ObjectiveTo systematically review the biomechanical deficits after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) during single leg hop for distance (SLHD) testing and report these differences compared with the contralateral leg and with healthy controls.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesA systematic search in Pubmed (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, grey literature and trial registries, was conducted from inception to 1 April 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies reporting kinematic, kinetic and/or electromyographic data of the ACLR limb during SLHD with no language limits.ResultsThe literature review yielded 1551 articles and 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed strong evidence of lower peak knee flexion angle and knee flexion moments during landing compared with the uninjured leg and with controls. Also, moderate evidence (with large effect size) of lower knee power absorption during landing compared with the uninjured leg. No difference was found in peak vertical ground reaction force during landing. Subgroup analyses revealed that some kinematic variables do not restore with time and may even worsen.ConclusionDuring SLHD several kinematic and kinetic deficits were detected between limbs after ACLR, despite adequate SLHD performance. Measuring only hop distance, even using the healthy leg as a reference, is insufficient to fully assess knee function after ACLR.PROSPERO trial registration number CRD42018087779.

ObjectivesVertical jump performance (height) is a more representative metric for knee function than horizontal hop performance (distance) in healthy individuals. It is not known what the biomechanical status of athletes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is at the time they are cleared to return to sport (RTS) or whether vertical performance metrics better evaluate knee function.MethodsStandard marker-based motion capture and electromyography (EMG) were collected from 26 male athletes cleared to RTS after ACLR and 22 control healthy subjects during single leg vertical jumps (SLJ) and single leg drop jumps (SLDJ). Performance outcomes, jump height and the Reactive Strength Index, were calculated. Sagittal plane kinematics, joint moments and joint work were obtained using inverse dynamics and lower limb muscle forces were computed using an EMG-constrained musculoskeletal model. Muscle contribution was calculated as a percentage of the impulse of all muscle forces in the model. Between-limb and between-group differences were explored using mixed models analyses.ResultsJump performance, assessed by jump height and Reactive Strength Index, was significantly lower in the involved than the uninvolved limb and controls, with large effect sizes. For the ACLR group, jump height limb symmetry index was 83% and 77% during the SLJ and SLDJ, respectively. Work generation was significantly less in the involved knee compared to uninvolved limb and controls during the SLJ (p<0.001; d=1.19; p=0.003, d=0.91, respectively) and during the SLDJ (p<0.001; d=1.54; p=0.002, d=1.05, respectively). Hamstrings muscle contribution was greater in the involved compared to the uninvolved limb and controls, whereas soleus contribution was lower in the involved limb compared to controls.ConclusionsDuring vertical jumps, male athletes after ACLR at RTS still exhibit knee biomechanical deficits, despite symmetry in horizontal functional performance and strength tests. Vertical performance metrics like jump height and RSI can better identify interlimb asymmetries than the more commonly used hop distance and should be included in the testing battery for the RTS.

Exercise plays a pivotal role in maximizing peak bone mass in adulthood and maintaining it through aging, by imposing mechanical loading on the bone that can trigger bone mineralization and growth. The optimal type and intensity of exercise that best enhances bone strength remains, however, poorly characterized, partly because the exact peak loading of the bone produced by the diverse types of exercises is not known. By means of integrated motion capture as an input to dynamic simulations, contact forces acting on the hip of 20 young healthy adults were calculated during walking and running at different speeds. During walking, hip contact forces (HCFs) have a two-peak profile whereby the first peak increases from 4.22 body weight (BW) to 5.41 BW and the second from 4.37 BW to 5.74 BW, by increasing speed from 3 to 6 km/h. During running, there is only one peak HCF that increases from 7.49 BW to 10.01 BW, by increasing speed from 6 to 12 km/h. Speed related profiles of peak HCFs and ground reaction forces (GRFs) reveal a different progression of the two peaks during walking. Speed has a stronger impact on peak HCFs rather than on peak GRFs during walking and running, suggesting an increasing influence of muscle activity on peak HCF with increased speed. Moreover, results show that the first peak of HCF during walking can be predicted best by hip adduction moment, and the second peak of HCF by hip extension moment. During running, peak HCF can be best predicted by hip adduction moment. The present study contributes hereby to a better understanding of musculoskeletal loading during walking and running in a wide range of speeds, offering valuable information to clinicians and scientists exploring bone loading as a possible nonpharmacological osteogenic stimulus.

Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Background The inclusion of specific exercises in rehabilitation after knee injury is currently expert based, as a thorough description of the knee contact forces during different exercises is lacking. Objective To quantify knee loading during frequently used activities such as squats, lunges, single-leg hops, walking stairs, standing up, and gait, and to grade knee joint loading during these activities. Methods Three-dimensional motion-analysis data of 15 healthy adults were acquired during 9 standardized activities used in rehabilitation. Experimental motion data were processed using musculoskeletal modeling to calculate contact and shear forces on the different knee compartments (tibiofemoral and patellofemoral). Using repeated-measures analyses of variance, contact and shear forces were compared between compartments and exercises, whereas muscle and average maximum femoral forces were compared only between exercises. Results With the exception of squats, all therapeutic exercises imposed higher forces to the tibiofemoral joint compared to gait. Likewise, patellofemoral forces were greater during all exercises when compared to gait. Greater compartmental contact forces were accompanied by greater compartmental shear forces. Furthermore, force distribution over the medial and lateral compartments varied between exercises. With increased knee flexion, more force was imposed on the posterior portion of the condyles. Conclusion These results suggest that with careful selection of exercises, forces on an injured zone of the joint can be reduced, as the force distribution differs strongly between exercises. Based on the results, a graded exercise program for progressive knee joint loading during rehabilitation can be conceptualized. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(3):162-173. Epub 6 Jan 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7459.

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.