| Literature DB >> 25960982 |
Bekir Eray Kılınç1, Adnan Kara2, Savas Camur3, Yunus Oc4, Haluk Celik4.
Abstract
After anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, which muscle groups are more affected from frequently developing thigh muscle atrophy is a matter of debate. We evaluate the effect of thigh circumference difference between patients' knees who were administered the ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft and intact knees, on torque between the hamstring and quadriceps muscles. Fifty-five patients at least 6 months follow-up period available were included in our study. Power measurements of quadriceps and hamstring muscle groups in patients' extremities were done by using isokinetic dynamometer. The maximum torque values at 60°/sec, 240°/sec in frequency, positions of flexion and extension were determined. In accordance with our findings it is still possible to encounter the thigh atrophy in average 28 months after ACL reconstruction surgery even under physical rehabilitation programs and appropriate follow-up. It is inevitable for the clinician to consider these changes in diagnosis and rehabilitation stages. It can't be ignored that muscle weakness mechanisms developing in the thigh circumference vary according to the thigh muscle group and knee flexors play an important role in thigh atrophy when determining an appropriate rehabilitation program after reconstruction application.Entities:
Keywords: Cruciate ligament repair; Muscle torque; Thigh diameter
Year: 2015 PMID: 25960982 PMCID: PMC4415756 DOI: 10.12965/jer.150100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exerc Rehabil ISSN: 2288-176X
The distribution of descriptive characteristics
| Min–Max | Mean± SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 17–40 | 28.18± 6.21 |
| Follow up (month) | 9–42 | 23.09± 9.08 |
Evaluation of patients thigh diameter difference (n= 55)
| Thigh Diameter Difference | ||
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| n (%) | ||
| Total | Min–Max | 0–4 |
| Med± SD | 1.60± 1.08 | |
| Medyan | 1 |
Distribution of cybex extension and flexion measurement of the patients
| Mean± SD | ||
|---|---|---|
| Cybex Extension 60 | Operated | 192.47± 46.89 |
| Normal | 219.27± 32.72 | |
| Cybex Extension 240 | Operated | 94.03± 23.18 |
| Normal | 106.41± 17.38 | |
| Cybex Flexion 60 | Operated | 142.63± 29.46 |
| Normal | 150.74± 24.22 | |
| Cybex Flexion 240 | Operated | 79.12± 20.85 |
| Normal | 87.78± 19.25 |
Evaluation of cybex extension and flexion measurement of the patients
| Transtibial (n= 27) | ||
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Med± SD (Median) | ||
| Cybex Extension 60 | 88.67± 19.60 (91.9) | 0.009[ |
| Cybex Extension 240 | 88.23± 18.73 (88.8) | 0.023[ |
| Cybex Flexion 60 | 93.63± 14.65 (96.74) | 0.001[ |
| Cybex Flexion 240 | 93.25± 31.02 (90.03) | 0.449 |
Mann Whitney U Test.
P< 0.05,
P< 0.01.
Distribution of cybex extension and flexion measurement of the patients
| r | r | r | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cybex Extension 60 Ratio [ | −0.823 | −0.391 | −0.66 | |||
| Cybex Extension 240 Ratio [ | −0.366 | −0.426 | −0.55 | |||
| Cybex Flexion 60 Ratio [ | −0.433 | −0.437 | −0.555 | |||
| Cybex Flexion 240 Ratio Ratio [ | −0.126 | −0.375 | −0.281 |
r: Spearman’s Corelation coefficient.
P< 0.05,
P< 0.01.
Fig. 1.Cybex extension.
Fig. 2.Cybex flexion.