Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 29, 2026
Subject-specific Musculoskeletal Model for Studying Bone Strain During Dynamic Motion
Published on: April 11, 2018
High variability in resistance to valgus deformation among knee braces indicated for medial collateral ligament
Evmorfia Pechlivanidou1,2,3, Monika Stacheter4,5, Peter Wahl4,6,7
1Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. pevmorfia@med.uoa.gr.
Introduction:
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.
Materials And Methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
