, selecting the midpoint of that line, then drawing a second line perpendicular to the first that passes through this midpoint. In the same manner, the tibial shaft was located relative to the shank. The hip abduction-adduction angle was measured as the angle between the femoral shaft line and a second line that was drawn perpendicular to an axis formed between the right and left ASIS or PSIS (dependent on a primarily ventral or dorsal view). Frontal plane trunk angle was measured as the angle between the line perpendicular to the ASIS or PSIS axis and a second line that started at the midpoint of the ASIS or PSIS axis and passed through either C7 or the manubrium (dependent on a primarily ventral or dorsal view). In adherence to previous convention, hip flexion, hip adduction, knee extension, knee adduction, and ankle dorsiflexion were represented as positive values.20 Frontal plane trunk angle was treated as an absolute magnitude of deviation from center.

134359 Figure 1. Examples of kinematic joint angle measurements as dictated by the written protocol (see supplemental file).

Sagittal plane measurements: A) knee flexion extension B) hip flexion-extension C) trunk flexion D) ankle flexion. Frontal plane measurements: E) knee varus-valgus F) hip abduction-adduction G) trunk right-left sway.

In addition to angular measurements, several categorical variables were independently assessed from each video by the rater. Playing situation was categorized as attacking, defending, or celebrating. Player action was categorized as single-leg landing, double-leg landing, cutting, or pivoting. Player attention was selected based on where the player’s focus appeared to be immediately prior to injury and was categorized as on the ball, on an opponent, on the objective, or on landing.14 Player attention was then considered to be external if it was categorized as on the ball, on an opponent, or on the objective. Internal player attention was determined if the players focus was immediately directed at their feet or foot placement instead of being directed at the playing environment. If the categorical variable was unclear, that variable was scored as indeterminate for the given video. In addition, each video was classified as a contralateral tear, or a graft rupture based on each athlete’s searchable injury history.

Data Reporting and Statistical Methods

Dependent variables were reported as angles in degrees. Statistical calculations were performed in JMP Pro (version 10, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and significance was assessed with a 2x3 ANOVA between contralateral tear and graft rupture as well as between IC, 33 ms, and 66 ms time points. Significance was determined at α < 0.05. A Tukey’s Test was used for time point post-hoc testing between pairs. Interrater reliability was assessed in MATLAB (version 2021b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA) and was assessed separately for each dependent variable via interclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2-1). ICC values were scored based on previous literature where ICC < 0.4 was poor, 0.4 < ICC < 0.75 was fair-to-good, and ICC > 0.75 was excellent.20–22 A Fisher’s Exact Test was used in order to analyze trends in player characteristics in both the contralateral tear and graft rupture groups.

RESULTS

Playing Circumstances

Of the 26 second injury cases analyzed, 10 cases were contralateral tears and 16 were graft ruptures. Fourteen second injuries occurred while the player was attacking, eight occurred while defending, and the remaining four were a celebration or indeterminate (Table 2). For the present cohort, there were no statistically significant differences between the contralateral tear and graft rupture groups for playing situation, player action, player attention, or ball possession (p ≥ 0.57). However, the raw percentage of athletes in possession of the ball was larger for the contralateral tear group (five cases, 50%) than graft rupture group (seven cases, 44%), while the raw percentage of athletes without the ball was lower in the contralateral group (one case, 14%) than in the graft rupture group (five cases 38%). In two cases in the contralateral group (28%) and three cases for the graft rupture group (23%), injury occurred while the ball was in transition. Sidestep cutting was responsible for just under half of all second injuries observed (Table 1), while single-leg landing constituted the other remaining injuries. Single-leg landing injuries made up 50% of contralateral tears (five cases) and 50% of graft ruptures (eight cases).

134360 Table 2. Breakdown of player circumstances at time of injury.

	Cohort	Contralateral	Graft Rupture	
	N	%	N	%	N	%	
Playing Situation							
Attacking	14	54	6	60	8	50	
Defending	8	31	3	30	5	31	
Celebrating	1	4	0	0	1	6	
Indeterminate	3	12	1	10	2	13	
Player Action							
Single-leg landing	14	54	5	50	8	50	
Double-leg landing	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Cutting/ Pivoting	12	46	5	50	8	50	
Player Attention							
Ball	12	46	5	50	7	44	
Opponent	7	27	4	40	3	19	
Objective	6	23	1	10	5	31	
Landing	1	4	0	0	1	6	

Knee Motion

Knee valgus collapse was identified in 18 of 26 cases, adduction collapse in one case, no collapse was readily evident in four cases, and three cases could not be accurately judged. The mean knee flexion angle at IC was 40± 17°, while the mean knee abduction angle at IC was 14 ± 8° (Table 3). There were no statistically significant differences between the contralateral and graft rupture groups in frontal or sagittal plane knee angles (p ≥ 0.19). Time point had a significant effect on sagittal and frontal plane knee angle (p = 0.04) as knee flexion angle and knee abduction angle were greater at 66 ms than at IC (p ≤ 0.03).

134361 Table 3. Knee kinematics in degrees. (Mean ± SD)

	IC*	33 ms	66 ms	
	Sagittal	Frontal	Sagittal	Frontal	Sagittal	Frontal	
Cohort	40 ± 17	14 ± 8	48 ± 18	22 ± 13	60 ± 23	25 ± 16	
Contralateral	37 ± 22	10 ± 8	48 ± 19	16 ± 6	55 ± 15	23 ± 9	
Graft Rupture	42 ± 13	15 ± 8	49 ± 18	23 ± 14	64 ± 31	26 ± 18	
*IC = Initial contact

Hip Motion

The mean hip flexion angle at IC was 53 ± 26°, while the mean hip abduction angle at IC was 35 ± 13° (Table 4). Tear type (contralateral, graft rupture) was a significant factor to sagittal plane hip angles (p < 0.01), as the graft rupture group exhibited greater hip flexion than the contralateral tear group (p = 0.02). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in frontal plane hip angles (p = 0.25). Timing was not a significant factor in frontal or sagittal plane hip angles (p ≥ 0.88).

134362 Table 4. Hip kinematics in degrees. (Mean ± SD)

	IC*	33 ms	66 ms	
	Sagittal	Frontal	Sagittal	Frontal	Sagittal	Frontal	
Cohort	53 ± 26	35 ± 13	55 ± 28	34 ± 15	55 ± 31	30 ± 9	
Contralateral	40 ± 19	28 ± 13	41 ± 26	29 ± 10	45 ± 36	31 ± 8	
Graft Rupture	66 ± 25	38 ± 12	68 ± 24	36 ± 16	65 ± 24	30 ± 10	
*IC = Initial contact

Trunk Motion

The mean trunk flexion angle at IC was 20 ± 13°, while the mean trunk frontal plane angle at IC was 16 ± 14°, away from center (Table 5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in frontal or sagittal plane trunk angles (p ≥ 0.22). Time point was also not a statistically significant factor (p ≥ 0.82).

134363 Table 5. Trunk kinematics in degrees. (Mean ± SD)

	IC*	33 ms	66 ms	
	Sagittal	Frontal	Sagittal	Frontal	Sagittal	Frontal	
Cohort	20 ± 13	16 ± 13	20 ± 16	18 ± 13	23 ± 21	25 ± 16	
Contralateral	15 ± 10	12 ± 7	16 ± 6	16 ± 8	21 ± 23	23 ± 9	
Graft Rupture	24 ± 15	17 ± 16	23 ± 17	19 ± 15	26 ± 21	26 ± 18	
*IC = Initial contact

Ankle Motion

The mean ankle dorsiflexion angle at IC was 18 ± 13° (Table 6). Tear type (contralateral, graft rupture) was not a significant factor to ankle dorsiflexion (p = 0.95). Time was also not a significant factor to ankle dorsiflexion (p = 0.39).

134364 Table 6. Ankle kinematics in degrees. (Mean ± SD)

	IC*	33 ms	66 ms	
	Dorsiflexion	Dorsiflexion	Dorsiflexion	
Cohort	18 ± 13	23 ± 10	25 ± 15	
Contralateral	15 ± 13	24 ± 11	27 ± 9	
Graft Rupture	20 ± 14	22 ± 11	24 ± 19	
*IC = Initial contact

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current study was to characterize the mechanisms of non-contact secondary ACL injuries using publically available video of the injury event. Joint kinematics, playing situation, and player attention were analyzed to provide comprehensive analysis of the injury mechanism. It was hypothesized that athletes would exhibit greater frontal plane hip and knee angles, but not greater hip and knee flexion, at 66 ms following IC than at IC and 33 ms following IC. No change was observed between IC and 33 ms for any variables of interest. Knee frontal plane motion did support the hypothesis that knee abduction would increase over the observed time period. Additionally, sagittal plane hip angles supported the hypothesis as they did not change over the observed time period. However, contrary to our hypothesis, frontal plane hip angles did not change over the observed time period. In addition, knee flexion at 66 ms following IC did not support the stated hypothesis that athletes would exhibit less knee flexion over the observed time period. Therefore, the initial hypothesis was not fully accepted due to the mixed nature of these results.

Joint Kinematics

In the present study, a clear increase in frontal knee angle from IC to 66 ms following IC was found. This finding supports existing literature, which suggests abduction drives the ACL toward injury.23,24 Hewett et al. previously reported that athletes with ACL injury display up to 2.5 times greater knee abduction moments and 20% higher ground reaction force than uninjured atheltes.24

In addition to increased knee abduction, reduced sagittal plane motion was observed which has been found to be linked to ACL injury.1,25 Previous kinematic analysis has shown there to be greater sagittal plane motion in healthy landings as compared to ACL injury events. Using a three-dimensional analysis system, sagittal plane angles at the hip and knee during the first and second landings of a drop vertical jump were evaluated in a cohort of healthy female basketball athletes.26 In these landings, the healthy athletes demonstrated approximately 30° and 60° of change in the sagittal plane at the hip and knee, respectively, from IC to the lowest center of mass position in the first landing. In the second landing of the drop vertical jump, the same athletes demonstrated approximately 20° and 50° change in the sagittal plane at the hip and knee, respectively.26 Analysis of total joint excursion during a drop vertical jump in healthy male elite athletes demonstrated an average of 15.4° and 43.4° change in hip and knee flexion, respectively, for the dominant leg in the first landing.27 In the current analysis of injury events, the average change in sagittal plane angles were 4° and 29° at the hip and knee. In comparison to the joint excursions previously reported during healthy landings, the average joint excursions for hip and knee flexion from IC to 66 ms during an injury event were significantly lower. It is important to acknowledge that previous research has reported mixed results for the agreement and correlation between two-dimensional video analysis and three-dimensional kinematics.16,28,29 However, recent research by Schurr et al. demonstrated moderate to strong relationships between two-dimensional analysis and three-dimensional motion capture in lower extremity investigation.30 Additionally, a drop vertical jump does not take into account potential player distraction and cannot be fully compared to an athletic task.

In addition to the combination of increased knee abduction and reduced sagittal motion, lateral trunk motion has been shown to further increase the load on the ACL.31 Lateral trunk movement shifts the ground reaction force vector lateral to the knee, which increases the potential for knee valgus loading and thus ACL strain. Knee valgus motion is a predictor in both primary and secondary ACL injury risk models.1,2 Neuromuscular training studies have identified strategies to modify athletes’ landing techniques to lessen lateral trunk and knee valgus motions to reduce injury risk.32–34

The results of the current investigation did not reveal statistically significant differences between IC and 33 ms; however, a trend toward significance occurred after the 33 ms time point. Knee flexion angle was greater at 66 ms than at IC (p ≤ 0.03). In addition, frontal plane angles trended toward reduced hip adduction at 66 ms. This trend may indicate that the injury occurs somewhere between the 33 ms and 66 ms time points following IC; however, additional studies are necessary to determine the exact timing of an injury event.

Player Attention, Action, and Playing Situation

In previous primary injury analysis, player attention was most commonly on the basket rim (the objective) (38%), the opponent (28%), or the ball (23%).14 In the present secondary injury analysis, player attention was found to be primarily split between the ball (46%) or an opponent (27%). Rehabilitation programming and future studies should consider the incorporation of diverse training environments and playing situations which challenge player attention (via “distraction” exercises) to assist with secondary ACL injury prevention. Additionally, in comparison to primary injury video analysis, different trends for secondary ACL injury regarding player action and playing situation were observed.14 In the present study, 54% (14/26) of secondary injury events occurred during a single-leg landing while the remaining 46% (12/26) of events occurred during a cutting or pivoting movement. Comparable to the findings of the present study, Krosshaug et al. reported a substantial percentage (26%) of ACL injury events occurred during a single-leg landing. However, they did not find a substantial percentage (10%) of ACL injury events which occurred following a cutting or pivoting movement. Furthermore, in primary analysis, 33% of injuries occurred in double-leg landings, while in secondary analysis of the present study 0% of injury events involved a double-leg landing. In both analyses, a larger percentage of injuries occurred while the player was attacking compared to defending. In addition to the inclusion of “distraction” training, which would challenge an athlete’s ability to divide their attention across multiple tasks, preventative programs should include exercises which involve unanticipated landing and cutting movements. Comparisons of player attention, action, and playing situation in primary ACL and secondary ACL injury can be found in Table 7.

134365 Table 7. Comparison of Primary and Secondary ACL Injury Events

	Primary ACL Injury Analysis (Krosshaug et al.)14	Secondary ACL Injury Analysis (Vargas et al.)	
	% of cohort*	% of cohort**	
Playing Situation			
Attacking	74	54	
Defending	13	31	
Celebrating	N/A	4	
Indeterminate	5	12	
Other	8	N/A	
Player Action			
Single-leg landing	26	54	
Double-leg landing	33	0	
Cutting/ Pivoting	10	46	
Indeterminate	21	0	
Direct Blow	10	N/A	
Player Attention			
Ball	28	46	
Opponent	23	27	
Objective	38	23	
Landing	N/A	4	
Other	11	N/A	
It is important to note that while Krosshaug et al. included 4 ACL injury events involving a direct blow to the knee, the present study only examined non-contact secondary ACL injury events.

*Krosshaug et al. cohort comprised primary 39 ACL injury events

**Vargas et al. (current study) comprised 26 secondary ACL injury events

Future Directions

While 26 videos of secondary ACL were analyzed in the current study, this does not give a true representation of the prevalence of secondary ACL injuries that occur in these sports. An average of 200,000 ACL injuries occur annually in the United States, and meta-analysis of recent literature reported that secondary ACL injury rate for athletes younger than 25 is 23%.9,35 Few videos of secondary ACL injuries are publically available. Additional videos of secondary ACL injuries would help strengthen the analysis of secondary ACL injury mechanisms, playing situations, and player behaviors.

LIMITATIONS

Although the use of videos allows for insight into an injury mechanism, previous authors have reported mixed results for the agreement and correlation between two-dimensional video analysis and three-dimensional kinematics.16,28,29 In addition, the publically available video camera angles are not directly aligned with the subject in the frontal or sagittal plane, which may skew video measurements and limit comparison across videos. Furthermore, due to the presence of protective equipment and/or other sport clothing, identification of anatomical landmarks used for joint angle measurements were not exact. Unfortunately, true three-dimensional kinematics or perfectly aligned videos of injury-inducing plays do not exist. Despite the inconsistencies in camera angles, there was excellent reliability of measurement for each of the frontal and sagittal plane angles considered in this analysis. Although an exhaustive search of publically available records was conducted, this study had a limited sample size and small cohort due to poor camera quality and/or angles which could influence the study results. Additionally, it is important to note the inability to account for ground reaction forces in video analysis, as a result, how forces and loads propagated through the closed kinetic chain could not be evaluated. We were unable to appreciate how forces and loads propagated through the closed kinetic chain. Finally, knowledge of the athletes’ injury history as well as the details of athletes’ primary ACL injury, rehabilitation time, and RTP time were unknown.

CONCLUSION

Secondary ACL injuries occurred most frequently during single-leg landing and cutting movements. Injuries occurred in both attacking and defensive plays, and most commonly the player was determined to have an external focus, such as the ball or an opponent. Knee valgus collapse was identified in the majority of cases at the time of injury, with knee flexion angle increasing from IC to 66 ms. Additionally, at time of injury, most athletes exhibited a stiff landing in the hip, with no significant changes in hip frontal or sagittal angles from IC to 66 ms. Athletes experiencing secondary ACL injury exhibit frontal and sagittal plane angle deviations in knee kinematics but not hip kinematics following IC. These patterns were consistent whether the secondary injury was on the contralateral limb or a graft rupture. Secondary injury prevention intervention should focus on restricting frontal plane knee motion while mobilizing sagittal plane hip motion. Furthermore, preventative and rehabilitation programming should consider the inclusion of “distraction” training to mimic the athlete’s playing environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This investigation was supported by funding from NIH grant R01-AR055563.
==== Refs
Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: A prospective study The American Journal of Sports Medicine Hewett Timothy E. Myer Gregory D. Ford Kevin R. Heidt Robert S., Jr. Colosimo Angelo J. McLean Scott G. van den Bogert Antonie J. Paterno Mark V. Succop Paul 4 2005
33 4 492 501 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546504269591 10.1177/0363546504269591 15722287
Biomechanical measures during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport The American Journal of Sports Medicine Paterno Mark V. Schmitt Laura C. Ford Kevin R. Rauh Mitchell J. Myer Gregory D. Huang Bin Hewett Timothy E. 11 8 2010
38 10 1968 1978 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546510376053 10.1177/0363546510376053 20702858
Dynamic hip rotation deficits predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after ACL reconstruction and return to sport The American Journal of Sports Medicine Paterno Mark V. Schmitt Laura C. Ford Kevin R. Rauh Mitchell J. Myer Gregory D. Huang Bin Hewett Timothy E. 11 8 2010
38 10 1968 1978 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546510376053 10.1177/0363546510376053 20702858
Should return to sport be delayed until 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Biological and Functional Considerations Sports Medicine Nagelli Christopher V. Hewett Timothy E. 2017
47 2 221 232 0112-1642 10.1007/s40279-016-0584-z 10.1007/s40279-016-0584-z 27402457
Gait mechanics and second ACL rupture: Implications for delaying return-to-sport Journal of Orthopaedic Research Capin Jacob J. Khandha Ashutosh Zarzycki Ryan Manal Kurt Buchanan Thomas S. Snyder-Mackler Lynn 2017
35 9 1894 1901 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.23476 10.1002/jor.23476 27859527
Performance and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in male major league soccer players Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Erickson Brandon J. Harris Joshua D. Cvetanovich Gregory L. Bach Bernard R. Bush-Joseph Charles A. Abrams Geoffrey D. Gupta Anil K. McCormick Frank M. Cole Brian J. 1 7 2013
1 2 232596711349718 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967113497189 10.1177/2325967113497189 26535238
Revision Rates After Primary ACL Reconstruction Performed Between 1969 and 2018: A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Liukkonen Rasmus J. Ponkilainen Ville T. Reito Aleksi 1 8 2022
10 8 23259671221110191 2325-9671 10.1177/23259671221110191 10.1177/23259671221110191 35958290
Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play British Journal of Sports Medicine Ardern C. L. Webster K. E. Taylor N. F. Feller J. A. 11 3 2011
45 7 596 606 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364 10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364
Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis The American Journal of Sports Medicine Wiggins Amelia J. Grandhi Ravi K. Schneider Daniel K. Stanfield Denver Webster Kate E. Myer Gregory D. 15 1 2016
44 7 1861 1876 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546515621554 10.1177/0363546515621554 26772611
Are female soccer players at an increased risk of second anterior cruciate ligament injury compared with their athletic peers? The American Journal of Sports Medicine Allen Melissa M. Pareek Ayoosh Krych Aaron J. Hewett Timothy E. Levy Bruce A. Stuart Michael J. Dahm Diane L. 20 7 2016
44 10 2492 2498 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546516648439 10.1177/0363546516648439
Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Wright Rick W. Magnussen Robert A. Dunn Warren R. Spindler Kurt P. 6 2011
93 12 1159 1165 0021-9355 10.2106/jbjs.j.00898 10.2106/jbjs.j.00898 21776554
Novel mechanical impact simulator designed to generate clinically relevant anterior cruciate ligament ruptures Clinical Biomechanics Bates Nathaniel A. Schilaty Nathan D. Nagelli Christopher V. Krych Aaron J. Hewett Timothy E. 5 2017
44 36 44 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.03.005 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.03.005 28319734
Understanding injury mechanisms: a key component of preventing injuries in sport British Journal of Sports Medicine Bahr R Krosshaug T 1 6 2005
39 6 324 329 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2005.018341 10.1136/bjsm.2005.018341 15911600
Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury in basketball: video analysis of 39 cases The American Journal of Sports Medicine Krosshaug Tron Nakamae Atsuo Boden Barry P. Engebretsen Lars Smith Gerald Slauterbeck James R. Hewett Timothy E. Bahr Roald 3 2007
35 3 359 367 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546506293899 10.1177/0363546506293899 17092928
Video analysis of trunk and knee motion during non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes: lateral trunk and knee abduction motion are combined components of the injury mechanism British Journal of Sports Medicine Hewett T E Torg J S Boden B P 15 4 2009
43 6 417 422 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2009.059162 10.1136/bjsm.2009.059162 19372088
Evaluation of a two-dimensional analysis method as a screening and evaluation tool for anterior cruciate ligament injury British Journal of Sports Medicine McLean S G Walker K Ford K R Myer G D Hewett T E van den Bogert A J 1 6 2005
39 6 355 362 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2005.018598 10.1136/bjsm.2005.018598 15911607
Injury mechanisms for anterior cruciate ligament injuries in team handball: a systematic video analysis The American Journal of Sports Medicine Olsen Odd-Egil Myklebust Grethe Engebretsen Lars Bahr Roald 6 2004
32 4 1002 1012 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546503261724 10.1177/0363546503261724 15150050
Timing of strain response of the ACL and MCL relative to impulse delivery during simulated landings leading up to ACL failure Journal of Applied Biomechanics Bates Nathaniel A. Schilaty Nathan D. Ueno Ryo Hewett Timothy E. 1 6 2020
36 3 1 8 1065-8483 10.1123/jab.2019-0308 10.1123/jab.2019-0308 32320947
Timing sequence of multi-planar knee kinematics revealed by physiologic cadaveric simulation of landing: implications for ACL injury mechanism Clinical Biomechanics Kiapour Ata M. Quatman Carmen E. Goel Vijay K. Wordeman Samuel C. Hewett Timothy E. Demetropoulos Constantine K. 1 2014
29 1 75 82 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.10.017 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.10.017 24238957
Reliability of landing 3D motion analysis: implications for longitudinal analyses Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Ford KEVIN R. Myer GREGORY D. Hewett TIMOTHY E. 11 2007
39 11 2021 2028 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0b013e318149332d 10.1249/mss.0b013e318149332d
The design and analysis of clinical experiments Fleiss J.L. Wiley New York 1986

Consistency of clinical biomechanical measures between three different institutions: implications for multi-center biomechanical and epidemiological research Int J Sports Phys Ther Myer G.D. Wordeman S.C. Sugimoto D.. 2014
9 3 289 301 24944847
Multiplanar loading of the knee and its influence on anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligament strain during simulated landings and noncontact tears The American Journal of Sports Medicine Bates Nathaniel A. Schilaty Nathan D. Nagelli Christopher V. Krych Aaron J. Hewett Timothy E. 31 5 2019
47 8 1844 1853 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546519850165 10.1177/0363546519850165 31150273
Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective study The American Journal of Sports Medicine Hewett Timothy E. Myer Gregory D. Ford Kevin R. Heidt Robert S. Jr. Colosimo Angelo J. McLean Scott G. van den Bogert Antonie J. Paterno Mark V. Succop Paul 4 2005
33 4 492 501 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546504269591 10.1177/0363546504269591 15722287
Limited hip and knee flexion during landing is associated with increased frontal plane knee motion and moments Clinical Biomechanics Pollard Christine D. Sigward Susan M. Powers Christopher M. 2 2010
25 2 142 146 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.10.005 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.10.005 19913961
Kinetic and kinematic differences between first and second landings of a drop vertical jump task: Implications for injury risk assessments Clinical Biomechanics Bates Nathaniel A. Ford Kevin R. Myer Gregory D. Hewett Timothy E. 4 2013
28 4 459 466 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.02.013 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.02.013 23562293
Sagittal plane kinematic differences between dominant and non-dominant legs in unilateral and bilateral jump landings Physical Therapy in Sport McPherson April L. Dowling Brittany Tubbs Travis G. Paci James M. 11 2016
22 54 60 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.04.001 10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.04.001
Concurrent validity and reliability of 2D kinematic analysis of frontal plane motion during running Int J Sports Phys Ther Maykut J.N. Taylor-Haas J.A. Paterno M.V. DiCesare C.A. Ford K.R. 2015
10 2 136 146 25883862
Two-dimensional video analysis is comparable to 3D motion capture in lower extremity movement assessment Int J Sports Phys Ther Schurr S.A. Marshall A.N. Resch J.E. Saliba S.A. 2017
12 2 163 172 28515970
Two-Dimensional video analysis is comparable to 3D motion capture in lower extremity movement analysis Int J Sports Phys Ther Schurr S.A. Marshall A.N. Resch J.E. Saliba S.A. 2017
12 2 163 172 28515970
The Mechanistic connection between the trunk, knee, and ACL injury Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews Hewett Timothy E. Myer Gregory D. 10 2011
39 4 161 166 0091-6331 10.1097/jes.0b013e3182297439 10.1097/jes.0b013e3182297439 21799427
The influence of age on the effectiveness of neuromuscular training to reduce anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes: a meta-analysis The American Journal of Sports Medicine Myer Gregory D. Sugimoto Dai Thomas Staci Hewett Timothy E. 2013
41 1 203 215 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546512460637 10.1177/0363546512460637 23048042
Evaluation of the effectiveness of neuromuscular training to reduce anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes: a critical review of relative risk reduction and numbers-needed-to-treat analyses British Journal of Sports Medicine Sugimoto Dai Myer Gregory D McKeon Jennifer M Hewett Timothy E 28 6 2012
46 14 979 988 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090895 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090895 22745221
Neuromuscular training to target deficits associated with second anterior cruciate ligament injury Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Di Stasi Stephanie Myer Gregory D. Hewett Timothy E. 11 2013
43 11 777 792, A771 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2013.4693 10.2519/jospt.2013.4693 24175599
Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's gymnastics injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through 2003-2004 J Athl Train Marshall S.W. Covassin T. Dick R. Nassar L.G. Agel J. 2007
42 2 234 240
