High variability in resistance to valgus deformation among knee braces indicated for medial collateral ligament injuries: a standardized bench-model biomechanical comparison.

Authors

Evmorfia Pechlivanidou, Monika Stacheter, Peter Wahl, Matthias Jacobi

Published in

Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. Volume 146. Issue 1. Sep 27, 2026. Epub Sep 27, 2026.

Abstract

To quantify valgus deformation and per-load mechanical stiffness of commercially available knee braces indicated for medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries, and to evaluate whether mechanical performance is associated with material classification and qualitative stability assessment.
Nine knee braces identified through a national market survey were tested on a custom lower limb mechanical surrogate under progressive valgus loading at 5.7, 11.4, and 19.4 Nm. Angular deformation was measured using video-based motion tracking, and per-load brace stiffness (Nm/°) was computed at each load level.
At maximum applied torque (19.4 Nm), per-load stiffness ranged from 1.6 to 6.5 Nm/° across the nine devices - a fourfold difference between the stiffest and most compliant brace - with median valgus deformation of 8° (range 3-12°). In an exploratory, underpowered between-category comparison, rigid braces showed numerically higher stiffness than semi-rigid and soft devices (ε² = 0.34-0.45); this comparison is reported for hypothesis generation only. Qualitative ratings showed only moderate, inconsistent correlations with measured performance.
Commercially available knee braces indicated for MCL injuries demonstrate highly variable mechanical resistance to valgus deformation under standardized bench conditions. The present sample was insufficient to determine whether material category accounts for this variability. These findings describe device-specific mechanical performance and do not constitute evidence for or against the clinical effectiveness of MCL bracing; they underscore the need for standardized biomechanical testing.

PMID:
42802206
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 28 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.