Such single-leg tasks are important to assess individual hip abductor and rear-foot function, although many athletes

will not necessarily perform this website the movement patterns associated with the tasks in their sport. Since the prevalence of DTT-positivity did not significantly differ between single-leg squats and single-leg drop landings, we considered that either test would be useful for evaluating dynamic knee valgus in terms of hip abductor function. Meanwhile, the prevalence of HFT-positivity was significantly high (51.4%) during single-leg landings, indicating that HFT was heavily affected during this test. Ground reaction force is several-fold greater than body weight when landing from a height and therefore skillful landing affects the likelihood of sustaining ACL injuries.44 and 45 Cortes et al.44 discovered that the hip flexion angle is greater and knee valgus is smaller when landing on the rear-foot compared with the forefoot. Considering the prevalence of HFT-positivity

and the skill factor involved in single-leg drop landings, both single-leg squats and single-leg drop landings are needed to evaluate dynamic knee valgus in terms of rear-foot alignment. Moreover, dynamic knee valgus might need to be evaluated by measuring both KID and HOD since HOD values differed between the DTT-positive and HFT-positive groups. This test could be useful not only for basketball players but also for other athletes to assess the factors involved in dynamic knee valgus. The major limitation of this study is that we TCL conducted 2D analysis using a digital video camera, instead of 3D analysis that can generate Galunisertib nmr accurate values of angle displacement. McLean et al.37 obtained an excellent regression relationship in a 2D and 3D comparison of knee valgus during side jumps. Nagano et al.38 also reported a significant regression

relationship between 2D and 3D knee valgus angles during continuous jump landing tasks. However, since knee valgus in the frontal plane has never been compared based on distances such as KID and HOD until now, a comparison between 2D and 3D analysis using our measurement method would be meaningful. McClay et al.46 indicated that differences between rear-foot eversion values are minimal compared with 2D and 3D variables when the foot is abducted between 7° and 10°. Foot placement must be aligned with the camera lens in single-leg tasks. Another limitation of this study is that we analyzed data from only one successful trial, because knee abduction angle increases during jumps in the hip abductor fatigue protocol.40 Since repeatability was not validated in this study, reliability over time might require assessment. On the other hand, 2D motion analysis using a digital video camera has the advantage of convenience for measurements, analyses and screening tests for ACL injuries.