Michelle Hall1, Adam L Bryant2, Tim V Wrigley2, Clare Pratt2, Kay M Crossley3, Tim S Whitehead4, Hayden G Morris5, Ross A Clark6, Luke G Perraton2,6. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. halm@unimelb.edu.au. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Medicine, School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. 3. School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. OrthoSport Victoria, Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, VIC, Australia. 5. The Park Clinic, Gipps Street, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with concomitant meniscal pathology have a higher risk of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to those with isolated ACLR. Knee extensor weakness and altered dynamic knee joint biomechanics have been suggested to play a role in the development of knee OA following ACLR. This study investigated whether these factors differ in people following ACLR who have concomitant meniscal pathology compared to patients with isolated ACLR. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with isolated ACLR and 34 patients with ACLR and meniscal pathology underwent strength and gait assessment 12-24 months post-operatively. Primary measures were peak isometric knee extensor torque and knee adduction moment (peak and impulse). Secondary measures included peak knee flexion moment and knee kinematics (sagittal and transverse). RESULTS: There were no between-group differences in knee extensor strength [mean difference (95 % CI) 0.09 (-0.23 to 0.42) Nm/kg, n.s.], peak knee adduction moment [-0.02 (-0.54 to 0.49) Nm/(BW × HT) %, n.s.] or knee adduction moment impulse [0.01 (-0.15 to 0.17) Nm/(BW × HT) %, p = n.s.]. No between-group differences were found for any secondary measures. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found to suggest that the higher prevalence of OA in patients with ACLR and meniscal pathology compared to patients with isolated ACLR is attributed to reduced knee muscle strength or altered knee joint biomechanics assessed 1-2 years post-surgery. Given that there is a higher incidence of knee OA in patients with concomitant meniscal pathology and ACLR, further investigation is needed so that population-specific rehabilitation protocols can be developed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: Individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with concomitant meniscal pathology have a higher risk of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to those with isolated ACLR. Knee extensor weakness and altered dynamic knee joint biomechanics have been suggested to play a role in the development of knee OA following ACLR. This study investigated whether these factors differ in people following ACLR who have concomitant meniscal pathology compared to patients with isolated ACLR. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with isolated ACLR and 34 patients with ACLR and meniscal pathology underwent strength and gait assessment 12-24 months post-operatively. Primary measures were peak isometric knee extensor torque and knee adduction moment (peak and impulse). Secondary measures included peak knee flexion moment and knee kinematics (sagittal and transverse). RESULTS: There were no between-group differences in knee extensor strength [mean difference (95 % CI) 0.09 (-0.23 to 0.42) Nm/kg, n.s.], peak knee adduction moment [-0.02 (-0.54 to 0.49) Nm/(BW × HT) %, n.s.] or knee adduction moment impulse [0.01 (-0.15 to 0.17) Nm/(BW × HT) %, p = n.s.]. No between-group differences were found for any secondary measures. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found to suggest that the higher prevalence of OA in patients with ACLR and meniscal pathology compared to patients with isolated ACLR is attributed to reduced knee muscle strength or altered knee joint biomechanics assessed 1-2 years post-surgery. Given that there is a higher incidence of knee OA in patients with concomitant meniscal pathology and ACLR, further investigation is needed so that population-specific rehabilitation protocols can be developed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Daina L Sturnieks; Thor F Besier; Peter M Mills; Tim R Ackland; Ken F Maguire; Gwidon W Stachowiak; Pawel Podsiadlo; David G Lloyd Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Karen K Briggs; Jack Lysholm; Yelverton Tegner; William G Rodkey; Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stacey Telianidis; Luke Perraton; Ross A Clark; Yong-Hao Pua; Karine Fortin; Adam L Bryant Journal: J Electromyogr Kinesiol Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 2.368
Authors: Shreyasee Amin; Niyom Luepongsak; Chris A McGibbon; Michael P LaValley; David E Krebs; David T Felson Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-06-15
Authors: Björn Barenius; Sari Ponzer; Adel Shalabi; Robert Bujak; Louise Norlén; Karl Eriksson Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: A H Chang; K C Moisio; J S Chmiel; F Eckstein; A Guermazi; P V Prasad; Y Zhang; O Almagor; L Belisle; K Hayes; L Sharma Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Luke G Perraton; Michelle Hall; Ross A Clark; Kay M Crossley; Yong-Hao Pua; Tim S Whitehead; Hayden G Morris; Adam G Culvenor; Adam L Bryant Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: P Cięszczyk; K Willard; P Gronek; P Zmijewski; G Trybek; J Gronek; M Weber-Rajek; P Stastny; M Petr; E Lulińska-Kuklik; K Ficek; E Kemeryte-Riaubiene; E Maculewicz; A V September Journal: Biol Sport Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 2.806
Authors: Berkcan Akpinar; Eric Thorhauer; Scott Tashman; James J Irrgang; Freddie H Fu; William J Anderst Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-04-05