David A Sherman1, Justin L Rush2, Neal R Glaviano3, Grant E Norte2. 1. School of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health and Human Services, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft St.Mail Stop 119, Toledo, OH, HH 2505E, USA. david.sherman2@rockets.utoledo.edu. 2. School of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health and Human Services, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft St.Mail Stop 119, Toledo, OH, HH 2505E, USA. 3. Department of Kinesiology, College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hamstrings muscle morphology is determinant of muscle function (i.e. strength). Among individuals with ACL reconstruction (ACLR), less cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume in the ACLR-limb are associated with muscle weakness, and may contribute to lower rates of return to preinjury activity level and an increased risk for long-term sequelae. OBJECTIVES: To effectively treat muscular impairments, an accurate understanding of differences in hamstrings morphology following ACLR is needed. A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to describe the morphology of the hamstring muscle complex after ACLR. METHODS: We searched five databases for studies evaluating the difference between hamstrings size and architecture in individuals with ACLR. Two independent reviewers assessed each paper for inclusion and quality. Means and standard deviations were extracted from each included study to allow fixed-effect size meta-analysis calculations for comparison of results. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included for final review. Eight categories of morphological outcomes were identified, and studies were grouped accordingly: (1) volume, (2) cross-sectional area (CSA), (3) muscle length, (4) muscle thickness, (5) fascicle length, (6) pennation angle, (7) fiber area, and (8) fiber type. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower hamstrings volume in the ACLR-limb in both contralateral and control group comparisons, and lower CSA, length, and thickness in the ACLR-limb in contralateral comparisons. The semitendinosus and gracilis were most profoundly impacted. Limited moderate evidence demonstrated greater biceps femoris pennation angle in the ACLR-limb. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with ACLR demonstrated large deficits in semitendinosus and gracilis muscle CSA and volume in the ACLR-limb compared contralaterally, with no differences observed in the biceps femoris or semimembranosus. Clinical implications regarding assessment and treatment of individuals with ACLR are discussed.
BACKGROUND: Hamstrings muscle morphology is determinant of muscle function (i.e. strength). Among individuals with ACL reconstruction (ACLR), less cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume in the ACLR-limb are associated with muscle weakness, and may contribute to lower rates of return to preinjury activity level and an increased risk for long-term sequelae. OBJECTIVES: To effectively treat muscular impairments, an accurate understanding of differences in hamstrings morphology following ACLR is needed. A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to describe the morphology of the hamstring muscle complex after ACLR. METHODS: We searched five databases for studies evaluating the difference between hamstrings size and architecture in individuals with ACLR. Two independent reviewers assessed each paper for inclusion and quality. Means and standard deviations were extracted from each included study to allow fixed-effect size meta-analysis calculations for comparison of results. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included for final review. Eight categories of morphological outcomes were identified, and studies were grouped accordingly: (1) volume, (2) cross-sectional area (CSA), (3) muscle length, (4) muscle thickness, (5) fascicle length, (6) pennation angle, (7) fiber area, and (8) fiber type. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower hamstrings volume in the ACLR-limb in both contralateral and control group comparisons, and lower CSA, length, and thickness in the ACLR-limb in contralateral comparisons. The semitendinosus and gracilis were most profoundly impacted. Limited moderate evidence demonstrated greater biceps femoris pennation angle in the ACLR-limb. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with ACLR demonstrated large deficits in semitendinosus and gracilis muscle CSA and volume in the ACLR-limb compared contralaterally, with no differences observed in the biceps femoris or semimembranosus. Clinical implications regarding assessment and treatment of individuals with ACLR are discussed.
Authors: Jason M Konrath; Christopher J Vertullo; Ben A Kennedy; Hamish S Bush; Rod S Barrett; David G Lloyd Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Ryan G Timmins; Matthew N Bourne; Anthony J Shield; Morgan D Williams; Christian Lorenzen; David A Opar Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Rob P A Janssen; Maria J F van der Velden; Huub L M Pasmans; Harm A G M Sala Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: José Afonso; Sílvia Rocha-Rodrigues; Filipe M Clemente; Michele Aquino; Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Hugo Sarmento; Alberto Fílter; Jesús Olivares-Jabalera; Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 4.566