Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstructed subjects overshoot target knee extension angle during active proprioception testing

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the active joint position sense (JPS), muscle strength, and knee functions in individuals who had anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with quadriceps tendon autograft, hamstring tendon autograft, tibialis anterior allograft and healthy individuals. It was hypothesized that when compared to an age and gender-matched healthy control group, subjects who were post-ACL reconstruction would display impaired active joint position sense, knee extensor and flexor strength symmetry and knee function at 1 year post-surgery. A secondary hypothesis was that differences would exist between the quadriceps tendon autograft, hamstring tendon autograft and tibialis anterior allograft groups.

Methods

Sixty-seven patients with ACL reconstruction and 20 healthy individuals were included. Active JPS reproduction was measured at 15°, 45° and 75° of knee flexion. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and one-leg hop test were used to assess the functional status of the patients.

Results

The JPS detection was different at the 15° target angle between groups (F3.86 = 24.56, p < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of quadriceps tendon autograft group patients failed to identify the 15° active JPS assessment position compared to the other groups (p < 0.0001). The quadriceps index was lower in patients compared to healthy individuals (p < 0.001), while the hamstring index was similar (n.s.). The knee functional outcomes were similar between ACL reconstructed groups and healthy controls (n.s.).

Conclusion

Knee proprioception deficits and impaired muscle strength were evident among patients at a mean 13.5 months post-ACL reconstruction compared with healthy controls. Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using a quadriceps tendon autograft may be more likely to actively over-estimate knee position near terminal extension. Physiotherapists may need to focus greater attention on terminal knee extension proprioceptive awareness among this patient group.

Level of evidence

III.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adams D, Logerstedt D, Hunter-Giordano A, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2012) Current concepts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a criterion-based rehabilitation progression. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 42(7):601–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alvira-Lechuz J, Espiau MR, Alvira-Lechuz E (2017) Treatment of the scar after arthroscopic surgery on a knee. J Bodyw Mov Ther 21(2):328–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ (2006) International Knee Documentation Committee. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data. Am J Sports Med 34(1):128–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Angoules AG, Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, Karzis K, Drakoulakis E, Michos J et al (2011) Knee proprioception following ACL reconstruction; a prospective trial comparing hamstrings with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. Knee 18(2):76–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Borsa PA, Lephart SM, Irrgang JJ, Safran MR, Fu FH (1997) The effects of joint position and direction of joint motion on proprioceptive sensibility in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient athletes. Am J Sports Med 25(3):336–340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Büyükafşar E, Başar S, Kanatli U (2019) Proprioception following the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with tibialis anterior tendon allograft. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1684010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Callaghan MJ, McCarthy CJ, Al-Omar A, Oldham JA (2000) The reproducibility of multi-joint isokinetic and isometric assessments in a healthy and patient population. Clin Biomech 15(9):678–683

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Carter ND, Jenkinson TR, Wilson D, Jones DW, Torode AS (1997) Joint position sense and rehabilitation in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Br J Sports Med 31(3):209–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Çelik D, Coşkunsu D, Kılıçoğlu Ö, Ergönül Ö, Irrgang JJ (2014) Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form into Turkish. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44(11):899–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheung SC, Allen CR, Gallo RA, Ma CB, Feeley BT (2012) Patients’ attitudes and factors in their selection of grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 19(1):49–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clark JC, Rueff DE, Indelicato PA, Moser M (2009) Primary ACL reconstruction using allograft tissue. Clin Sports Med 28(2):223–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. DeAngelis JP, Fulkerson JP (2007) Quadriceps tendon—a reliable alternative for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Sports Med 26(4):587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Duchman KR, Lynch TS, Spindler KP (2017) Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament surgery: who gets what and why? Clin Sports Med 36(1):25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Elmlinger BS, Nyland JA, Tillett ED (2006) Knee flexor function 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with semitendinosus-gracilis autografts. Arthroscopy 22(6):650–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Foster TE, Wolfe BL, Ryan S, Silvestri L, Krall Kaye E (2010) Does the graft source really matter in the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? An evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction results: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 38(1):189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fukunaga T, Johnson CD, Nicholas SJ, McHugh MP (2019) Muscle hypotrophy, not inhibition, is responsible for quadriceps weakness during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(2):573–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gandevia SC, Burke D (1992) Does the nervous system depend on kinesthetic information to control natural limb movements? Behav Brain Sci 15:614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grob K, Manestar M, Filgueira L, Ackland T, Gilbey H, Kuster MS (2016) New insight in the architecture of the quadriceps tendon. J Exp Orthop 3(1):32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harput G, Kilinc HE, Ozer H, Baltaci G, Mattacola CG (2015) Quadriceps and hamstring strength recovery during early neuromuscular rehabilitation after ACL hamstring-tendon autograft reconstruction. J Sport Rehabil 24(4):398–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Iwasa J, Ochi M, Adachi N, Tobita M, Katsube K, Uchio Y (2000) Proprioceptive improvement in knees with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 381:168–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, Pifel E, Amendola A, Andrish JT et al (2011) Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health 3(1):73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kartus J, Movin T, Karlsson J (2001) Donor-site morbidity and anterior knee problems after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autografts. Arthroscopy 17(9):971–980

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kistemaker DA, Van Soest AJK, Wong JD, Kurtzer I, Gribble PL (2012) Control of position and movement is simplified by combined muscle spindle and Golgi tendon organ feedback. J Neurophysiol 109(4):1126–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kustos T, Balint L, Than P, Bárdos T (2004) Comparative study of autograft or allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 28(5):290–293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Landes S, Nyland J, Elmlinger B, Tillett E, Caborn D (2010) Knee flexor strength after ACL reconstruction: comparison between hamstring autograft, tibialis anterior allograft, and non-injured controls. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(3):317–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lephart SM, Kocher MS, Harner CD, Fu FH (1993) Quadriceps strength and functional capacity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon autograft versus allograft. Am J Sports Med 21(5):738–743

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Logerstedt D, Di Stasi S, Grindem H, Lynch A, Eitzen I, Engebretsen L et al (2014) Self-reported knee function can identify athletes who fail return-to-activity criteria up to 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 44(12):914–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Middleton KK, Hamilton T, Irrgang JJ, Karlsson J, Harner CD, Fu FH (2014) Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction: a global perspective. Part 1. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(7):1467–1482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nagai T, Bates NA, Hewett TE, Schilaty ND (2018) Effects of localized vibration on knee joint position sense in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Biomech 55:40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nyland J, Collis P, Huffstutler A, Sachdeva S, Spears JR, Greene J et al (2019) Quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstruction has less pivot shift laxity and lower failure rates than hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05720-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 7:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ozenci AM, Inanmaz E, Ozcanli H, Soyuncu Y, Samanci N, Dagseven T et al (2007) Proprioceptive comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(12):1432–1437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pennock AT, Johnson KP, Turk RD, Bastrom TP, Chambers HG, Boutelle KE, Edmonds EW (2019) Transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the skeletally immature: quadriceps tendon autograft versus hamstring tendon autograft. Orthop J Sports Med 7(9):2325967119872450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peterson RK, Shelton WR, Bomboy AL (2001) Allograft versus autograft patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 17(1):9–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Relph N, Herrington L (2016) Knee joint position sense ability in elite athletes who have returned to international level play following ACL reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. Knee 23(6):1029–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Scott SH, Loeb GE (1994) The computation of position sense from spindles in mono-and multiarticular muscles. J Neurosci 14(12):7529–7540

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sheean AJ, Musahl V, Slone HS, Xerogeanes JW, Milinkovic D, Fink C et al (2018) Quadriceps tendon autograft for arthroscopic knee ligament reconstruction: use it now, use it often. Br J Sports Med 52(11):698–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. van Eck CF, Schreiber VM, Mejia HA, Samuelsson K, van Dijk CN, Karlsson J et al (2010) “Anatomic” anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of surgical techniques and reporting of surgical data. Arthroscopy 26(9):S2–S12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Victor J, Bellemans J, Witvrouw E, Govaers K, Fabry G (1997) Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-prospective analysis of patellar tendon autografts compared with allografts. Int Orthop 21(2):93–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Yoo S-H, Song E-K, Shin Y-R, Kim S-K, Seon J-K (2017) Comparison of clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings after ACL reconstruction using a hamstring autograft or a tibialis allograft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(4):1290–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    Hande Guney-Deniz & Gulcan Harput

  2. Faculty of Health Sciences Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department, Uskudar University, 34662, Istanbul, Turkey

    Defne Kaya

  3. Kosair Charities College of Health and Natural Sciences, Spalding University, Louisville, KY, 40203, USA

    John Nyland

  4. Faculty of Medicine Orthopedics and Traumatology Department, Ufuk University, 06510, Ankara, Turkey

    Mahmut Nedim Doral

Authors
  1. Hande Guney-Deniz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gulcan Harput
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Defne Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Nyland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mahmut Nedim Doral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hande Guney-Deniz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflicts of interest with respect to the data collected and procedures used within this study.

Funding

Authors declare that they have no sponsor in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Ethical approval

The authors confirm this study meets the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the study was received, and written informed consent was provided from all subjects (GO 18/504-41).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guney-Deniz, H., Harput, G., Kaya, D. et al. Quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstructed subjects overshoot target knee extension angle during active proprioception testing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28, 645–652 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05795-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05795-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation