Synopsis: There is a growing body of evidence documenting loads applied to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) for weight-bearing and non—weight-bearing exercises. ACL loading has been quantified by inverse dynamics techniques that measure anterior shear force at the tibiofemoral joint (net force primarily restrained by the ACL), ACL strain (defined as change in ACL length with respect to original length and expressed as a percentage) measured directly in vivo, and ACL tensile force estimated through mathematical modeling and computer optimization techniques. A review of the biomechanical literature indicates the following: ACL loading is generally greater with non—weight-bearing compared to weight-bearing exercises; with both types of exercises, the ACL is loaded to a greater extent between 10° to 50° of knee flexion (generally peaking between 10° and 30°) compared to 50° to 100° of knee flexion; and loads on the ACL change according to exercise technique (such as trunk position). Squatting with excessive forward movement of the knees beyond the toes and with the heels off the ground tends to increase ACL loading. Squatting and lunging with a forward trunk tilt tend to decrease ACL loading, likely due to increased hamstrings activity. During seated knee extension, ACL force decreases when the resistance pad is positioned more proximal on the anterior aspect of the lower leg, away from the ankle. The evidence reviewed as part of this manuscript provides objective data by which to rank exercises based on loading applied to the ACL. The biggest challenge in exercise selection post-ACL reconstruction is the limited knowledge of the optimal amount of stress that should be applied to the ACL graft as it goes through its initial incorporation and eventual maturation process. Clinicians may utilize this review as a guide to exercise selection and rehabilitation progression for patients post-ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42(3):208–220. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3768

Hyperlipidemia, also known as high blood cholesterol, is a cardiovascular health risk that affects more than one third of adults in the United States. Statins are commonly prescribed and successful lipid-lowering medications that reduce the risks associated with cardiovascular disease. The side effects most commonly associated with statin use involve muscle cramping, soreness, fatigue, weakness, and, in rare cases, rapid muscle breakdown that can lead to death. Often, these side effects can become apparent during or after strenuous bouts of exercise. Although the mechanisms by which statins affect muscle performance are not entirely understood, recent research has identified some common causative factors. As musculoskeletal and exercise specialists, physical therapists have a unique opportunity to identify adverse effects related to statin use. The purposes of this perspective article are: (1) to review the metabolism and mechanisms of actions of statins, (2) to discuss the effects of statins on skeletal muscle function, (3) to detail the clinical presentation of statin-induced myopathies, (4) to outline the testing used to diagnose statin-induced myopathies, and (5) to introduce a role for the physical therapist for the screening and detection of suspected statin-induced skeletal muscle myopathy.

The purpose of this study was to develop a biomechanical model to estimate anterior tibial translation (ATT), anterior shear forces, and ligament loading in the healthy and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee joint during gait. This model used electromyography (EMG), joint position, and force plate data as inputs to calculate ligament loading during stance phase. First, an EMG-driven model was used to calculate forces for the major muscles crossing the knee joint. The calculated muscle forces were used as inputs to a knee model that incorporated a knee–ligament model in order to solve for ATT and ligament forces. The model took advantage of using EMGs as inputs, and could account for the abnormal muscle activation patterns of ACL-deficient gait. We validated our model by comparing the calculated results with previous in vitro, in vivo, and numerical studies of healthy and ACL-deficient knees, and this gave us confidence on the accuracy of our model calculations. Our model predicted that ATT increased throughout stance phase for the ACL-deficient knee compared with the healthy knee. The medial collateral ligament functioned as the main passive restraint to anterior shear force in the ACL-deficient knee. Although strong co-contraction of knee flexors was found to help restrain ATT in the ACL-deficient knee, it did not counteract the effect of ACL rupture. Posterior inclination angle of the tibial plateau was found to be a crucial parameter in determining knee mechanics, and increasing the tibial slope inclination in our model would increase the resulting ATT and ligament forces in both healthy and ACL-deficient knees.

E wall squat with the feet farther away from the wall (wall squat long), and the one-leg squat. EMG, force platform, and kinematic variables were input into a biomechanical model to calculate patellofemoral compressive force and stress as a function of knee angle. To asses differences among exercises, a one-factor repeated-measure ANOVA (P = 0.0025) was used. Results: During the squat ascent, there were significant differences in patellofemoral force and stress among the three squat exercises at 90° knee angle (P = 0.002), 80° knee angle (P = 0.002), 70° knee angle (P < 0.001), and 60° knee angle (P = 0.001). Patellofemoral force and stress were significantly greater at 90° knee angle in the wall squat short compared with wall squat long and one-leg squat, significantly greater at 70° and 80° knee angles in the wall squat short and long compared with the one-leg squat and significantly greater at 60° knee angle in the wall squat long compared with the wall squat short and one-leg squat. Conclusions: Except at 60° and 90° knee angles, patellofemoral compressive force and stress were similar between the wall squat short and the wall squat long. Between 60° and 90° knee angles, wall squat exercises generally produced greater patellofemoral compressive force and stress compared with the one-leg squat. When the goal is to minimize patellofemoral compressive force and stress, it may be prudent to use a smaller knee angle range between 0° and 50° compared with a larger knee angle range between 60° and 90°....