Knee extension and flexion muscle power after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon graft or hamstring tendons graft: a cross-sectional comparison 3 years post surgery.

Department of Orthopedics, Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund University Hospital, Lund 221 85, Sweden.
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy (Impact Factor: 2.68). 11/2008; 17(2):162-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-008-0645-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Hamstring muscles play a major role in knee-joint stabilization after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Weakness of the knee extensors after ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon (PT) graft, and in the knee flexors after reconstruction with hamstring tendons (HT) graft has been observed up to 2 years post surgery, but not later. In these studies, isokinetic muscle torque was used. However, muscle power has been suggested to be a more sensitive and sport-specific measures of strength. The aim was to study quadriceps and hamstring muscle power in patients with ACL injury treated with surgical reconstruction with PT or HT grafts at a mean of 3 years after surgery. Twenty subjects with PT and 16 subjects with HT grafts (mean age at follow up 30 years, range 20-39, 25% women), who were all included in a prospective study and followed the same goal-based rehabilitation protocol for at least 4 months, were assessed with reliable, valid, and responsive tests of quadriceps and hamstring muscle power at 3 years (SD 0.9, range 2-5) after surgery. The mean difference between legs (injured minus uninjured), the hamstring to quadriceps (H:Q, hamstring divided by quadriceps) ratio, and the limb symmetry index (LSI, injured leg divided by uninjured and multiplied by 100) value, were used for comparisons between the groups (analysis of variance). The mean difference between the injured and uninjured legs was greater in the HT than in the PT group for knee flexion power (-21.3 vs. 7.7 W, p = 0.001). Patients with HT graft had lower H:Q ratio in the injured leg than the patients with PT graft (0.63 vs. 0.77, p = 0.012). They also had lower LSI for knee flexion power than those in the PT group (88 vs. 106%, p < 0.001). No differences were found between the groups for knee extension power. The lower hamstring muscle power, and the lower hamstring to quadriceps ratio in the HT graft group than in the PT graft group 3 years (range 2-5) after ACL reconstruction, reflect imbalance of knee muscles after reconstruction with HT graft that may have a negative effect on dynamic knee-joint stabilization.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to evaluate strength training protocol documentation during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim was further to present recommendations concerning what components (i.e. methods, principles and training variables) could be considered vital to document when it comes to strength training for research purposes after ACL reconstruction. METHODS: A search of the PUBMED/MEDLINE, CINAHL and SportDiscus databases was made of relevant literature relating to strength training after ACL reconstruction. The database search was based on relevant medical subject headings terms (strength/resistance/weight training, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction/rehabilitation). The literature was reviewed regarding the way methods and variables were documented in strength training protocols during rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction in peer-reviewed original prospective articles. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified 139 citations published between January 1983 and May 2012. Six studies contained a strength training programme-part of the rehabilitation protocol after ACL reconstruction that met the inclusion criteria. Basic information (i.e. training frequency, intensity, volume, progression or the duration of the training period) regarding the strength training protocols used during rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction was not documented in full in four of the studies. CONCLUSION: The results clearly indicate the need of a more standardised and detailed way of documenting strength training for research purposes after ACL reconstruction in order to increase the value of future studies on this subject. This review gives recommendations on strength training protocol documentation after ACL reconstruction to facilitate this goal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 08/2012; · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regaining adequate strength of the quadriceps and hamstrings after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is important for maximizing functional performance. However, the outcome of muscle strength after either BPTB or hamstrings autograft is unclear given the plethora of published studies that report post-operative muscle strength. The purpose of this study was to systematically compare the muscle strength of patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction using either Bone Patellar Tendon Bone (BPTB) or Hamstrings (HST) autograft. The databases of MEDLINE, Cinahal and EMBASE were systematically searched for articles that report muscle strength outcome following ACL reconstruction. The quality of the studies was evaluated and a meta-analysis of the muscle strength outcomes was conducted on reported data. Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review: eight Randomized Control Studies (RCT) and six non-Randomized Control Studies (non-RCT). A meta-analysis was performed involving eight of the included studies (4 RCTs & 3 non-RCTs). At 60°/s and 180°/s, patients with BPTB graft showed a greater deficit in extensor muscle strength and lower deficit in flexor muscle strength compared with patients with HST. This systematic review of Level III evidence showed that isokinetic muscle strength deficits following ACL reconstruction are associated with the location of the donor site. These deficits appear to be unresolved up to 2 years after ACL reconstruction. III.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 01/2011; 19(5):768-80. · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this prospective study was to describe the variability in leg muscle power and hop performance up to 2 years among patients following ACL reconstruction and specifically to illustrate the effects of various criteria for an acceptable level of muscle function. Eighty-two patients (56 men and 26 women)with a mean age of 28 years, who underwent ACL reconstruction using either hamstring tendons (n = 46) or a patellar tendon (n = 36), were assessed pre-operatively and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-surgery with a battery of three lower extremity muscle power tests and a battery of three hop tests. Leg symmetry index (LSI) values at group level ranged between 73 and 100% at all follow-ups. When the tests were evaluated individually, patients reached an average LSI of ≥ 90% at 24 months. The success rate at 24 months for the muscle power test battery, that is,patients with an LSI of ≥ 90% in all three tests, was 48 and 44% for the hop test battery. The success rate at 24 months for both test batteries on all six muscle function tests was 22%. The criterion of an LSI of ≥ 80% resulted in 53% of the patients having an acceptable level on all six tests,while with a criterion of an LSI of ≥ 100%, none of the patients reached an acceptable level. At group level and in single muscle function tests, the muscle function outcome 1 and 2 years after ACL reconstruction is satisfactory in the present study and on a par with the results presented in the literature. However,when using more demanding criteria for a successful muscle function outcome, using batteries of tests or increasing the acceptable LSI level from ≥ 90% to ≥ 95%or ≥ 100%, the results are considered to be poor. It is suggested that this should be taken into consideration when presenting results after ACL rehabilitation, deciding on the criteria for a safe return to sports, or designing rehabilitation programmes after ACL reconstruction. Prognostic prospective cohort study, Level I.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 02/2012; 20(6):1143-51. · 2.68 Impact Factor