Energy Absorption Contribution Deficits in Participants Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Implications for Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.

CONTEXT: Lower-extremity loading patterns change after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, there is limited research regarding energy absorption contribution (EAC) of athletes following ACLR who reinjure their ACL and those who do not. EAC can be utilized as a measure of joint loading during tasks. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Three groups of individuals (13 in each group) with matched age, sex, height, weight, and sports were enrolled. Data were collected at time of return-to-sport testing for the 2 ACLR groups. An 8-camera 3D motion capture system with a sampling rate of 120 Hz and 2 force plates capturing at 1200 Hz were used to capture joint motions in all 3 planes during a double-limb jump landing. RESULTS: Participants in the ACLR no reinjury and ACLR reinjury groups had significantly greater hip EAC (55.8 [21.5] and 56.7 [21.2]) compared with healthy controls (19.5 [11.1]), P < .001 and P < .001, respectively. The ACLR no reinjury and ACLR reinjury groups had significantly lower knee EAC (24.6 [22.7] and 27.4 [20.8]) compared with healthy controls (57.0 [12.2]), P < .001 and P < .001, respectively. However, the ACLR reinjury group had significantly lower ankle EAC (15.9 [4.6]) than healthy controls (23.5 [6.6]), whereas there was no statistical difference between the ACLR no reinjury group (19.7 [7.8]) and healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: Athletes who had a second ACL injury after ACLR, and those without second ACL injury, appear to have similar hip, knee, and ankle joint loading of the surgical limb at return-to-sport testing. Nevertheless, joint loading patterns were significantly different from healthy controls. The study suggests that EAC as a measure of joint loading during a double-limb jump landing at time of return to sport may not be a strong predictor for second injury following ACLR.

Effects of hip strengthening on early outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the addition of hip strengthening exercises will improve outcomes during the early stages of ACL rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the addition of isolated hip strengthening exercises to traditional rehabilitation on early outcomes (within the first 3 months) after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A total of 43 subjects (18.8±6.9, 21 females, 22 males) who were in the process of rehabilitation following ACLR participated. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two different treatment groups (1= traditional rehabilitation [NoHip], 2= traditional plus isolated hip strengthening rehabilitation [Hip]). Assessment included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain during activities of daily living, and knee extension range of motion (ROM) side to side difference taken at weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12. In addition, dynamic balance was assessed with the Y Balance Test™ at 8 and 12 weeks. A mixed model repeated measures ANOVA was performed for IKDC, VAS, and ROM. A one-way ANOVA was used to assess mean group differences for Y Balance Test - Lower Quarter (YBT-LQ) side to side difference scores at 8 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: There was no significant interaction for group by time across VAS (p = .463), IKDC (p = .819), or ROM (p = .513) side to side differences A significant difference was found between groups for YBT-LQ Anterior Reach (ANT) side to side difference at 12 weeks (p = .008) with the Hip group demonstrating smaller side to side reach differences than the NoHip group. No significant side to side differences were seen between groups for YBT-LQ Posteromedial (PM) or Posterolateral (PL) at 12 weeks (PM: p = .254; PL: p = .617). CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation including hip strengthening exercises appears to improve sagittal plane dynamic balance at three months post ACLR as compared to traditional rehabilitation. No differences were seen between groups for pain, ROM, and subjective function during the first 3 months following ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2b.