2021
DOI: 10.3390/app11083494
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Similar Outcomes and Satisfaction of the Proprioceptive versus Standard Training on the Knee Function and Proprioception, Following the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Abstract: Background: Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries have poorer proprioception than people without such injuries. The effects of proprioceptive training on knee functionality and proprioceptive improvement after ACL reconstruction is still unclear. Methods: The research material consisted of 40 patients after ACL reconstruction. Of the 40 patients, 20 of them were rehabilitated with a standard program and 20 with additional proprioceptive exercises. The subjective and the objective scores were … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The visual-proprioceptive control was evaluated by measuring the postural strategy (PS) and the postural priority (PP) parameters with the Delos Postural Proprioceptive System. We have implemented and tested dynamic and static Riva tests, as described in [15]. The results for the PS parameter were classified as follows (according to Riva standards [16]): excellent (0.0-1.0 • ), very good (1.0-2.5 • ), good (2.5-5.0 • ), sufficient (5.0-9.0 • ), or insufficient (>9.0 • ).…”
Section: Evaluationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The visual-proprioceptive control was evaluated by measuring the postural strategy (PS) and the postural priority (PP) parameters with the Delos Postural Proprioceptive System. We have implemented and tested dynamic and static Riva tests, as described in [15]. The results for the PS parameter were classified as follows (according to Riva standards [16]): excellent (0.0-1.0 • ), very good (1.0-2.5 • ), good (2.5-5.0 • ), sufficient (5.0-9.0 • ), or insufficient (>9.0 • ).…”
Section: Evaluationsmentioning
confidence: 99%