SummaryBackgroundThe aim of this paper is to present the physiotherapeutic program employed at the Rehabilitation Centre for the College of Physiotherapy in Wrocław, Poland and its effectiveness by demonstrating the increase in strength of knee joint extensor and flexor muscles of patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.Material/MethodsThirty-seven males participated in the physiotherapeutic program from the first week up to 8 months postoperatively. Each patient underwent an individual therapeutic program. Endoscopic reconstruction of a completely ruptured ACL was performed using Mitek’s method (graft harvesting from flexor muscles). All patients previously underwent orthopedic and functional examinations, including measurements of the range of movement, knee and thigh circumference and strength of flexor and extensor muscles of the involved and uninvolved leg using a Biodex 3 System in both static and isokinetic modes.ResultsThe outcome of the physiotherapeutic procedure, which is detailed in the paper, revealed a favorable effect of physiotherapy 6 months after ACL reconstruction. The observed 9% deficit in extensor muscle strength measured under isokinetic conditions of the involved knees compared with the uninvolved knees led us to conclude that the period of physiotherapy should be extended beyond 6 months for some patients.Conclusions1. Six months of physiotherapy following ACL reconstruction in males favorably affected muscle strength values of the involved and uninvolved knees under static and isokinetic conditions. 2. The application of individual loads during the sixth month of physiotherapy resulted in similar values of extensor and flexor muscle strength measured under static conditions, and flexor muscle strength measured under isokinetic conditions in involved and uninvolved knees.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this study was to present kinematics of trunk and upper extremities in tennis players who perform one-handed and two-handed backhand strokes. The study aimed to address the question of whether one of those techniques has some important advantage over the other. If so, what makes it superior?The study included 10 tennis coaches with average coaching experience of 9 years. The coaches were asked to hit 15 one-handed and two-handed backhands. The tests were carried out in a laboratory. A sponge ball was used in order to protect the measurement equipment. Video motion analysis was carried out using BTS SMART system; images were recorded with 6 cameras with a rate of 120 frames per second. The analysis of both backhand strokes focused on the second phase of the stroke (acceleration).The use of an eight-element model of human body for description of upper body motion in both techniques revealed kinematic differences in how both backhands are performed. The two-handed backhand was performed in closed kinetic chain with 8 degrees of freedom, whereas the one-handed backhand involved an open kinetic chain with 7 degrees of freedom. Higher rigidity of upper extremities which are connected with trunk in the two-handed backhand, contributes to an elevated trunk effect in this stroke. This is confirmed by higher component velocities for racket handle, which result from trunk rotation in the two-handed backhand and a negative separation angle in the two-handed backhand at the moment of contact of the racket with the ball.The study does not provide a clear-cut answer to the question of advantages of one technique over the other; however, it reveals dissimilar patterns of driving the racket in both techniques, which suggests the need for extending the analysis of techniques of both backhands with additional kinematics of tennis racket in consideration of measurements of ball velocities.

No abstract