Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves subjective ability but not neuromuscular biomechanics during dynamic tasks
- 148 Downloads
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcome measures Knee Electromyography Kinematics Kinetics
The authors would like to thank Ida Fillingnes for her contributions in data collection.
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.
This study was approved by the Capital Region of Denmark (H-3-2013-126) and University of Ottawa ethics committees (H06-14-27).
- 4.Andriacchi TP, Birac D (1993) Functional testing in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Clin Orthop 40–47Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop 198:43–49Google Scholar