PurposeLittle is known regarding movement strategies in the long term following injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), and even less about comparisons of reconstructed and deficient knees in relation to healthy controls. The present purpose was to compare trunk, hip, and knee kinematics during a one-leg vertical hop (VH) ~20 years post-ACL injury between persons treated with surgery and physiotherapy (ACLR), solely physiotherapy (ACLPT), and controls (CTRL). Between-leg kinematic differences within groups were also investigated.MethodsSixty-six persons who suffered unilateral ACL injury on average 23 ± 2 years ago (32 ACLR, 34 ACLPT) and 33 controls performed the VH. Peak trunk, hip, and knee angles during Take-off and Landing phases recorded with a 3D motion capture system were analysed with multivariate statistics.ResultsSignificant group effects during both Take-off and Landing were found, with ACLPT differing from CTRL in Take-off with a combination of less knee flexion and knee internal rotation, and from both ACLR and CTRL in Landing with less hip and knee flexion, knee internal rotation, and greater hip adduction. ACLR also presented different kinematics to ACLPT and CTRL in Take-off with a combination of greater trunk flexion, hip flexion, hip internal rotation, and less knee abduction, and in Landing with greater trunk flexion and hip internal rotation. Further, different kinematics and hop height were found between legs within groups in both Take-off and Landing for both ACL groups, but not for CTRL.ConclusionDifferent kinematics for the injured leg for both ACL groups compared to CTRL and between treatment groups, as well as between legs within treatment groups, indicate long-term consequences of injury. Compensatory mechanisms for knee protection seem to prevail over time irrespective of initial treatment, possibly increasing the risk of re-injury and triggering the development of osteoarthritis. Detailed investigation of movement strategies during the VH provides important information and a more comprehensive evaluation of knee function than merely hop height. More attention should also be given to the trunk and hip in clinics when evaluating movement strategies after ACL injury.Level of evidenceProspective cohort study, Level II.

The purpose of this study was to investigate: (a) If variables from 1-leg drop jump (DJ), DJ, squat jump (SJ), and countermovement jump (CMJ) tests can predict sprint performances for sprinters. (b) If sprinters and jumpers can be distinguished based on variables from 1-leg DJ, DJ, SJ, and CMJ tests, also if sprinters and throwers can be distinguished based on variables from stiff leg jump (SLJ), SJ, and CMJ tests. A single linear regression and multiple linear regression analysis approach with models including 2 or 3 variables were used when predicting sprint performances. Five elite sprinters (1 woman) participated in the first subexamination and 5 sprinters (1 woman) vs. 5 jumpers and 6 sprinters vs. 6 throwers (4 women) participated in the second. The force variable CMJ peak force (PF) relative to body weight significantly predicted the sprint performances maximal running velocity through 10-m (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max10m) and 60-m time. The Vmax10m was also predicted by CMJ height. Jump heights from SJ and DJ did not predict sprint performances. The between-group analysis of the athletes showed a nonsignificant group difference with respect to the jump variables. However, planned comparisons between sprinters and throwers showed significant differences in a number of SLJ variables. When constructing training programs for sprinters, the aim should be to improve CMJ PF and CMJ height because of the prediction of Vmax10-m and 60-m time, presumably because of velocity specificity components.

We propose a novel one-leg standardised rebound side-hop test (SRSH) specifically designed for detailed analysis of landing mechanics. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed persons (ACLR, n = 30) and healthy-knee controls (CTRL, n = 30) were tested for within-session and test-retest (CTRL only, n = 25) reliability and agreement. Trunk, hip and knee angles and moments in sagittal, frontal, and transversal planes during landing, including time to stabilisation (TTS), were evaluated using intra-class correlations (ICCs), average within-person standard deviations (S W) and minimal differences. Excellent within-session reliability were found for angles in both groups (most ICCs > 0.90, S W ≤ 5°), and excellent to good for moments (most ICCs > 0.80, S W ≤ 0.34 Nm/kg). Only knee internal rotation moment showed poor reliability (ICC < 0.4). Test-retest results were excellent to fair for all angles and moments (ICCs 0.47-0.91, S W < 5°and ≤ 0.25 Nm/kg), except for peak trunk lateral bending angle and knee internal rotation moment. TTS showed excellent to fair within-session reliability but poor test-retest results. These results, with a few exceptions, suggest promising potential of evaluating landing mechanics during the SRSH for ACLR and CTRL, and emphasise the importance of joint-specific movement control variables in standardised tasks.

Objective The purpose of this study was to determine whether fear of re-injury is manifested in joint kinematics and muscle activation patterns during landings of a standardized rebound side-hop (SRSH), or in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), among individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods In this cross-sectional observational study, 38 individuals within 2 years post-ACLR were grouped into HIGH-FEAR (n = 21, median 11.2 months post-surgery) or LOW-FEAR (n = 17, median 10.1 months post-surgery) based on a discriminating question (Q9; Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-17). These individuals and 39 asymptomatic controls performed the SRSH. Three-dimensional motion recordings were used to calculate trunk, hip, and knee joint angles at initial contact, and range of respective joint motion during landing. Surface electromyography registered mean amplitudes and co-contraction indexes for thigh muscles during pre-activation (50 ms) and landing phases. PROMs of knee function, knee health, and physical activity were also analyzed. Results The HIGH-FEAR and LOW-FEAR classification was corroborated by distinct Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-17 total and subscale scores and revealed distinguishable muscle activation patterns. HIGH-FEAR demonstrated higher biceps femoris electromyography amplitude and higher anterior-posterior co-contraction index during landing than both LOW-FEAR and controls. However, there were no fear-related differences for kinematics or PROMs. Instead, both ACLR subgroups showed different kinematics at initial contact to controls; HIGH-FEAR with more trunk, hip, and knee flexion, and LOW-FEAR with more hip and knee flexion. Conclusion Individuals with ACLR who had high fear of re-injury seem to have adopted a protective strategy with higher muscular activation patterns, presumably to stabilize the knee joint, compared to individuals with low fear of re-injury and controls. SRSH landing kinematics or knee-related PROMs may not be as sensitive to fear of re-injury. Impact Fear of reinjury following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury should be evaluated as an independent psychological outcome throughout rehabilitation after ACLR for improved return to sport transition. Lay Summary If you have an ACL injury treated with reconstructive surgery, you might have a high fear of reinjury, and that can change how you activate the muscles around your knee. Your physical therapist can do a simple screening test in addition to functional tests to help reduce your fear and improve your treatment outcomes.

Background: Atypical knee joint biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are common. It is, however, unclear whether knee robustness (ability to tolerate perturbation and maintain joint configuration) and whole body movement strategies are compromised after ACLR. Purpose: To investigate landing control after ACLR with regard to dynamic knee robustness and whole body movement strategies during sports-mimicking side hops, and to evaluate functional performance of hop tests and knee strength. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: An 8-camera motion capture system and 2 synchronized force plates were used to calculate joint angles and moments during standardized rebound side-hop landings performed by 32 individuals with an ACL-reconstructed knee (ACLR group; median, 16.0 months after reconstruction with hamstring tendon graft [interquartile range, 35.2 months]) and 32 matched asymptomatic controls (CTRL). Dynamic knee robustness was quantified using a finite helical axis approach, providing discrete values quantifying divergence of knee joint movements from flexion-extension (higher relative frontal and/or transverse plane motion equaled lower robustness) during momentary helical rotation intervals of 10°. Multivariate analyses of movement strategies included trunk, hip, and knee angles at initial contact and during landing and hip and knee peak moments during landing, comparing ACLR and CTRL, as well as legs within groups. Results: Knee robustness was lower for the first 10° motion interval after initial contact and then successively stabilized for both groups and legs. When landing with the injured leg, the ACLR group, as compared with the contralateral leg and/or CTRL, demonstrated significantly greater flexion of the trunk, hip, and knee; greater hip flexion moment; less knee flexion moment; and smaller angle but greater moment of knee internal rotation. The ACLR group also had lower but acceptable hop and strength performances (ratios to noninjured leg >90%) except for knee flexion strength (12% deficit). Conclusion: Knee robustness was not affected by ACLR during side-hop landings, but alterations in movement strategies were seen for the trunk, hip, and knee, as well as long-term deficits in knee flexion strength. Clinical Relevance: Knee robustness is lowest immediately after landing for both the ACLR group and the CTRL and should be targeted in training to reduce knee injury risk. Assessment of movement strategies during side-hop landings after ACLR should consider a whole body approach.