Abbey C Thomas1, Edward M Wojtys2, Catherine Brandon3, Riann M Palmieri-Smith4. 1. Biodynamics Research Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Musculoskeletal Radiology, University of Michigan, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Michigan, USA; School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, USA. Electronic address: riannp@umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quadriceps weakness persists after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Muscle atrophy and activation failure may contribute. This study examined the roles of atrophy and activation failure in quadriceps weakness after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: Twenty patients six months post-anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction participated. Atrophy was determined as peak quadriceps cross sectional area from magnetic resonance images. Quadriceps activation was quantified via the central activation ratio, while muscle strength was measured isometrically. All testing was performed bilaterally. Hierarchical linear regression and one-way ANOVAs were performed to examine the relation of muscle strength with activation and atrophy. RESULTS: Cross sectional area (R(2)=0.307; p=0.011) explained more of the variance in quadriceps strength than central activation ratio (R(2)<0.001; p=0.987). Strength and cross sectional area were lower in the injured (strength: 2.03±0.51Nm/kg; cross sectional area: 68.81±17.80cm(2)) versus uninjured limb (strength: 2.89±0.81Nm/kg; cross sectional area: 81.10±21.58cm(2); p<0.001). There were no side-to-side differences in central activation ratio; however, quadriceps activation failure was present bilaterally (injured: 0.87±0.12; uninjured: 0.85±0.14; p=0.571). CONCLUSIONS: Quadriceps cross sectional area was strongly related to muscle strength six months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and substantial injured versus uninjured limb deficits were demonstrated for strength and cross sectional area. Patients may benefit from exercises aimed at improving quadriceps cross sectional area post-operatively.
OBJECTIVES:Quadriceps weakness persists after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Muscle atrophy and activation failure may contribute. This study examined the roles of atrophy and activation failure in quadriceps weakness after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: Twenty patients six months post-anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction participated. Atrophy was determined as peak quadriceps cross sectional area from magnetic resonance images. Quadriceps activation was quantified via the central activation ratio, while muscle strength was measured isometrically. All testing was performed bilaterally. Hierarchical linear regression and one-way ANOVAs were performed to examine the relation of muscle strength with activation and atrophy. RESULTS: Cross sectional area (R(2)=0.307; p=0.011) explained more of the variance in quadriceps strength than central activation ratio (R(2)<0.001; p=0.987). Strength and cross sectional area were lower in the injured (strength: 2.03±0.51Nm/kg; cross sectional area: 68.81±17.80cm(2)) versus uninjured limb (strength: 2.89±0.81Nm/kg; cross sectional area: 81.10±21.58cm(2); p<0.001). There were no side-to-side differences in central activation ratio; however, quadriceps activation failure was present bilaterally (injured: 0.87±0.12; uninjured: 0.85±0.14; p=0.571). CONCLUSIONS:Quadriceps cross sectional area was strongly related to muscle strength six months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and substantial injured versus uninjured limb deficits were demonstrated for strength and cross sectional area. Patients may benefit from exercises aimed at improving quadriceps cross sectional area post-operatively.
Authors: Ryan L Mizner; Stephanie C Petterson; Jennifer E Stevens; Krista Vandenborne; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: C Suetta; L G Hvid; L Justesen; U Christensen; K Neergaard; L Simonsen; N Ortenblad; S P Magnusson; M Kjaer; P Aagaard Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2009-08-06
Authors: P Aagaard; J L Andersen; P Dyhre-Poulsen; A M Leffers; A Wagner; S P Magnusson; J Halkjaer-Kristensen; E B Simonsen Journal: J Physiol Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Glenn N Williams; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; Peter J Barrance; Michael J Axe; Thomas S Buchanan Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ged G Wieschhoff; Jacob C Mandell; Gregory J Czuczman; Violeta Nikac; Nehal Shah; Stacy E Smith Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Adam S Lepley; Dustin R Grooms; Julie P Burland; Steven M Davi; Jeffrey M Kinsella-Shaw; Lindsey K Lepley Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2019-03-09 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Douglas W Van Pelt; Amy L Confides; Andrew R Judge; Peter W Vanderklish; Esther E Dupont-Versteegden Journal: J Muscle Res Cell Motil Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 2.698