2026/01/01 by Margaret S. Harrington, Timothy A. Burkhart
Medicine · #Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques #Sports Performance and Training #Sports injuries and prevention
paper · pdf · doi:10.1123/jab.2025-0285
openalex publication_date 2026/01/01 · openalex created_date 2026/07/22 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
Goaltending techniques have evolved to include goaltenders dropping to their knees to cover the lower part of the net, utilizing stances, such as the butterfly and reverse vertical horizontal (RVH). These stances are suggested to place considerable stress on the hip, knee, and ankle joints compared with traditional stances (eg, standing and vertical horizontal). However, the kinematic differences between these techniques and potential implications for injury risk have not been fully explored. This study aimed to quantify 3D lower-extremity joint kinematics during key goaltending stances. The 3D hip, knee, and ankle angles of 26 goaltenders (mean (SD): age = 19.5 (2.3) y) were quantified during key goaltending stances (ie, butterfly, standing ready, RVH, and vertical horizontal) using Theia3D markerless technology. The butterfly and RVH compared with the standing ready and vertical horizontal demonstrated higher mean hip internal rotation (16.6° and 22.2° vs 5.2° and 11.4°, respectively) and ankle external rotation (11.7° and 15.9° vs -1.6° and -10.8°). Compared with the standing ready, the kneeling stances (vertical horizontal, butterfly, and RVH) also involved higher mean knee abduction (5.6° vs 12.4° to 15.1°) and external rotation (0.7° vs 13.0° to 21.3°). The butterfly and RVH stances showed riskier kinematics for common hip, knee, and ankle injuries in goaltenders.