Functional performance 2–9 years after ACL reconstruction: cross-sectional comparison between athletes with bone–patellar tendon–bone, semitendinosus/gracilis and healthy controls
- 751 Downloads
The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to provide descriptive data on functional performance in men and women with ACLR, to compare bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) with semitendinosus/gracilis (STG) within the same sex and to compare the ACLR subjects with healthy controls.
Eligible participants comprised 100 men (43 % BPTB) and 84 women (41 % BPTB) after ACLR, of whom 30 men (STG n = 19; BPTB n = 11) and 18 women (STG n = 12; BPTB n = 6) were untraceable/not willing and 15 men (STG n = 9; BPTB n = 6) and 18 women (STG n = 12; BPTB n = 3) were not able to take part in the measurements because of injury. Besides men BPTB (n = 24), men STG (n = 27), women BPTB (n = 23) and women STG (n = 23), healthy men (n = 22) and women (n = 22) participated. Measurements consisted of questionnaires, isokinetic peak torque and endurance tests, a hop test battery and drop jump including video analysis.
Only the occurrence of dynamic knee valgus differed between ACLR and healthy subjects.
Two to nine years after ACLR, 16 % of athletes could not participate because of a lower extremity injury. In the remaining group, this study showed similar results for males and females with BPTB compared with STG. Also, similar results are found for quantity of movement comparing operated and healthy subjects. For quality of movement, only the occurrence of dynamic knee valgus in landing from a jump is higher in operated subjects compared with healthy controls. This supports the relevance of a focus on quality of movement as part of ACLR rehabilitation programmes and return to sports criteria.
Level of evidence
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Functional performance Quality of movement Quantity of movement
- 1.Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Magnusson P, Larsson B, Dyhre-Poulsen P (1998) A new concept for isokinetic hamstring:quadriceps muscle strength ratio. Am J Sports Med 25(2):230–237Google Scholar
- 6.Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE, McCloskey JW, Hartman W (1990) Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res (255):204–214Google Scholar
- 11.Bizzini M (2000) Sensomotorische Rehabilitation nach Beinverletzungen. Mit Fallbeispielen in allen Heilungsstadien. In: Dvorak J, Junge A (eds) F-MARC football medicine manual. FIFA, ZurichGoogle Scholar
- 32.Mascarenhas R, Tranovich MJ, Kropf EJ, Fu FH, Harner CD (2012) Bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the young athlete: a retrospective matched analysis with 2–10 year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol 20(8):1520–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Ocif J, Gardner C, Albright J, Pope M (2000) Chapter 15. In: Lephart SM, Fu FH (eds) Proprioception and neuromuscular control in joint stability. Human Kinetics, Pittsburgh, pp 161–180Google Scholar
- 51.The Swedisch National ACL Register. Annual report 2011. http://www.artroclinic.se/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=skreg/xb_info?visa=ars-rapport
- 55.Van Cingel RE, Kleinrensink G, Rooijens PP, Uitterlinden E, Aufdemkampe G, Stoeckart R (2001) Learning effect in isokinetic testing of ankle invertors and evertors. Isokinet Exerc Sci 9:171–177Google Scholar
- 59.Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A et al (2007) Risk of tearing the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee and rupturing the anterior cruciate ligament graft during the first 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective MOON cohort study. Am J Sports Med 35(7):1113–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar