Jay R Ebert, Peter Edwards, Justine Currie1, Anne Smith2, Brendan Joss3, Timothy Ackland1, Jens-Ulrich Buelow4, Ben Hewitt5. 1. School of Human Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia. 2. The School of Physiotherapy and Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Bentley, Perth, Western Australia. 3. HFRC, Nedlands, Western Australia. 4. Perth Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Centre, West Perth, Western Australia. 5. Orthology, Suite 1, West Perth, Western Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limb symmetry after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may be evaluated using maximal strength and hop tests, which are typically reported using Limb Symmetry Indices (LSIs) which may overestimate function. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the Back in Action (BIA) test battery to standard hop and muscle strength tests used to determine readiness to return to sport (RTS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. METHODS: Over two test sessions, 40 ACLR patients were assessed at a mean 11.3 months post-surgery. Initially, participants completed the 6 m timed hop and the single, triple and triple crossover hops for distance, and isokinetic knee extensor and flexor strength assessment. The second session involved completion of the BIA battery, including stability tests, single and double leg countermovement jumps (CMJ), and plyometric, speedy jump, and quick feet tests. Pass rates for test batteries were statistically compared, including the BIA, a four-hop battery (≥90% LSI in every one of the four hop tests) and a combined 4-hop and strength battery (≥90% LSI in every one of the four hop tests, as well as ≥90% for both peak knee extensor and flexor strength). LSI differences between the four standard hop tests and the BIA single limb functional tests (the single limb CMJ and the speedy jump test) were evaluated. RESULTS: Significantly less participants passed the BIA battery (n = 1, 2.5%), compared with the four-hop test battery (n = 27, 67.5%) (p<0.001) and the four-hop test and isokinetic strength battery (n = 17, 42.5%) (p<0.001). Collectively, LSI's for the standard hop tests were significantly higher than the BIA functional single limb tests (difference = 12.9%, 95% CI: 11.1% to 14.6%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The BIA test battery appears to include some single limb functional tests that are more physically challenging than standard hop and isokinetic strength tests, highlighted by the significantly lower mean LSI's during the single limb BIA tests and the lower pass rate when employing the BIA protocol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, case series.
BACKGROUND: Limb symmetry after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may be evaluated using maximal strength and hop tests, which are typically reported using Limb Symmetry Indices (LSIs) which may overestimate function. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the Back in Action (BIA) test battery to standard hop and muscle strength tests used to determine readiness to return to sport (RTS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. METHODS: Over two test sessions, 40 ACLR patients were assessed at a mean 11.3 months post-surgery. Initially, participants completed the 6 m timed hop and the single, triple and triple crossover hops for distance, and isokinetic knee extensor and flexor strength assessment. The second session involved completion of the BIA battery, including stability tests, single and double leg countermovement jumps (CMJ), and plyometric, speedy jump, and quick feet tests. Pass rates for test batteries were statistically compared, including the BIA, a four-hop battery (≥90% LSI in every one of the four hop tests) and a combined 4-hop and strength battery (≥90% LSI in every one of the four hop tests, as well as ≥90% for both peak knee extensor and flexor strength). LSI differences between the four standard hop tests and the BIA single limb functional tests (the single limb CMJ and the speedy jump test) were evaluated. RESULTS: Significantly less participants passed the BIA battery (n = 1, 2.5%), compared with the four-hop test battery (n = 27, 67.5%) (p<0.001) and the four-hop test and isokinetic strength battery (n = 17, 42.5%) (p<0.001). Collectively, LSI's for the standard hop tests were significantly higher than the BIA functional single limb tests (difference = 12.9%, 95% CI: 11.1% to 14.6%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The BIA test battery appears to include some single limb functional tests that are more physically challenging than standard hop and isokinetic strength tests, highlighted by the significantly lower mean LSI's during the single limb BIA tests and the lower pass rate when employing the BIA protocol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, case series.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anterior cruciate ligament; isokinetic dynamometry.; limb symmetry index; return to sport; single limb hop test
Authors: Jay R Ebert; Peter Edwards; Luke Yi; Brendan Joss; Timothy Ackland; Richard Carey-Smith; Jens-Ulrich Buelow; Ben Hewitt Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Andrew D Lynch; David S Logerstedt; Hege Grindem; Ingrid Eitzen; Gregory E Hicks; Michael J Axe; Lars Engebretsen; May Arna Risberg; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Amelia J Wiggins; Ravi K Grandhi; Daniel K Schneider; Denver Stanfield; Kate E Webster; Gregory D Myer Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Allison R Toole; Matthew P Ithurburn; Mitchell J Rauh; Timothy E Hewett; Mark V Paterno; Laura C Schmitt Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2017-10-07 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Michael J Dan; Kimberly Kai Lun; Luke Dan; Jimmy Efird; Matthew Pelletier; David Broe; William R Walsh Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2019-07-02
Authors: Matthew D Ellington; Kelly Randich; Jessica Garfin; Nicole Archambault; Joanna Roocroft; Tracey P Bastrom; Andrew T Pennock; Eric W Edmonds Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-02-26
Authors: Łukasz Oleksy; Aleksandra Królikowska; Anna Mika; Maciej Kuchciak; Daniel Szymczyk; Marian Rzepko; Grzegorz Bril; Robert Prill; Artur Stolarczyk; Paweł Reichert Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 4.241