Originally Posted by valli
That's a good question, I'll have to look at the paperwork. I know I got some sort of brochure/card with them when I got them, but I was eager to get out and ski and didn't pay much attention to it, and now I'm not sure where I put it. I'll check with California Ski Company, that's where I got them and I know they mount a lot of knee bindings.
I looked on the web site and they had Warranty Card, In the Box Instructions, and the FAQ. But I didn't see anything requesting that the company be contacted.
I'm just trying to stay objective on this issue. As long as they don't pre-release, I'd be willing to give them a try after I have my ACL reconstructed.
Now, from a research perspective, survey response rates are very low--especially without follow-up. So, in this case, a company uses self-reporting--and we're not sure whether they ask for people to report--to formulate their statistics.
If we wanted to design a study on the effectiveness of a particular type of binding to reduce rearward twisting ACL injuries.
- First, rearward twisting ACL injuries would need to be defined. Is this a strain, partial tear, complete tear? Is this verified by an MRI or physician assessment via KT-2000 arthrometer testing?
- Second, obtain two pools of people for the study. A control group and a treatment group. It should contain a cross sample of the general skiing population (male/female/beginner/intermediate/advanced) unless you wanted to redefine the study for a certain population such as ski instructors and ski patrol. I think it would be very important to have females represented in the proportion of the general population. You would have to decide whether there would be populations to exclude from the study--do you want people with previous knee injuries? ACL, MCL, LCL, meniscus, cartilage injuries? other pre-existing conditions?
- Based on the estimates of ACL injuries in he literature, a bio-statistician would need to calculate the number of people needed to have enough power to determine if there was a statistical difference between the groups.
- Ideally, this would be a double-blind study where the people would not know whether or not they were in the control or treatment group. In the case, the bindings for the control group would have to have the regular upward release with the lateral release disabled.
- The DIN settings would have to be set at the manufacturer's recommended settings.
- A methodology would have to be created to track the number of days skied. This could be low-tech self-reporting or high-tech GPS tracking vertical feet.
- Each year, a survey could be sent to all of the people in the study with questions such as: 1) Did you injure your knee this year? 2) If yes, what kind of injury? 3) If yes, what type of fall precipitated the injury? 4) Did you seek medical attention for the injury? 5) What did the medical professional diagnose including the codes? 6) Did you have surgery? 7) Did you have any falls this year where your bindings releases? 8) Did you have any occurrences where you felt your binding should have released but didn't? 9) How many days did you ski this year? 10) What level skier are you (based on a set of criteria)? 11) Are you a professional (ski patrol or ski instructor), recreational, or competitive skier (race, freestyle, etc)?..... (you get the idea)
- If the people in the study did not respond to the initial e-mail or mailed survey. Follow-ups would need to be made by e-mail or snail mail. Further follow-up by phone calls may be necessary.
I just wanted to mention this to show what it would take to have a study where you are comparing apples to apples. This is what would be required for a study to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
There is positive anecdotal evidence here; however, it should not be confused with research or a study.