Advertisement

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves subjective ability but not neuromuscular biomechanics during dynamic tasks

  • Kenneth B. Smale
  • Teresa E. Flaxman
  • Tine Alkjaer
  • Erik B. Simonsen
  • Michael R. Krogsgaard
  • Daniel L. Benoit
KNEE
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify high-functioning anterior cruciate ligament-deficient patients and assess the effects of reconstruction on their self-reported functionality, muscle activations and biomechanical properties.

Methods

Twenty young and active patients participated pre- (11.5 ± 14.3 months post-injury) and again 10.5 ± 1.7 months post-reconstruction and were individually matched to 20 healthy controls. Participants completed hop and side cut movements while patient-related outcome measures, lower limb electromyography, kinetic, and whole body kinematic data were collected. One-dimensional statistical parametric mapping was used to test for group differences (healthy vs deficient; deficient vs reconstructed; reconstructed vs healthy).

Results

When comparing healthy to anterior cruciate ligament-deficient participants, all questionnaires indicated significant lower subjective function while the only substantial biomechanical difference between these participants was a decreased knee extensor moment in both the hop (peak difference: 0.63 Nm/kg, p < 0.001) and side cut (peak difference: 0.76 Nm/kg, p < 0.001). When comparing patients’ pre- and post-reconstruction, no biomechanical differences were observed whereas only half of the questionnaires (Tegner, Lysholm, KNEES-ADL, KNEES-Slackness, KNEES-Looseness, KNEES-Sport Behaviour, IKDC, and KOOS-QoL) indicated higher function in the reconstructed state. When comparing the reconstructed patients to the healthy participants, all questionnaires were still significantly higher in the healthy controls. The reconstructed group also had a smaller flexion angle (peak difference: 14.5°, p = 0.007) and knee extensor moment (peak difference: 0.62 Nm/kg, p < 0.001) during the hop and a smaller knee extensor moment (peak difference: 0.90 Nm/kg, p < 0.001) during the side-cut task.

Conclusion

At 10-months post-reconstruction, the current results indicate that in high-functioning anterior cruciate ligament-deficient patients, reconstruction had little impact on objective measures of functional ability during dynamic tasks although self-reported function was improved.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic prospective cohort study, Level II.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcome measures Knee Electromyography Kinematics Kinetics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ida Fillingnes for her contributions in data collection.

Funding

They would also like to thank the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council for their financial support in the form of a student grant to K.B.S. as well as the Åse and Ejnar Danielsens Fund, the Danish Rheumatism Association, and the Lundbeck Foundation for their financial support in the form of operating grants.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Capital Region of Denmark (H-3-2013-126) and University of Ottawa ethics committees (H06-14-27).

Supplementary material

167_2018_5189_MOESM1_ESM.png (118 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1. Flowchart detailing participant compliance and ability to complete hop (H) and side cut (SC) tasks. M – Males; F – Females; ACL-D – Anterior cruciate ligament deficient; ACL-R – anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed. (PNG 118 KB)
167_2018_5189_MOESM2_ESM.png (235 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2. Ground reaction forces for the A) hop and B) side cut. Black vertical land indicates initial contact while blue horizontal bar indicates significant (p < 0.05) difference between the healthy (UNINJ) and ACL reconstructed (ACL-R) groups. ACL-D – Anterior cruciate ligament deficient. (PNG 235 KB)
167_2018_5189_MOESM3_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary Table 1. Summary of the 20-week standardized rehabilitation program undergone by all ACL-R patients. (DOCX 13 KB)
167_2018_5189_MOESM4_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary Table 2. Comparison of subjective scores in low-functioning patients (those who were not willing to complete either hop (H) or side cut (SC) tasks in either of the ACL deficient (ACL-D) or reconstructed (ACL-R) state) and high-functioning patients (those willing to complete either H or SC tasks in both ACL states). * indicates trend towards significance (0.05 < p < 0.1) between low-functioning and those able to complete H. ** indicates significance (p < 0.05) between low-functioning and those able to complete H. indicates trend towards significance (0.05 < p < 0.1) between low-functioning and those able to complete SC. †† indicates significance (p < 0.05) between low-functioning and those able to complete SC. (DOCX 14 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Aalbersberg S, Kingma I, Dieen JH van (2009) Hamstrings co-activation in ACL-deficient subjects during isometric whole-leg extensions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:946–955CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alkjær T, Simonsen EB, Magnusson SP, Dyhre-Poulsen P, Aagaard P (2012) Antagonist muscle moment is increased in ACL deficient subjects during maximal dynamic knee extension. Knee 19:633–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allen CR, Wong EK, Livesay GA, Sakane M, Fu FH, Woo SL (2000) Importance of the medial meniscus in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. J Orthop Res 18:109–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andriacchi TP, Birac D (1993) Functional testing in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Clin Orthop 40–47Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benoit DL, Lamontagne M, Cerulli G, Liti A (2003) The clinical significance of electromyography normalisation techniques in subjects with anterior cruciate ligament injury during treadmill walking. Gait Posture 18:56–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bisseling RW, Hof AL (2006) Handling of impact forces in inverse dynamics. J Biomech 39:2438–2444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boden BP, Dean GS, Feagin JA Jr, Garrett WE Jr (2000) Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Orthopedics 23:573–578Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chmielewski TL, Rudolph KS, Fitzgerald GK, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2001) Biomechanical evidence supporting a differential response to acute ACL injury. Clin Biomech Bristol Avon 16:586–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciccotti MG, Kerlan RK, Perry J, Pink M (1994) An electromyographic analysis of the knee during functional activities. II. The anterior cruciate ligament-deficient and -reconstructed profiles. Am J Sports Med 22:651–658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clatworthy MG, Annear P, Bulow JU, Bartlett RJ (1999) Tunnel widening in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective evaluation of hamstring and patella tendon grafts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:138–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Comins JD, Krogsgaard MR, Brodersen J (2013) Development of the knee numeric-entity evaluation score (KNEES-ACL): a condition-specific questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:e293–e301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Di Stasi SL, Snyder-Mackler L (2012) The effects of neuromuscular training on the gait patterns of ACL-deficient men and women. Clin Biomech Bristol Avon 27:360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eitzen I, Moksnes H, Snyder-Mackler L, Engebretsen L, Risberg MA (2010) Functional tests should be accentuated more in the decision for ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1517–1525CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Fillingham YA, Frank RM, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR, Cole BJ, Verma NN (2014) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practice patterns by NFL and NCAA football team physicians. Arthrosc 30:731–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischer-Rasmussen T, Jensen PE (2000) Proprioceptive sensitivity and performance in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee joints. Scand J Med Sci Sports 10:85–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitzgerald GK, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2000) Proposed practice guidelines for nonoperative anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation of physically active individuals. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 30:194–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flaxman TE, Speirs AD, Benoit DL (2012) Joint stabilisers or moment actuators: the role of knee joint muscles while weight-bearing. J Biomech 45:2570–2576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frank RM, Lundberg H, Wimmer MA, Forsythe B, Bach BR, Verma NN, Cole BJ (2016) Hamstring activity in the anterior cruciate ligament injured patient: injury implications and comparison with quadriceps activity. Arthroscopy 32:1651–1659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gardinier ES, Manal K, Buchanan TS, Snyder-Mackler L (2012) Gait and neuromuscular asymmetries after acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Med Sci Sports Exerc 44:1490–1496CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldblatt JP, Fitzsimmons SE, Balk E, Richmond JC (2005) Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis of patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft. Arthrosc 21:791–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gustavsson A, Neeter C, Thomeé P, Silbernagel KG, Augustsson J, Thomeé R, Karlsson J (2006) A test battery for evaluating hop performance in patients with an ACL injury and patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14:778–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrington L, Fowler E (2006) A systematic literature review to investigate if we identify those patients who can cope with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Knee 13:260–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Houck J, Yack HJ (2003) Associations of knee angles, moments and function among subjects that are healthy and anterior cruciate ligament deficient (ACLD) during straight ahead and crossover cutting activities. Gait Posture 18:126–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelborne KD (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29:600–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knutson LM, Soderberg GL, Ballantyne BT, Clarke WR (1994) A study of various normalization procedures for within day electromyographic data. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 4:47–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koga H, Nakamae A, Shima Y, Iwasa J, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L, Bahr R, Krosshaug T (2010) Mechanisms for noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries knee joint kinematics in 10 injury situations from female team handball and basketball. Am J Sports Med 38:2218–2225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krosshaug T, Nakamae A, Boden BP, Engebretsen L, Smith G, Slauterbeck JR, Hewett TE, Bahr R (2007) Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury in basketball: video analysis of 39 cases. Am J Sports Med 35:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lindstrom M, Fellander-Tsai L, Wredmark T, Henriksson M (2010) Adaptations of gait and muscle activation in chronic ACL deficiency. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:106–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macleod TD, Snyder-Mackler L, Buchanan TS (2014) Differences in neuromuscular control and quadriceps morphology between potential copers and noncopers following anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44:76–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mantovani G, Lamontagne M (2016) How different marker sets affect joint angles in inverse kinematics framework. J Biomech Eng 139(4):044503-1-044503–7Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miranda DL, Fadale PD, Hulstyn MJ, Shalvoy RM, Machan JT, Fleming BC (2013) Knee biomechanics during a jump-cut maneuver: effects of gender & ACL surgery. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45:942–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nyland J, Mattocks A, Kibbe S, Kalloub A, Greene JW, Caborn DNM (2016) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, rehabilitation, and return to play: 2015 update. Open Access J Sports Med 7:21–32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nyland J, Wera J, Klein S, Caborn DNM (2014) Lower extremity neuromuscular compensations during instrumented single leg hop testing 2–10 years following ACL reconstruction. Knee 21:1191–1197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oberländer KD, Brüggemann G-P, Höher J, Karamanidis K (2014) Knee mechanics during landing in anterior cruciate ligament patients: a longitudinal study from pre- to 12 months post-reconstruction. Clin Biomech Bristol Avon 29:512–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pataky TC (2010) Generalized n-dimensional biomechanical field analysis using statistical parametric mapping. J Biomech 43:1976–1982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rajagopal A, Dembia CL, DeMers MS, Delp DD, Hicks JL, Delp SL (2016) Full-body musculoskeletal model for muscle-driven simulation of human gait. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 63:2068–2079CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roos M, Lohmander LS (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rudolph KS, Axe MJ, Buchanan TS, Scholz JP, Snyder-Mackler L (2001) Dynamic stability in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9:62–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rudolph KS, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2000) Dynamic stability after ACL injury: who can hop? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8:262–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rudolph KS, Eastlack ME, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (1998) 1998 Basmajian Student Award Paper: Movement patterns after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a comparison of patients who compensate well for the injury and those who require operative stabilization. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 8:349–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stegeman DF, Hermens HJ (1998) Standards for surface electromyography: the European project (SENIAM). In: Hermens HJ, Rau G, Disselhorst-Klug C, Freriks B (eds). Surface electromyography application areas and parameters. Proceedings of the third general SENIAM workshop on surface electromyography, Aachen, Germany, pp 108–112Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop 198:43–49Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wu WH, Hackett T, Richmond JC (2002) Effects of meniscal and articular surface status on knee stability, function, and symptoms after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a long-term prospective study. Am J Sports Med 30:845–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human KineticsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Rehabilitation SciencesUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Neuroscience and PharmacologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Section for Sports Traumatology M51 (a part of IOC Sports Medicine Copenhagen)Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg HospitalFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations