| Literature DB >> 26745808 |
Hyun-Jung Kim1, Jin-Hyuck Lee2, Sung-Eun Ahn2, Min-Ji Park2, Dae-Hee Lee3.
Abstract
Theoretical compensation after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear could cause quadriceps weakness and hamstring activation, preventing anterior tibial subluxation and affecting the expected hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio. Although quadriceps weakness often occurs after ACL tears, it remains unclear whether hamstring strength and hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio increase in ACL deficient knees. This meta-analysis compared the isokinetic muscle strength of quadriceps and hamstring muscles, and the hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio, of the injured and injured limbs of patients with ACL tears. This meta-analysis included all studies comparing isokinetic thigh muscle strengths and hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio in the injured and uninjured legs of patients with ACL tear, without or before surgery. Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Quadriceps and hamstring strengths were 22.3 N∙m (95% CI: 15.2 to 29.3 N∙m; P<0.001) and 7.4 N∙m (95% CI: 4.3 to 10.5 N∙m; P<0.001) lower, respectively, on the injured than on the uninjured side. The mean hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio was 4% greater in ACL deficient than in uninjured limbs (95% CI: 1.7% to 6.3%; P<0.001). Conclusively, Decreases were observed in both the quadriceps and hamstring muscles of patients with ACL tear, with the decrease in quadriceps strength being 3-fold greater. These uneven reductions slightly increase the hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio in ACL deficient knees.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26745808 PMCID: PMC4706431 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146234
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) flow diagram of the identification and selection of the studies included in this meta-analysis.
Study characteristics.
| Authors | Year | Study type | Sample size | Measured Parameters (angular velocity) | Mean time interval from injury to testing (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benjuya et al.[ | 2000 | PCS | 27 | Q(60°/sec, 180°/sec), H(60°/sec, 180°/sec), HQ ratio (60°/sec, 180°/sec) | 9 |
| Dvir et al.[ | 1989 | RCS | 35 | HQ ratio(30°/sec) | 11 |
| Eitzen et al.[ | 2013 | PCS | 100 | Q(60°/sec), H(60°/sec) | 2 |
| Friden et al.[ | 2010 | RCS | 18 | Q (30°/sec, 90°/sec), H(30°/sec, 90°/sec) | 29 |
| Gibson et al.[ | 2000 | RCS | 18 | Q(60°/sec), H(60°/sec) | NC |
| Hole et al.[ | 2000 | PCS | 10 | HQ ratio (60°/sec) | NC |
| Kannus et al.[ | 1988 | RCS | 41 | Q(60°/sec, 180°/sec), H(60°/sec, 180°/sec), HQ ratio (60°/sec, 180°/sec) | NC |
| Keays et al.[ | 2003 | RCS | 31 | Q (60°/sec, 120°/sec), H(60°/sec, 120°/sec) | 33 |
| Lee HM et al.[ | 2009 | PCS | 12 | Q(60°/sec), H(60°/sec), HQ ratio (60°/sec) | 17.5 |
| Lee JC et al.[ | 2013 | PCS | 10 | Q(60°/sec), H(60°/sec) | NC |
| Lephart et al.[ | 1992 | PCS | 41 | Q(60°/sec, 270°/sec), H(60°/sec, 270°/sec), HQ ratio (60°/sec, 270°/sec) | 26.5 |
| Segawa et al.[ | 2002 | PCS | 62 | Q(60°/sec), H(60°/sec) | 10.2 |
| Tsepis et al.[ | 2004 | PCS | 30 | Q(60°/sec), H(60°/sec), HQ ratio (60°/sec) | 32 |
Abbreviations: PCS, prospective comparison study; RCS, retrospective comparison study; Q, quadriceps; H, hamstring; HQ, hamstring-to-quadriceps.
Risk of bias summary: authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
| Author | Representativeness of the cases | Selection of controls | Ascertainment of exposure | Interest outcome not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts | Control for any additional factor | Assessment of outcome | Enough Follow- up | Adequacy of follow up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benjuya et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | + |
| Dvir et al.[ | − | − | − | − | + | + | + | − | + |
| Eitzen et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | + |
| Friden et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | + |
| Gibson et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| Hole et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | − | + | + |
| Kannus et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| Keays et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | + |
| Lee HM et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | + |
| Lee JC et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | + | + |
| Lephart et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | + |
| Segawa et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | + | − | + |
| Tsepis et al.[ | − | − | − | − | − | + | − | − | + |
−, low risk of bias; +, high risk of bias;?, unclear risk of bias
Fig 2Forest plot demonstrating significant reductions in quadriceps strength in ACL deficient limbs compared with uninjured limb.
Fig 3Forest plot showing significant reductions in hamstring strength in ACL deficient compared with uninjured limbs.
Fig 4Forest plot demonstrating slight reductions in hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio in ACL deficient compared with uninjured limbs.
Meta-regression analysis between the demographic variables age and gender, and thigh muscle strength parameters.
| Variable | Coefficient | Standard error | P value | 95% confidence interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference of Hamstring muscle strength between uninvolved and involved leg | ||||
| Age | −0.068 | 1.288 | 0.959 | −3.111 to 2.978 |
| Gender | 17.126 | 17.241 | 0.354 | −23.643 to 57.895 |
| Difference of Hamstring muscle strength between uninvolved and involved leg | ||||
| Age | −0.128 | 0.608 | 0.839 | −1.568 to 1.311 |
| Gender | 4.546 | 8.056 | 0.590 | −14.503 to 23.597 |
| Difference of Hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio between uninvolved and involved leg | ||||
| Age | 0.302 | 0.333 | 0.417 | −0.624 to 1.229 |
| Gender | −3.300 | 4.425 | 0.497 | −15.588 to 8.986 |