Literature DB >> 31227398

Increases in Joint Laxity After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Are Associated With Sagittal Biomechanical Asymmetry.

Tomohiro Shimizu1, Zoe Cheng2, Michael A Samaan3, Matthew S Tanaka3, Richard B Souza4, Xiaojuan Li3, C Benjamin Ma5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the longitudinal changes in landing mechanics and knee kinematics for patients both before and 3 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to investigate the association between changes in landing mechanics and magnetic resonance knee kinematics.
METHODS: Thirty-one ACLR patients were included in the study. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and biomechanical analysis of a drop-landing task using the injured knee and contralateral knee preoperatively and at 6 months and 3 years after ACLR. For evaluations of knee joint anteroposterior laxity, tibial position was calculated using quantitative loaded magnetic resonance methods.
RESULTS: The ACLR knee exhibited a significantly lower peak vertical ground reaction force and peak external knee flexion moment and angle at 6 months compared with the contralateral knee; however, the differences were resolved at 3 years. Tibial position was significantly more anterior on the injured side, and the side-to-side difference (SSD) in tibial position exhibited a significant increase from 6 months to 3 years. Among ACLR knees, a greater SSD in peak knee flexion moment at 6 months was associated with an increase in the SSD in anterior tibial translation from 6 months to 3 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Although landing mechanics and clinical outcomes recovered in patients with ACLR in this study, anteroposterior translation failed to be restored at 3 years after surgery. In addition, patients who have low knee flexion moments in early stages could have greater anteroposterior laxity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because of the adverse consequences of abnormal knee kinetics on anterior laxity after ACLR, efforts to improve knee movement patterns should be initiated.
Copyright © 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31227398     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.01.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  4 in total

1.  Protocol for the systematic review of return-to-activity criteria in adolescent patients following an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Nicholas J Romanchuk; Holly Livock; Kenneth J Lukas; Michael J Del Bel; Daniel L Benoit; Sasha Carsen
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2022-05-14

2.  Comparison of hamstring and quadriceps strength after anatomical versus non-anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Hai Jiang; Lei Zhang; Rui-Ying Zhang; Qiu-Jian Zheng; Meng-Yuan Li
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  Motion Sensors-Based Machine Learning Approach for the Identification of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Gait Patterns in On-the-Field Activities in Rugby Players.

Authors:  Salvatore Tedesco; Colum Crowe; Andrew Ryan; Marco Sica; Sebastian Scheurer; Amanda M Clifford; Kenneth N Brown; Brendan O'Flynn
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 3.576

4.  Patients With Abnormal Limb Kinetics at 6 Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Have an Increased Risk of Persistent Medial Meniscal Abnormality at 3 Years.

Authors:  Tomohiro Shimizu; Alexander R Markes; Michael A Samaan; Matthew S Tanaka; Richard B Souza; Xiaojuan Li; C Benjamin Ma
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-01-23
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.