Static and dynamic postural control in competitive athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and controls

Mohammadi, Farshid; Salavati, Mahyar; Akhbari, Behnam; Mazaheri, Masood; Khorrami, Mojdeh; Negahban, Hossein

doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1806-4

Cited by 54 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only one study [36] observed a greater KAM in an ACLR group during a side hop (6.96 vs. The other eleven studies investigated biomechanical variables in the context of stability and postural control [37][38][39][40], gait [41], vision [42], limb asymmetry [43], walk and jog patterns [44], gender differences [45], as well as neuromuscular aspects [46]. Landing strategies and medio-lateral control of the ACLD and ACLR patients were also investigated by Roos et al [47] and found that these groups had not fully recovered.…”

Section: Level 2 Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Distinguishing characteristics of ACLD groups included posterior centre of mass (COM) changes [39], increased time to stabilization [40], postural sway and other unique adaptations aimed at stabilizing the knee [46]. Distinguishing characteristics of ACLR groups included greater postural sway [37] and altered responses to visual disruption [42].…”

Section: Level 2 Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…-ACLR: < GRF in jump cut manoeuvre than ACLINT -↑ landing stiffness leads to ↑ rate of anterior tibial translation while performing a jump-cut manoeuvre. Mohammadi, F., et al (2012) [37] ACLR; 22M, 8F healthy controls; 24M, 6F Single-leg stance & single leg drop jump. [38] ACLR; 12 healthy controls; 13…”

Section: Level 3 Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mapping current research trends on anterior cruciate ligament injury risk against the existing evidence: In vivo biomechanical risk factors

Sharir

Rafeeuddin

Staes

et al. 2016

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Whilst many studies measure large numbers of biomechanical parameters and associate these to anterior cruciate ligament injury risk, they cannot be considered as anterior cruciate ligament injury risk factors without evidence from prospective studies. A review was conducted to systematically assess the in vivo biomechanical literature to identify biomechanical risk factors for non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury during dynamic sports tasks; and to critically evaluate the research trends from retrospective and associative studies investigating non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Methods: An electronic literature search was undertaken on studies examining in vivo biomechanical risk factors associated with non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury. The relevant studies were assessed by classification; level 1 -a prospective cohort study, level 2 -a retrospective study or level 3 -an associative study. Findings: An initial search revealed 812 studies but this was reduced to 1 level 1 evidence study, 20 level 2 evidence studies and 175 level 3 evidence studies that met all inclusion criteria. Level 1 evidence showed that the knee abduction angle, knee abduction moment and ground reaction force were biomechanical risk factors. Nine level 2 studies and eightythree level 3 studies used these to assess risk factors in their study. Inconsistencies in results and methods were observed in level 2 and 3 studies. Interpretation: There is a lack of high quality, prospective level 1 evidence related to biomechanical risk factors for non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury. More prospective cohort studies are required to determine risk factors and provide improved prognostic capability.

show abstract

Section: Level 2 Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Level 2 Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mapping current research trends on anterior cruciate ligament injury risk against the existing evidence: In vivo biomechanical risk factors

Sharir

Rafeeuddin

Staes

et al. 2016

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to mechanical instability, ACL rupture inescapably displays reduced knee proprioception due to disruption of mechanoreceptors within the ligament (4). Disruption to both the sensory feedback and mechanical restraint role of the intact ACL following ACL rupture may result in impaired lower limb function and impaired postural control (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tasks that challenge the control of standing balance, by altering support surfaces and stance positions, are reported to provide predictable changes in performance and suggested to evaluate the postural control (5). Disturbance of dynamic postural control, between the two limbs of ACL-reconstructed group and between the ACL-reconstructed subjects and control group are reported (1,5). Assessing the postural control is frequently done by manipulation of size support area and perturbations of the base of support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Functional Knee Brace on Postural Control in Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Salehi

Goharpey

Tayebi

et al. 2016

Jentashapir J Health Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The current study aimed to evaluate the postural control in patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction pre and post wearing functional knee brace. Methods: Eighteen athletes undergone unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction included in the study. They had unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at least six months before session test. Postural control was assessed pre and post wearing custom-fit functional knee brace using a posturographic platform prokin 254. The balance tests included: 1) standing on prokin platform with eyes open/closed on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction limb, 2) standing on prokin platform with eyes open/closed on both limbs. The standard deviation (SD) of body sway along the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) axis, mean velocity of center of pressure (COP) along AP/ ML axis and the area ellipse (measured in 2 mm) were calculated. Results: Results of the paired T-test revealed a significant effect on selected postural control variables for the brace conditions especially in low challengeable conditions (double leg, eyes open test situations) (P < 0.05). But in high challengeable conditions this effect was not significant. Conclusions: Functional knee brace improved postural control in the simple balancing task in the subjects with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. But this improvement in more difficult balancing task was limited.

show abstract

Jumping into recovery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of discriminatory and responsive force plate parameters in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during countermovement and drop jumps

Labban,

Manaseer,

Golberg

et al. 2024

J. exp. orthop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeComprehensive understanding of force plate parameters distinguishing individuals postprimary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) from healthy controls during countermovement jumps (CMJ) and/or drop jumps (DJ) is lacking. This review addresses this gap by identifying discriminative force plate parameters and examining changes over time in individuals post‐ACLR during CMJ and/or DJ.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta analyses following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Nine databases were searched from inception to March 2022. We included cross‐sectional papers comparing post‐ACLR with healthy controls or longitudinal studies of individuals at least 6 months postprimary ACLR while performing CMJ and/or DJ on force plates. The methodological quality was appraised using the Modified Downs and Black Checklist.ResultsThirty‐three studies including 1185 (50.38%) participants post‐ACLR, and 1167 (49.62%) healthy controls, were included. Data were categorised into single‐leg CMJ, double‐leg CMJ, single‐leg DJ, and double‐leg DJ. Jump height was reduced in both single (mean difference [MD] = −3.13; p < 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−4.12, −2.15]) and double‐leg (MD = −4.24; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [−5.14, −3.34]) CMJs amongst individuals with ACLR. Similarly, concentric impulse and eccentric/concentric impulse asymmetry could distinguish between ACLR (MD = 3.42; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [2.19, 4.64]) and non‐ACLR (MD = 5.82; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [4.80, 6.80]) individuals. In double‐leg DJs, peak vertical ground reaction forces were lower in the involved side (MD = −0.10; p = 0.03; 95% CI: [−0.18, −0.01]) but higher in the uninvolved side (MD = 0.15; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [0.10, 0.20]) when compared to controls and demonstrated significant changes between 6 months and 3 years post‐ACLR.ConclusionThis study identified discriminative kinetic parameters when comparing individuals with and without ACLR and also monitored neuromuscular function post‐ACLR. Due to heterogeneity, a combination of parameters may be required to better identify functional deficits post‐ACLR.Level of EvidenceLevel III.

show abstract

Static and dynamic postural control in competitive athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and controls

Abstract: Prognostic study, case-control, Level III.

Cited by 54 publications

References 40 publications

Mapping current research trends on anterior cruciate ligament injury risk against the existing evidence: In vivo biomechanical risk factors

Mapping current research trends on anterior cruciate ligament injury risk against the existing evidence: In vivo biomechanical risk factors

The Effects of Functional Knee Brace on Postural Control in Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Jumping into recovery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of discriminatory and responsive force plate parameters in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during countermovement and drop jumps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About