Differences in hip–knee joint coupling during gait after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Gribbin, Timothy C.; Slater, Lindsay V.; Herb, C. Collin; Hart, Joseph M.; Chapman, David M. F.; Hertel, Jay; Kuenze, Christopher

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.01.006

Cited by 31 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Significant findings were reported in 73% (n = 11/15). Greater variability in the injured group was evident in 67% (n = 10/15) of the studies, reduced variability in 20% (n = 3/15), and no difference observed between the two groups in 27% (n = 4/15) …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Overall findings revealed that 73% (n = 16/22) of studies reported a statistically significant difference in at least one dependent variable used to examine movement variability between injured subjects and uninjured controls. Injured subject groups demonstrated greater variability in 64% (n = 14/22) of the studies, reduced variability in 27% (n = 6/22), and no difference between groups was evident in 27% (n = 6/22) . Table presents the percentage of studies reporting greater, less, or no difference in variability when comparing injured subjects to uninjured controls.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the studies investigating single specific injuries, 88% (n = 14/16) reported significant between‐group differences. Of these, greater variability was evident in 75% (n = 12/16), reduced variability in 31% (n = 5/16), while 13% (n = 2/16) reported no significant differences between injured and uninjured groups . Table presents the breakdown of findings when specific injury types were group together.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Injury at the knee joint was most commonly investigated. This was examined in 46% (n = 10/22) of studies with significant findings evident in 90% of these (n = 9/10). In the injured group, greater variability was evident in 80% (n = 8/10) of the studies, reduced variability in 30% (n = 3/10), and no between‐group differences in 10% (n = 1/10) …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Continuous measures were examined for variability in 68% (n = 15/22) of studies . Significant findings were reported in 73% (n = 11/15).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Does the amount of lower extremity movement variability differ between injured and uninjured populations? A systematic review

Baida

Gore

Franklyn-Miller

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Movement variability during repetitive performance of a dynamic activity (eg, running, jumping, kicking) is considered an integral characteristic of optimal movement execution; however, its relationship with musculo-skeletal injury is not known. The primary aim of this study was to review published comparison trials to determine whether movement variability differs between uninjured controls and subjects with a lower limb musculo-skeletal injury. A systematic search of online databases; MEDLINE, Sports Discus, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from July to November 2016. Studies were selected if they (a) included participants with a lower limb injury, (b) compared injured participants to uninjured controls, (c) examined movement variability for at least one dependent variable, and (d) provided a statistical between-group comparison when comparing measures of movement variability. Studies were excluded if they (a) investigated neurological disorders, (b) examined musculo-skeletal injury in the upper extremity or spine, and (c) used nonlinear measures to examine variability (ie, complexity). A significant difference between injured and uninjured populations was reported in 73% of the included studies, and of these, 64% reported greater movement variability in the injured group. This is the first systematic review with a best-evidence synthesis investigating the association between movement variability and musculo-skeletal injury. Findings suggest that movement variability in those with a musculo-skeletal injury differs from uninjured individuals. Interestingly, there was an overall trend toward greater movement variability being associated with the injured groups, although it should be noted that this trend was not consistent across all subcategories (eg, injury type). For a clearer insight into the clinical application of variability, greater methodological homogeneity is required and prospective research is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Continuous measures were examined for variability in 68% (n = 15/22) of studies . Significant findings were reported in 73% (n = 11/15).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Does the amount of lower extremity movement variability differ between injured and uninjured populations? A systematic review

Baida

Gore

Franklyn-Miller

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Video Surveillance System Based on Gait Recognition

Zhang

2018

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Permanent knee sensorimotor system changes following ACL injury and surgery

Nyland

Gamble

Franklin

et al. 2017

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cruciate ligaments are components of the knee capsuloligamentous system providing vital neurosensory and biomechanical function. Since most historical primary ACL repair attempts were unsuccessful, reconstruction has become the preferred surgery. However, an increased understanding of the efficacy of lesion-site scaffolding, innovative suturing methods and materials, and evolving use of biological healing mediators such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cells has prompted reconsideration of what was once believed to be impossible. A growing number of in vivo animal studies and prospective clinical studies are providing increasing support for this intervention. The significance of ACL repair rather than reconstruction is that it more likely preserves the native neurosensory system, entheses, and ACL footprints. Tissue preservation combined with restored biomechanical function increases the likelihood for premorbid neuromuscular control system and dynamic knee stability recovery. This recovery should increase the potential for more patients to safely return to sports at their desired intensity and frequency. This current concepts paper revisits cruciate ligament neurosensory and neurovascular anatomy from the perspective of knee capsuloligamentous system function. Peripheral and central nerve pathways and central cortical representation mapping are also discussed. Surgical restoration of a more physiologically sound knee joint may be essential to solving the osteoarthritis dilemma. Innovative rehabilitative strategies and outcome measurement methodologies using more holistic and clinically relevant measurements that closely link biomechanical and neurosensory characteristics of physiological ACL function are discussed. Greater consideration of task-specific patient physical function and psychobehavioral links should better delineate the true efficacy of all ACL surgical and non-surgical interventions. Level of evidence IV.

show abstract

Differences in hip–knee joint coupling during gait after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Cited by 31 publications

References 47 publications

Does the amount of lower extremity movement variability differ between injured and uninjured populations? A systematic review

Does the amount of lower extremity movement variability differ between injured and uninjured populations? A systematic review

A Video Surveillance System Based on Gait Recognition

Permanent knee sensorimotor system changes following ACL injury and surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About