Emily S Gardinier1, Stephanie Di Stasi2, Kurt Manal3, Thomas S Buchanan3, Lynn Snyder-Mackler4. 1. School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA egardin@umich.edu. 2. Sports Health and Performance Institute, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 3. Delaware Rehabilitation Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA. 4. Delaware Rehabilitation Institute, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, contact forces are decreased in the injured knee when compared with the uninjured knee. The persistence of contact force asymmetries after ACL reconstruction may increase the risk of reinjury and may play an important role in the development of knee osteoarthritis in these patients. Functional performance may also be useful in identifying patients who demonstrate potentially harmful joint contact force asymmetries after ACL reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: Knee joint contact force asymmetries would be present during gait after ACL reconstruction, and performance on a specific set of validated return-to-sport (RTS) readiness criteria would discriminate between those who demonstrated contact force asymmetries and those who did not. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 29 patients with ACL ruptures participated in gait analysis and RTS readiness testing 6 months after reconstruction. Muscle and joint contact forces were estimated using an electromyography (EMG)-driven musculoskeletal model of the knee. The magnitude of typical limb asymmetry in uninjured controls was used to define limits of meaningful limb asymmetry in patients after ACL reconstruction. The RTS testing included isometric quadriceps strength testing, 4 unilateral hop tests, and 2 self-report questionnaires. Paired t tests were used to assess limb symmetry for peak medial and tibiofemoral contact forces in all patients, and a mixed-design analysis of variance was used to analyze the effect of passing or failing RTS testing on contact force asymmetry. RESULTS: Among all patients, neither statistically significant nor meaningful contact force asymmetries were identified. However, patients who failed RTS testing exhibited meaningful contact force asymmetries, with tibiofemoral contact force being significantly lower for the involved knee. Conversely, patients who passed RTS testing exhibited neither significant nor meaningful contact force asymmetries. CONCLUSION: Joint contact force asymmetries during gait are present in some patients 6 months after ACL reconstruction. Patients who demonstrated poor functional performance on RTS readiness testing exhibited significant and meaningful contact force asymmetries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When assessing all patients together, variability in the functional status obscured significant and meaningful differences in contact force asymmetry in patients 6 months after ACL reconstruction. These specific RTS readiness criteria appear to differentiate between those who demonstrate joint contact force symmetry after ACL reconstruction and those who do not.
BACKGROUND: After anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, contact forces are decreased in the injured knee when compared with the uninjured knee. The persistence of contact force asymmetries after ACL reconstruction may increase the risk of reinjury and may play an important role in the development of knee osteoarthritis in these patients. Functional performance may also be useful in identifying patients who demonstrate potentially harmful joint contact force asymmetries after ACL reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: Knee joint contact force asymmetries would be present during gait after ACL reconstruction, and performance on a specific set of validated return-to-sport (RTS) readiness criteria would discriminate between those who demonstrated contact force asymmetries and those who did not. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 29 patients with ACL ruptures participated in gait analysis and RTS readiness testing 6 months after reconstruction. Muscle and joint contact forces were estimated using an electromyography (EMG)-driven musculoskeletal model of the knee. The magnitude of typical limb asymmetry in uninjured controls was used to define limits of meaningful limb asymmetry in patients after ACL reconstruction. The RTS testing included isometric quadriceps strength testing, 4 unilateral hop tests, and 2 self-report questionnaires. Paired t tests were used to assess limb symmetry for peak medial and tibiofemoral contact forces in all patients, and a mixed-design analysis of variance was used to analyze the effect of passing or failing RTS testing on contact force asymmetry. RESULTS: Among all patients, neither statistically significant nor meaningful contact force asymmetries were identified. However, patients who failed RTS testing exhibited meaningful contact force asymmetries, with tibiofemoral contact force being significantly lower for the involved knee. Conversely, patients who passed RTS testing exhibited neither significant nor meaningful contact force asymmetries. CONCLUSION: Joint contact force asymmetries during gait are present in some patients 6 months after ACL reconstruction. Patients who demonstrated poor functional performance on RTS readiness testing exhibited significant and meaningful contact force asymmetries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When assessing all patients together, variability in the functional status obscured significant and meaningful differences in contact force asymmetry in patients 6 months after ACL reconstruction. These specific RTS readiness criteria appear to differentiate between those who demonstrate joint contact force symmetry after ACL reconstruction and those who do not.
Authors: Martin Logan; Edward Dunstan; James Robinson; Andrew Williams; Wady Gedroyc; Michael Freeman Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Apr-May Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Gregory D Myer; Larry Martin; Kevin R Ford; Mark V Paterno; Laura C Schmitt; Robert S Heidt; Angelo Colosimo; Timothy E Hewett Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Paul Neuman; Martin Englund; Ioannis Kostogiannis; Thomas Fridén; Harald Roos; Leif E Dahlberg Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: David J Heckelsmiller; M James Rudert; Thomas E Baer; Douglas R Pedersen; Douglas C Fredericks; Jessica E Goetz Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Alberto Grassi; Alberto Vascellari; Alberto Combi; Luca Tomaello; Gian Luigi Canata; Stefano Zaffagnini Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2016-03-14
Authors: Jacob J Capin; Ashutosh Khandha; Ryan Zarzycki; Kurt Manal; Thomas S Buchanan; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Jacob J Capin; Ashutosh Khandha; Ryan Zarzycki; Amelia J H Arundale; Melissa L Ziegler; Kurt Manal; Thomas S Buchanan; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Tomohiro Shimizu; Michael A Samaan; Matthew S Tanaka; Valentina Pedoia; Richard B Souza; Xiaojuan Li; C Benjamin Ma Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: L-C Tsai; E S Cooper; K M Hetzendorfer; G L Warren; Y-H Chang; N J Willett Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Elizabeth Wellsandt; Emily S Gardinier; Kurt Manal; Michael J Axe; Thomas S Buchanan; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 6.202