Abstract
Following knee injuries, individuals often favor the uninjured leg, leading to differences in range of motion (ROM) and weight distribution. The data collection regarding how an injury can affect range of motion in knee flexion and extension as well as weight distribution could aid those who work in the rehabilitation area of Kinesiology to better understand how injuries affect the body, and to support the correction of the body naturally trying to “protect” the injured side. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a knee injury affects the range of motion and weight distribution of a person who has had a knee injury versus someone who does not. METHODS: A total of 10 subjects were tested, and they were divided into 2 groups, those who experienced a knee injury within the past 5 years, and those with no knee injury. 6 females were tested (4 of them had a knee injury), and 4 male individuals were tested (1 of them had a knee injury). The ages ranged from 20-34. The test performed on each participant included 3 trials of a drop-down test from an elevated platform onto a set of force plates to measure weight distribution. Three trials of ROM took place for each subject's knee flexion (right and left leg) and were measured using a goniometer RESULTS: After completing three trials of both the range of motion measurements and the drop-down test on Kinvent Delta Force Plates, a wide variety of data was collected. For the injured group, the range of motion averages (AVG: 48.934°, STDEV: 11.65°) was less than uninjured (AVG: 52.934°, STDEV: 11.71°). While for the control group, right and left were equivalent (Right Knee - AVG: 41.6°, STDEV: 10.79°; Left Knee - AVG: 42.6°, STDEV: 7.57°), prompting the idea that individuals with no previous injuries have an even display of range between both knees. For weight distribution among the two groups, subjects of the injured group had averages of 46.68% (STDEV: 4.13%) of weight distribution favoring injured leg, and 53.32% (STDEV: 4.13%) of weight distribution favoring uninjured leg. The control group had similar results showing averages of 46.14% (STDEV: 7.73%) for the left leg, and 53.94% (STDEV: 7.77%) for the right leg. CONCLUSION: The force plate test showed that subjects with knee injuries had an uneven weight distribution, while the ROM varied among participants. Differences in ROM were likely due to the type of treatment they received throughout their recovery process. For example, one of the subjects had a Ruptured Patellar Tendon and greater ROM for knee flexion in the injured knee due to the participation in therapy. Limitations included inexperience and human error when using a manual goniometer, suggesting a digital or electro-goniometer would improve accuracy. The study’s broad classification of knee injuries and right-leg dominance in the no-injury groups may have skewed the results for weight distribution. These findings provide a greater insight into the differing values of knee range of motion and weight distribution when accounting for knee injuries. Overall, the findings supported our hypothesis, showing reduces ROM and uneven weight distribution between injured and non-injured legs.
Recommended Citation
Carrasco, Kyrsten M.; Shepherd, Lacie; Holcomb, Brady; Gonzales, Kailyn; and Chelette, Amber M.
(2026)
"Comparing Knee Injured Individuals vs. Non-Knee Injured Individuals,"
International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings: Vol. 2:
Iss.
18, Article 77.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijesab/vol2/iss18/77