Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 596–603 | Cite as

Greater knee flexion excursion/moment in hopping is associated with better knee function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • Luke G. PerratonEmail author
  • Ross A. Clark
  • Kay M. Crossley
  • Yong-Hao Pua
  • Tim S. Whitehead
  • Hayden G. Morris
  • Adam G. Culvenor
  • Adam L. Bryant



Individuals with impaired knee function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may be at greater risk of developing knee osteoarthritis related to abnormal knee joint movement and loading. The aim of this study was to assess the association between knee biomechanics and knee laxity during hopping and clinically assessed knee function (i.e., patient-reported knee function and hop tests) following ACLR.


Sixty-six participants (23 women, mean age 28 ± 6 years, mean 18 ± 3 months following ACLR) completed a standardized single-leg hopping task. Three-dimensional movement analysis was used to assess knee flexion excursion and body weight/height normalized knee flexion moments during landing for the involved limb. Anterior–posterior knee laxity was assessed with a KT-1000 knee arthrometer. Participants then completed a patient-reported knee function questionnaire and three separate hop tests (% of uninvolved limb) and were divided into poor and satisfactory knee function groups (satisfactory: ≥85% patient-reported knee function and ≥ 85% hop test symmetry). Associations between knee function and hop biomechanics/knee laxity were assessed using logistic regression and interquartile range scaled odds ratios (ORIQR).


Greater knee flexion excursion (ORIQR 2.9, 95%CI 1.1–7.8), greater knee flexion moment (ORIQR 4.9, 95%CI 1.6–14.3) and lesser knee laxity (ORIQR 4.7, 95%CI 1.5–14.9) were significantly associated with greater odds of having satisfactory knee function (≥ 85% patient-reported knee function and ≥ 85% hop test symmetry).


Greater knee flexion excursion/moment during hop-landing and lesser knee laxity is associated with better patient-reported knee function and single-leg hop test performance following ACLR. Patients with lower levels of knee function following ACLR demonstrated hop-landing biomechanics previously associated with early patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving hop landing biomechanics in people with poor knee function are likely required.

Level of evidence

III, Cross-sectional study.


ACL reconstruction Biomechanics Hopping Knee function. 



We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ms. Stacey Telianidis and Ms. Karine Fortin who assisted with data collection.


Luke Perraton was a recipient of a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) postgraduate scholarship (APP1038378). Adam Bryant and Ross Clark are recipients of NHMRC Career Development Fellowships (R.D.Wright Biomedical, No. 1053521 and 1090415). AC was supported by postdoctoral funding from a European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7-PEOPLE-2013-ITN; 607510) and is a recipient of an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (Neil Hamilton Fairley, No. 1121173). The authors have no professional or financial affiliations that may be perceived to have biased the presentation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was provided by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics committee (ID 1136167).


  1. 1.
    Abrams GD, Harris JD, Gupta AK, McCormick FM, Bush-Joseph CA, Verma NN et al (2014) Functional performance testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med 2:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahldén M, Samuelsson K, Sernert N, Forssblad M, Karlsson J, Kartus J (2012) The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register a report on baseline variables and outcomes of surgery for almost 18,000 patients. Am J Sports Med 40:2230–2235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ali N, Robertson DGE, Rouhi G (2012) Sagittal plane body kinematics and kinetics during single-leg landing from increasing vertical heights and horizontal distances: implications for risk of non-contact ACL injury. Knee 21:38–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andriacchi TP, Dyrby CO (2005) Interactions between kinematics and loading during walking for the normal and ACL deficient knee. J Biomech 38:293–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA (2011) Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med 45:596–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA (2011) Return to the preinjury level of competitive sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 39:538–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, McCloskey JW (1999) Rigorous statistical reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati knee rating system in 350 subjects with uninjured, injured, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med 27:402–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE, Hartman W (1990) Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 255:204–214Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bisseling RW, Hof AL (2006) Handling of impact forces in inverse dynamics. J Biomech 39:2438–2444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bryant AL, Newton RU, Steele J (2009) Successful feed-forward strategies following ACL injury and reconstruction. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19:988–997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cameron ML, Briggs KK, Steadman JR (2003) Reproducibility and reliability of the Outerbridge classification for grading chondral lesions of the knee arthroscopically. Am J Sports Med 31:83–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark NC (2001) Functional performance testing following knee ligament injury. Phys Ther Sport 2:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Culvenor A, Perraton L, Guermazi A, Bryant A, Whitehead T, Morris H et al (2016) Knee kinematics and kinetics are associated with early patellofemoral osteoarthritis following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Osteoarthr Cartil 24:1548–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Culvenor AG, Collins NJ, Guermazi A, Cook JL, Vicenzino B, Khan KM et al (2015) Early knee osteoarthritis is evident one year following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. Arthritis Rheumatol 67:946–955CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Culvenor AG, Collins NJ, Guermazi A, Cook JL, Vicenzino B, Whitehead TS et al (2016) Early patellofemoral osteoarthritis features one year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: symptoms and quality of life at three years. Arthritis Care Res 68:784–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Culvenor AG, Crossley KM (2016) Accelerated return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a risk factor for early knee osteoarthritis? Br J Sports Med 50:260–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daniel DM, Stone ML, Sachs R, Malcom L (1985) Instrumented measurement of anterior knee laxity in patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament disruption. Am J Sports Med 13:401–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deneweth JM, Bey MJ, McLean SG, Lock TR, Kolowich PA, Tashman S (2010) Tibiofemoral joint kinematics of the anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee during a single-legged hop landing. Am J Sports Med 38:1820–1828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eitzen I, Holm I, Risberg MA (2009) Preoperative quadriceps strength is a significant predictor of knee function two years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med 43:371–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ernst GP, Saliba E, Diduch DR, Hurwitz SR, Ball DW (2000) Lower-extremity compensations following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Phys Ther 80:251–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gokeler A, Hof AL, Arnold MP, Dijkstra PU, Postema K, Otten E (2010) Abnormal landing strategies after ACL reconstruction. Scand J Med Sci Sports 20:12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grindem H, Snyder-Mackler L, Moksnes H, Engebretsen L, Risberg MA (2016) Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br J Sports Med 50:804–808CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gustavsson A, Neeter C, Thomeé P, Grävare Silbernagel K, Augustsson J, Thomeé R et al (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
  24. 24.
    Ithurburn MP, Paterno MV, Ford KR, Hewett TE, Schmitt LC (2015) Young athletes with quadriceps femoris strength asymmetry at return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction demonstrate asymmetric single-leg drop-landing mechanics. Am J Sports Med 43:2727–2737CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laughlin WA, Weinhandl JT, Kernozek TW, Cobb SC, Keenan KG, O’Connor KM (2011) The effects of single-leg landing technique on ACL loading. J Biomech 44:1845–1851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lentz TA, Tillman SM, Indelicato PA, Moser MW, George SZ, Chmielewski TL (2009) Factors associated with function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Health 1:47–53 (A Multidisciplinary Approach)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Logerstedt D, Grindem H, Lynch A, Eitzen I, Engebretsen L, Risberg MA et al (2012) Single-legged hop tests as predictors of self-reported knee function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 40:2348–2356CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miranda DL, Fadale PD, Hulstyn MJ, Shalvoy RM, Machan JT, Fleming BC (2013) Knee biomechanics during a jump-cut maneuver: effects of sex and ACL surgery. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45:942–951CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moses B, Orchard J, Orchard J (2012) Systematic review: annual incidence of ACL injury and surgery in various populations. Res Sports Med 20:157–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Myer GD, Schmitt LC, Brent JL, Ford KR, Barber Foss KD, Scherer BJ et al (2011) Utilization of modified NFL combine testing to identify functional deficits in athletes following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41:377–387CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Noyes FR, Barber S, Magine R (1991) Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Sports Med 19:513–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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 29(5):512–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oberländer KD, Brüggemann GP, Höher J, Karamanidis K (2012) Altered landing mechanics in ACL-reconstructed patients. Med Sci Sports Exerc 45:506–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Orishimo K, Kremenic I, Mullaney M, McHugh M, Nicholas S (2010) Adaptations in single-leg hop biomechanics following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1587–1593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1373–1379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perraton L (2014) Neuromuscular control and knee function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (doctoral dissertation). Accessed 20 Mar 2018
  37. 37.
    Perraton L, Clark R, Crossley K, Pua Y-H, Whitehead T, Morris H et al (2017) Impaired voluntary quadriceps force control following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: relationship with knee function. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1–8Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Perraton LG, Hall M, Clark RA, Crossley KM, Pua YH, Whitehead TS et al (2018) Poor knee function after ACL reconstruction is associated with attenuated landing force and knee flexion moment during running. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:391–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reid A, Birmingham TB, Stratford PW, Alcock GK, Giffin JR (2007) Hop testing provides a reliable and valid outcome measure during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Phys Ther 87:337–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Risberg M, Holm I, Tjomsland O, Ljunggren E, Ekeland A (1999) Prospective study of changes in impairments and disabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 29:400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roos PE, Button K, Sparkes V, van Deursen RW (2013) Altered biomechanical strategies and medio-lateral control of the knee represent incomplete recovery of individuals with injury during single leg hop. J Biomech 47:675–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schache AG, Baker R (2007) On the expression of joint moments during gait. Gait Posture 25:440–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schache AG, Baker R, Lamoreux LW (2006) Defining the knee joint flexion–extension axis for purposes of quantitative gait analysis: an evaluation of methods. Gait Posture 24:100–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schmitt LC, Paterno MV, Ford KR, Myer GD, Hewett TE (2015) Strength asymmetry and landing mechanics at return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47:1426–1434CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop 198:43–49Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Xergia SA, Pappas E (2013) Asymmetries in functional hop tests, lower extremity kinematics and isokinetic strength persist 6–9 months following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43:154–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xergia SA, Pappas E, Georgoulis AD (2014) Association of the single-limb hop test with isokinetic, kinematic, and kinetic asymmetries in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Health 7:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yeow C, Lee P, Goh J (2011) Shod landing provides enhanced energy dissipation at the knee joint relative to barefoot landing from different heights. Knee 18:407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physiotherapy, School of Primary and Allied Health CareMonash UniversityFrankstonAustralia
  2. 2.School of Health and Sport SciencesUniversity of the Sunshine CoastSippy DownsAustralia
  3. 3.School of Allied HealthLa Trobe UniversityBundooraAustralia
  4. 4.Department of PhysiotherapySingapore General HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  5. 5.Orthosport VictoriaEpworth HospitalMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.The Park ClinicMelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.Paracelsus Medical University, Institute of Anatomy Salzburg and NuremburgSalzburgAustria
  8. 8.Melbourne School of PhysiotherapyThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations