Sofi Tagesson1, Birgitta Öberg2, Joanna Kvist2. 1. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden. sofi.tagesson@liu.se. 2. Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate static and dynamic tibial translation before, 5 weeks after, and 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. To explore whether static and dynamic tibial translation are correlated. METHODS: Ten patients undergoing quadruple hamstring tendon graft ACL reconstruction were evaluated before, 5 weeks after, and 5 years after ACL reconstruction. Sagittal tibial translation was measured during the Lachman test (static translation) and during gait (dynamic translation) using a CA-4000 electrogoniometer. RESULTS: Five years after ACL reconstruction, static tibial translation did not differ between knees (Lachman test 90 N and 134 N n.s.). In contrast, there was greater maximal anterior tibial translation during gait in ACL-reconstructed knees than in uninjured knees (5.5 ± 1.4 vs. 4.5 ± 1.6 mm, P = 0.028). There were no differences in static or dynamic tibial translation between the 5-year follow-up and before ACL reconstruction or between the 5-year follow-up and the 5-week follow-up. There were no correlations between static and dynamic tibial translation. CONCLUSION: Although static tibial translation did not differ between knees 5 years after ACL reconstruction, dynamic tibial translation during gait was greater in ACL-reconstructed knees than in uninjured knees. Neither static nor dynamic tibial translation changed 5 years after ACL reconstruction as compared to before surgery and 5 weeks after surgery. Static tibial translation did not correlate with dynamic tibial translation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study indicates that although the knee is stable during static measurements, kinematics during gait is impaired 5 years after ACL reconstruction. This may affect the return to sport and risk of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, Level IV.
PURPOSE: To evaluate static and dynamic tibial translation before, 5 weeks after, and 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. To explore whether static and dynamic tibial translation are correlated. METHODS: Ten patients undergoing quadruple hamstring tendon graft ACL reconstruction were evaluated before, 5 weeks after, and 5 years after ACL reconstruction. Sagittal tibial translation was measured during the Lachman test (static translation) and during gait (dynamic translation) using a CA-4000 electrogoniometer. RESULTS: Five years after ACL reconstruction, static tibial translation did not differ between knees (Lachman test 90 N and 134 N n.s.). In contrast, there was greater maximal anterior tibial translation during gait in ACL-reconstructed knees than in uninjured knees (5.5 ± 1.4 vs. 4.5 ± 1.6 mm, P = 0.028). There were no differences in static or dynamic tibial translation between the 5-year follow-up and before ACL reconstruction or between the 5-year follow-up and the 5-week follow-up. There were no correlations between static and dynamic tibial translation. CONCLUSION: Although static tibial translation did not differ between knees 5 years after ACL reconstruction, dynamic tibial translation during gait was greater in ACL-reconstructed knees than in uninjured knees. Neither static nor dynamic tibial translation changed 5 years after ACL reconstruction as compared to before surgery and 5 weeks after surgery. Static tibial translation did not correlate with dynamic tibial translation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study indicates that although the knee is stable during static measurements, kinematics during gait is impaired 5 years after ACL reconstruction. This may affect the return to sport and risk of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, Level IV.
Authors: A D Georgoulis; S Ristanis; C O Moraiti; N Paschos; F Zampeli; S Xergia; S Georgiou; K Patras; H S Vasiliadis; G Mitsionis Journal: Orthop Traumatol Surg Res Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 2.256
Authors: Luke Pugh; Randy Mascarenhas; Shalinder Arneja; Patrick Y K Chin; Jordan M Leith Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jonas Isberg; Eva Faxén; Gauti Laxdal; Bengt I Eriksson; Johan Kärrholm; Jon Karlsson Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Lin Lin; Jing-Sheng Li; Willem A Kernkamp; Ali Hosseini; ChangWan Kim; Peng Yin; Lianxin Wang; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Peter Asnis; Guoan Li Journal: J Biomech Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: James G Levins; Daniel R Sturnick; Erin C Argentieri; Mack Gardner-Morse; Pamela M Vacek; Michael J Desarno; Timothy W Tourville; James R Slauterbeck; Bruce D Beynnon Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 6.202