4.5 Article

Functional performance 2-9 years after ACL reconstruction: cross-sectional comparison between athletes with bone-patellar tendon-bone, semitendinosus/gracilis and healthy controls

期刊

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1412-1423

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3801-7

关键词

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Functional performance; Quality of movement; Quantity of movement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to provide descriptive data on functional performance in men and women with ACLR, to compare bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) with semitendinosus/gracilis (STG) within the same sex and to compare the ACLR subjects with healthy controls. Eligible participants comprised 100 men (43 % BPTB) and 84 women (41 % BPTB) after ACLR, of whom 30 men (STG n = 19; BPTB n = 11) and 18 women (STG n = 12; BPTB n = 6) were untraceable/not willing and 15 men (STG n = 9; BPTB n = 6) and 18 women (STG n = 12; BPTB n = 3) were not able to take part in the measurements because of injury. Besides men BPTB (n = 24), men STG (n = 27), women BPTB (n = 23) and women STG (n = 23), healthy men (n = 22) and women (n = 22) participated. Measurements consisted of questionnaires, isokinetic peak torque and endurance tests, a hop test battery and drop jump including video analysis. Only the occurrence of dynamic knee valgus differed between ACLR and healthy subjects. Two to nine years after ACLR, 16 % of athletes could not participate because of a lower extremity injury. In the remaining group, this study showed similar results for males and females with BPTB compared with STG. Also, similar results are found for quantity of movement comparing operated and healthy subjects. For quality of movement, only the occurrence of dynamic knee valgus in landing from a jump is higher in operated subjects compared with healthy controls. This supports the relevance of a focus on quality of movement as part of ACLR rehabilitation programmes and return to sports criteria. III.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据