umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
One-leg rise performance and associated knee kinematics in ACL-deficient and ACL-reconstructed persons 23 years post-injury
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6715-6208
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0366-4609
2019 (English)In: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, ISSN 1471-2474, E-ISSN 1471-2474, Vol. 20, no 1, article id 476Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Research indicates reduced knee function and stability decades after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Assessment requires reliable functional tests that discriminate such outcomes from asymptomatic knees, while providing suitable loading for different populations. The One-leg rise (OLR) test is common in clinics and research but lacks scientific evidence for its implementation. Our cross-sectional study compared performance including knee kinematics of the OLR between ACL-injured persons in the very long term to controls and between legs within these groups, and assessed the within-session reliability of the kinematics.

METHODS: Seventy ACL-injured individuals (mean age 46.9 ± 5.4 years) treated with either reconstructive surgery and physiotherapy (ACLR; n = 33) or physiotherapy alone (ACLPT; n = 37), on average 23 years post-injury, and 33 age- and sex-matched controls (CTRL) attempted the OLR. Participants completed as many repetitions as possible to a maximum of 50 while recorded by motion capture. We compared between all groups and between legs within groups for total repetitions and decomposed the OLR into movement phases to compare phase completion times, maximum and range of knee abduction and adduction angles, and mediolateral knee control in up to 10 repetitions per participant.

RESULTS: ACLPT performed significantly fewer OLR repetitions with their injured leg compared to the CTRL non-dominant leg (medians 15 and 32, respectively) and showed significantly greater knee abduction than ACLR and CTRL (average 2.56°-3.69° depending on phase and leg). Distribution of repetitions differed between groups, revealing 59% of ACLPT unable to complete more than 20 repetitions on their injured leg compared to 33% ACLR and 36% CTRL for their injured and non-dominant leg, respectively. Within-session reliability of all kinematic variables for all groups and legs was high (ICC 3,10 0.97-1.00, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, SEM 0.93-1.95°).

CONCLUSIONS: Negative outcomes of OLR performance, particularly among ACLPT, confirm the need to address aberrant knee function and stability even decades post-ACL injury. Knee kinematics derived from the OLR were reliable for asymptomatic and ACL-injured knees. Development of the OLR protocol and analysis methods may improve its discriminative ability in identifying reduced knee function and stability among a range of clinical populations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 20, no 1, article id 476
Keywords [en]
Biomechanics, Clinical assessment, Knee control, Knee function, Knee injury, Lower limb, Motion analysis, Osteoarthritis
National Category
Physiotherapy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-165230DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2887-3ISI: 000492891600003PubMedID: 31653212OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-165230DiVA, id: diva2:1370534
Available from: 2019-11-15 Created: 2019-11-15 Last updated: 2019-11-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1297 kB)6 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1297 kBChecksum SHA-512
bbb13a3d6366f25e5c16809a4f61ce7ebcfef0cd5ea659456fcc56abb361fefd27df6e3f3294791a230a721fc91ed3f6cde75264480637fa2d3db416e39a7049
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Strong, AndrewTengman, EvaHäger, Charlotte K.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Strong, AndrewTengman, EvaHäger, Charlotte K.
By organisation
Physiotherapy
In the same journal
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Physiotherapy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 6 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 10 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf