BackgroundWe evaluated the lower limb status of athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) during the propulsion and landing phases of a single leg hop for distance (SLHD) task after they had been cleared to return to sport. We wanted to evaluate the biomechanical components of the involved (operated) and uninvolved legs of athletes with ACLR and compare these legs with those of uninjured athletes (controls).MethodsWe captured standard video-based three-dimensional motion and electromyography (EMG) in 26 athletes after ACLR and 23 healthy controls during SLHD and calculated lower limb and trunk kinematics. We calculated lower limb joint moments and work using inverse dynamics and computed lower limb muscle forces using an EMG-constrained musculoskeletal modelling approach. Between-limb (within ACLR athletes) and between-group differences (between ACLR athletes and controls) were evaluated using paired and independent sample t-tests, respectively.ResultsSignificant differences in kinematics (effect sizes ranging from 0.42 to 1.56), moments (0.39 to 1.08), and joint work contribution (0.55 to 1.04) were seen between the involved and uninvolved legs, as well as between groups. Athletes after ACLR achieved a 97%±4% limb symmetry index in hop distance but the symmetry in work done by the knee during propulsion was only 69%. During landing, the involved knee absorbed less work than the uninvolved, while the uninvolved knee absorbed more work than the control group. Athletes after ACLR compensated for lower knee work with greater hip work contribution and by landing with more hip flexion, anterior pelvis tilt, and trunk flexion.ConclusionSymmetry in performance on a SLHD test does not ensure symmetry in lower limb biomechanics. The distance hopped is a poor measure of knee function, and largely reflects hip and ankle function. Male athletes after ACLR selectively unload the involved limb but outperform controls on the uninvolved knee.

BackgroundDespite being the most commonly incurred sports injury with a high recurrence rate, there are no guidelines to inform return to sport (RTS) decisions following acute lateral ankle sprain injuries. We aimed to develop a list of assessment items to address this gap.MethodsWe used a three-round Delphi survey approach to develop consensus of opinion among 155 globally diverse health professionals working in elite field or court sports. This involved surveys that were structured in question format with both closed-response and open-response options. We asked panellists to indicate their agreement about whether or not assessment items should support the RTS decision after an acute lateral ankle sprain injury. The second and third round surveys included quantitative and qualitative feedback from the previous round. We defined a priori consensus being reached at >70% agree or disagree responses.ResultsSixteen assessment items reached consensus to be included in the RTS decision after an acute lateral ankle sprain injury. They were mapped to five domains with 98% panellist agreement—PAASS: Pain (during sport participation and over the last 24 hours), Ankle impairments (range of motion; muscle strength, endurance and power), Athlete perception (perceived ankle confidence/reassurance and stability; psychological readiness), Sensorimotor control (proprioception; dynamic postural control/balance), Sport/functional performance (hopping, jumping and agility; sport-specific drills; ability to complete a full training session).ConclusionExpert opinion indicated that pain severity, ankle impairments, sensorimotor control, athlete perception/readiness and sport/functional performance should be assessed to inform the RTS decision following an acute lateral ankle sprain injury.Trial registration numberACTRN12619000522112.

Background: Single-leg vertical and horizontal hop tests are commonly used to assess performance of healthy athletes and as a measure of progress during rehabilitation from knee injury. It is unclear if they measure similar aspects of leg function, as the relative joint contributions of the hip, knee, and ankle joints during propulsion and landing are unknown. Hypothesis: The proportion of work done by the hip, knee, and ankle will not be the same for these 2 jump types and will vary for propulsive and landing phases. Study Design: Cross-sectional cohort study. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Methods: Twenty physically active participants completed instrumented single-leg hop analysis in both vertical and horizontal directions. Joint peak power, work generated or absorbed, and percentage contribution of each joint during propulsive and landing phases were compared between tasks using paired t tests. Results: Vertical hop was performed with roughly similar contributions of the hip, knee, and ankle for both propulsion (31%, 34%, 35%, respectively) and landing (29%, 34%, 37%, respectively). Horizontal hop distance was mostly (87%) determined by the hip and ankle (44% and 43%), but landing was mostly (65%) performed by the knee with lesser contribution from the hip and ankle (24% and 11%). Propulsive phase showed a proximal-to-distal temporal sequence for both hop types, but landing was more complex. Conclusion: Performance during vertical and horizontal hops (jump height and jump distance, respectively) measures different aspects of hip, knee, and ankle function during the propulsive and landing phases. Clinical Relevance: Assessment of knee joint function during rehabilitation should not be done using a horizontal hop. The knee contributes about a third to vertical hop height, but only about an eighth to horizontal hop distance. Practitioners carrying out performance testing using either vertical or horizontal hops should be mindful of the relative contributions for meaningful training inferences to be derived.