AUTHOR=Nusia Jiota , Xu Jia-Cheng , Knälmann Johan , Sjöblom Reimert , Kleiven Svein TITLE=Injury risk functions for the four primary knee ligaments JOURNAL=Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology VOLUME=11 YEAR=2023 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1228922 DOI=10.3389/fbioe.2023.1228922 ISSN=2296-4185 ABSTRACT=

The purpose of this study was to develop injury risk functions (IRFs) for the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments (ACL and PCL, respectively) and the medial and lateral collateral ligaments (MCL and LCL, respectively) in the knee joint. The IRFs were based on post-mortem human subjects (PMHSs). Available specimen-specific failure strains were supplemented with statistically generated failure strains (virtual values) to accommodate for unprovided detailed experimental data in the literature. The virtual values were derived from the reported mean and standard deviation in the experimental studies. All virtual and specimen-specific values were thereafter categorized into groups of static and dynamic rates, respectively, and tested for the best fitting theoretical distribution to derive a ligament-specific IRF. A total of 10 IRFs were derived (three for ACL, two for PCL, two for MCL, and three for LCL). ACL, MCL, and LCL received IRFs in both dynamic and static tensile rates, while a sufficient dataset was achieved only for dynamic rates of the PCL. The log-logistic and Weibull distributions had the best fit (p-values: >0.9, RMSE: 2.3%–4.7%) to the empirical datasets for all the ligaments. These IRFs are, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first attempt to generate injury prediction tools based on PMHS data for the four knee ligaments. The study has summarized all the relevant literature on PHMS experimental tensile tests on the knee ligaments and utilized the available empirical data to create the IRFs. Future improvements require upcoming experiments to provide comparable testing and strain measurements. Furthermore, emphasis on a clear definition of failure and transparent reporting of each specimen-specific result is necessary.