Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Electromyographic analysis of the knee using fixed-activation threshold after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to establish whether there are any electromyographic (EMG) differences after two different surgical techniques in two years follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Study participants were divided into three groups. The control group included healthy athletes (C), the first study group (E1) consisted of injured athletes who were treated by ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon graft and the second study group (E2) comprised injured athletes treated by gracilis and semitendinosus tendon graft. The threshold of muscle activity was defined as 30% of maximum amplitude of EMG signal medial envelope of individual muscles in the control group. Two years after reconstruction, the E2 group achieved the maximum amplitude of biceps femoris muscle signal in the takeoff phase statistically significantly later than the E1 group (0.0166, p = 0.05 and 0.015152, p = 0.05/3 = 0.016), whereas the rectus femoris muscle in the flight phase in the E2 group improved statistically significantly earlier than in the C group (0.0393, p = 0.05 and 0.025974, p = 0.05/3 = 0.016). The results of this study show particularly statistically significant differences between observed surgery techniques, which led to the change of the neuromuscular pathway during simple and controlled knee movements even two years after ACL reconstructions in athletes who returned to active training. These disturbances of muscle work coordinations in the knee joint could be tied to the function and location from which the graft was taken rather than the quality of the transplant itself. This may result in an increased risk of repeated knee injury, including potential permanent health consequences in athletes. Based on the results of this research, we were unable to establish which of the presented ACL reconstruction techniques is more appropriate. This study may be useful for athletes and their coaches, who could plan, programme and adequately adjust their training process, thereby improving knee function in the best possible way, which in turn would maintain and extend athletes’ respective sports careers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alentorn-Geli E, Myer GD, Silvers HJ, Samitier G, Romero D, Lázaro-Haro C, Cugt R (2009) Prevention of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in soccer players. Part 1: Mechanisms of injury and underlying risk factors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:705–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anders JO, Venbrocks RA, Weinberg M (2009) Proprioceptive skills and functional outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a bone-tendon-bone graft. Int Orthop 32:627–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 310:170

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bluman AG (2004) Elementary Statistics: a step by step approach. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chouliaras V, Ristanis S, Moraiti C, Tzimas V, Stergiou N, Georgoulis AD (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a quadrupled hamstrings tendon autograft does not restore tibial rotation to normative levels during landing from a jump and subsequent pivoting. J Sports Med Phys Fit 49:64–70

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Columb MO, Sagadai S (2006) Multiple comparisons. Curr Anaesth Crit Care 17:233–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dauty M, Tortellier L, Rochcongar P (2005) Isokinetic and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstrings or patella tendon graft: analysis of literature. Int J Sports Med 26:599–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ejerhed L, Kartus J, Sernert N, Köhler K, Karlsson J (2003) Patellar tendon or semitendinosus tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A prospective randomized study with a two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 31:19–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gobbi A, Mahajan S, Zanazzo M, Tuy B (2003) Patellar tendon versus quadrupled bone-semitendinosus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective clinical investigation in athletes. Arthroscopy 19:592–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hermens HJ, Merletti R, Rix H, Freriks B (eds) (1999) The state of the art on signal processing methods for surface electromyography. Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Merletti R, Stegeman D, Blok J, Rau G et al (eds) (1999) European recommendations for surface electromyography. Roessingh Research and Development, Enschede

    Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson DS, Smith RB (2001) Outcome measurement in the ACL deficient knee – what's the score? Knee 8:51–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kasović M, Medved V, Mejovšek M, Ergović V (2008) Biomechanical diagnostics of knee joint condition in sport. In: Milanović D, Prot F (eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Scientific Conference in Kinesiology. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Kinesiology, Zagreb pp 242–245

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kasović M, Potočanac Z, Mejovšek M (2009) Differences in ACL reconstruction techniques: EMG study. Proceedings of XXII Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics, Cape Town, South Africa (CD-ROM)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kasović M, Pribanić T, Medved V (2002) Take-off and landing properties in top-level football players: a ground reaction force study. Kinesiology 34:182–189

    Google Scholar 

  16. Katabi M, Djian P, Christel P (2002) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autografts. A comparative study at one year follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Traumatol Revue de chirurgie orthopédique et réparatrice de l'appareil moteur 88:139–148

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kobayashi A, Higuchi H, Terauchi M, Kobayashi F, Kimura M, Takagishi K (2004) Muscle performance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 28:48–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin Z, Zhang X, Jiang J (2010) Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 34:45–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mejovšek M, Kasović M, Lončar V (2007) New laboratory test for dynamic satability in ACL deficient knee joint. Program and Abstracts of the XXIth ISB Congress, Taipei, Taiwan, J Biomech 40 (Suppl 2):588

    Google Scholar 

  20. Roe J, Pinczewski LA, Russell VJ, Salmon LJ, Kawamata T, Chew M (2005) A 7-year follow-up of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon grafts for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: differences and similarities. Am J Sports Med 33:1337–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Seon JK, Song EK, Bae BH, Park SJ, Yoon TR, Cho SG, Lee JJ, Kim MS (2007) Kinematic study following double-bundle, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 31:623–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Spindler KP, Kuhn JE, Freedman KB, Matthews CE, Dittus RS, Harrell FE Jr (2004) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: bone-tendon-bone versus hamstring: does it really matter? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med 32:1986–1995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor DC, Deberardino TM, Nelson BJ, Duffey M, Tenuta J, Stoneman PD, Sturdivant RX, Mountcastle S (2009) Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A randomized controlled trial using similar femoral and tibial fixation methods. Am J Sports Med 37:1946–1957

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tow BP, Chang PC, Mitra AK, Tay BK, Wong MC (2005) Comparing 2-year outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using either patella-tendon or semitendinosus-tendon autografts: a non-randomised prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 13:139–146

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Woo SL, Fisher MB (2009) Evaluation of knee stability with use of a robotic system. J Bone Joint Surg 91(Suppl 1):78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia (Project No. 034-0362979-2334 and 034-0000000-2340)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Mario Kasović, Mladen Mejovšek, Branka Matković & Saša Janković

  2. Clinic for Orthopaedics Lovran, School Of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Anton Tudor

Authors
  1. Mario Kasović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mladen Mejovšek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Branka Matković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saša Janković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anton Tudor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Branka Matković.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kasović, M., Mejovšek, M., Matković, B. et al. Electromyographic analysis of the knee using fixed-activation threshold after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 681–687 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1050-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1050-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation