|
|
Grip, H., Tengman, E., Liebermann, D. G., & Hager, C. K. (2019). Kinematic analyses including finite helical axes of drop jump landings demonstrate decreased knee control long after anterior cruciate ligament injury. PLoS One, 14(10), e0224261.
Abstract: The purpose was to evaluate the dynamic knee control during a drop jump test following injury of the anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL) using finite helical axes. Persons injured 17-28 years ago, treated with either physiotherapy (ACLPT, n = 23) or reconstruction and physiotherapy (ACLR, n = 28) and asymptomatic controls (CTRL, n = 22) performed a drop jump test, while kinematics were registered by motion capture. We analysed the Preparation phase (from maximal knee extension during flight until 50 ms post-touchdown) followed by an Action phase (until maximal knee flexion post-touchdown). Range of knee motion (RoM), and the length of each phase (Duration) were computed. The finite knee helical axis was analysed for momentary intervals of ~15 degrees of knee motion by its intersection (DeltaAP position) and inclination (DeltaAP Inclination) with the knee's Anterior-Posterior (AP) axis. Static knee laxity (KT100) and self-reported knee function (Lysholm score) were also assessed. The results showed that both phases were shorter for the ACL groups compared to controls (CTRL-ACLR: Duration 35+/-8 ms, p = 0.000, CTRL-ACLPT: 33+/-9 ms, p = 0.000) and involved less knee flexion (CTRL-ACLR: RoM 6.6+/-1.9 degrees , p = 0.002, CTRL-ACLR: 7.5 +/-2.0 degrees , p = 0.001). Low RoM and Duration correlated significantly with worse knee function according to Lysholm and higher knee laxity according to KT-1000. Three finite helical axes were analysed. The DeltaAP position for the first axis was most anterior in ACLPT compared to ACLR (DeltaAP position -1, ACLPT-ACLR: 13+/-3 mm, p = 0.004), with correlations to KT-1000 (rho 0.316, p = 0.008), while the DeltaAP inclination for the third axis was smaller in the ACLPT group compared to controls (DeltaAP inclination -3 ACLPT-CTRL: -13+/-5 degrees , p = 0.004) and showed a significant side difference in ACL injured groups during Action (Injured-Non-injured: 8+/-2.7 degrees , p = 0.006). Small DeltaAP inclination -3 correlated with low Lysholm (rho 0.391, p = 0.002) and high KT-1000 (rho -0.450, p = 0.001). Conclusions Compensatory movement strategies seem to be used to protect the injured knee during landing. A decreased DeltaAP inclination in injured knees during Action suggests that the dynamic knee control may remain compromised even long after injury.
|
|
|
|
Markstrom, J. L., Liebermann, D. G., Schelin, L., & Hager, C. K. (2022). Atypical Lower Limb Mechanics During Weight Acceptance of Stair Descent at Different Time Frames After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med, , 1–9.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture may result in poor sensorimotor knee control and, consequentially, adapted movement strategies to help maintain knee stability. Whether patients display atypical lower limb mechanics during weight acceptance of stair descent at different time frames after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the presence of atypical lower limb mechanics during the weight acceptance phase of stair descent among athletes at early, middle, and late time frames after unilateral ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 49 athletes with ACLR were classified into 3 groups according to time after ACLR-early (<6 months; n = 17), middle (6-18 months; n = 16), and late (>18 months; n = 16)-and compared with asymptomatic athletes (control; n = 18). Sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle angles; angular velocities; moments; and powers were compared between the ACLR groups' injured and noninjured legs and the control group as well as between legs within groups using functional data analysis methods. RESULTS: All 3 ACLR groups showed greater knee flexion angles and moments than the control group for injured and noninjured legs. For the other outcomes, the early group had, compared with the control group, less hip power absorption, more knee power absorption, lower ankle plantarflexion angle, lower ankle dorsiflexion moment, and less ankle power absorption for the injured leg and more knee power absorption and higher vertical ground reaction force for the noninjured leg. In addition, the late group showed differences from the control group for the injured leg revealing more knee power absorption and lower ankle plantarflexion angle. Only the early group took a longer time than the control group to complete weight acceptance and demonstrated asymmetry for multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION: Athletes with different time frames after ACLR revealed atypically large knee angles and moments during weight acceptance of stair descent for both the injured and the noninjured legs. These findings may express a chronically adapted strategy to increase knee control. In contrast, atypical hip and ankle mechanics seem restricted to an early time frame after ACLR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after ACLR should include early training in controlling weight acceptance. Including a control group is essential when evaluating movement patterns after ACLR because both legs may be affected.
|
|
