In Vandekerckhove 2024 et al., which factor **did not** significantly affect LImax?
A. Device position
B. Osteoarthritis
C. Body weight
D. Side
E. All of the above
Answer: All of the above
Explanation: None of these factors significantly affected LImax in the study.
In Vandekerckhove 2024 et al., what effect did lever arm length (device position) have on hip laxity measurement?
A. Altered LImax significantly
B. Affected body weight calculation
C. Changed LI% slope but not LImax
D. Introduced significant measurement error
E. Decreased signal-to-noise ratio
Answer: Changed LI% slope but not LImax
Explanation: Lever length (DH-VMBDmD/DCFJ-VMBDmD) affected how quickly LI% plateaued but not final LImax
In Vandekerckhove 2024 et al., what was the main biomechanical interpretation of repeated stress testing on hip joints?
A. Plastic deformation occurred over time
B. Elastic deformation occurred
C. Initial session caused irreversible change
D. Force threshold increased with each session
E. Deformation was random and non-repeatable
Answer: Elastic deformation occurred
Explanation: Repeat stress radiographs showed no lasting change in LImax—indicating elastic behavior
In Vandekerckhove 2024 et al., what value did the LImax range across all cadavers?
A. 0.15–0.53
B. 0.25–0.77
C. 0.31–0.68
D. 0.42–0.84
E. 0.30–0.70
Answer: 0.25–0.77
Explanation: Reported LImax ranged from 0.25 to 0.77, median 0.53
In Vandekerckhove 2024 et al., what force was required for 90% of hips to reach at least 90% of LImax?
A. 72.65 N
B. 85.00 N
C. 95.32 N
D. 102.50 N
E. 110.75 N
Answer: 95.32 N
Explanation: A force of 95.32 N was sufficient to produce ≥90% of LImax in 90% of hips.
