A novel standardised side hop test reliably evaluates landing mechanics for anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed persons and controls

Abstract

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.

Dynamic knee control and movement strategies in athletes and non‐athletes in side hops: Implications for knee injury

“…The helical axis/angle also avoids the sequence dependency encountered by Cardan/Euler angles that may introduce errors in frontal and transversal planes. The SRSH is also a reliable test specifically designed to evaluate angles and moments, with reported within‐session intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.95‐0.97 for knee abduction and internal rotation angles at initial contact and for peak angles …”

“…The maximal vertical hop was then performed with the same starting position, by hopping as high as possible and landing on the same leg. Finally, the SRSH was performed for biomechanical analysis as previously described in detail . In short, participants hopped from one force plate to the side (laterally with respect to the hopping leg) over a distance normalized to 25% of body height onto another force plate (both masked by modular walkway elements), immediately rebounding back to their starting position.…”

“…A six degree‐of‐freedom model was constructed as previously described in detail . In short, 56 passive spherical markers (attached on the skin with double‐coated adhesive tape) and rigid clusters on thighs (four markers) were used to improve construct validity (reducing soft tissue artefacts) and increase reliability and precision of tracking .…”

“…Such knowledge is important to guide the decision‐making process in terms of neuromuscular training components to reduce the risk of knee injury and re‐injury among athletes and non‐athletes who aim to return to sport or physical activity. Our primary aim was thus to evaluate whether women elite athletes (ATH) display greater dynamic knee robustness and different trunk, hip, and knee landing mechanics than non‐athletic controls (CTRL) when performing a newly introduced and reliable one‐leg standardized rebound side hop task (SRSH) . A secondary aim was to evaluate the knee function in these two groups (in terms of laxity, SRSH performances, maximal forward and vertical hop performances, and strength) in relation to the primary aim.…”

“…Our primary aim was thus to evaluate whether women elite athletes (ATH) display greater dynamic knee robustness and different trunk, hip, and knee landing mechanics than non-athletic controls (CTRL) when performing a newly introduced and reliable one-leg standardized rebound side hop task (SRSH). 19 A secondary aim was to evaluate the knee function in these two groups (in terms of laxity, SRSH performances, maximal forward and vertical hop performances, and strength) in relation to the primary aim. We hypothesized that ATH would present greater dynamic knee robustness and larger trunk, hip, and knee flexion angles and moments than CTRL during landing, while also possessing superior knee function in terms of less laxity and better hop performances and strength.…”