Cargando…

Ambulatory knee biomechanics and muscle activity 2 years after ACL surgery: InternalBrace(TM)-augmented ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction versus healthy controls

BACKGROUND: Little is known about knee mechanics and muscle control after augmented ACL repair. Our aim was to compare knee biomechanics and leg muscle activity during walking between the legs of patients 2 years after InternalBrace(TM)-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACL-IB) and betwee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bühl, Linda, Müller, Sebastian, Nüesch, Corina, Boyer, Katherine A., Casto, Erica, Mündermann, Annegret, Egloff, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10548591/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37794432
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06916-7
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Little is known about knee mechanics and muscle control after augmented ACL repair. Our aim was to compare knee biomechanics and leg muscle activity during walking between the legs of patients 2 years after InternalBrace(TM)-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACL-IB) and between patients after ACL-IB and ACL reconstruction (ACL-R), and controls. METHODS: Twenty-nine ACL-IB, 27 sex- and age-matched ACL-R (hamstring tendon autograft) and 29 matched controls completed an instrumented gait analysis. Knee joint angles, moments, power, and leg muscle activity were compared between the involved and uninvolved leg in ACL-IB (paired t-tests), and between the involved legs in ACL patients and the non-dominant leg in controls (analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni tests) using statistical parametric mapping (SPM, P < 0.05). Means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of differences in discrete parameters (DP; i.e., maximum/minimum) were calculated. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in ACL-IB only in minimum knee flexion angle (DP: 2.4°, CI [-4.4;-0.5]; involved > uninvolved) and maximum knee flexion moment during stance (-0.07Nm/kg, CI [-0.13;-0.00]; involved < uninvolved), and differences between ACL-IB and ACL-R only in maximum knee flexion during swing (DP: 3.6°, CI [0.5;7.0]; ACL-IB > ACL-R). Compared to controls, ACL-IB (SPM: 0–3%GC, P = 0.015; 98–100%, P = 0.016; DP: -6.3 mm, CI [-11.7;-0.8]) and ACL-R (DP: -6.0 mm, CI [-11.4;-0.2]) had lower (maximum) anterior tibia position around heel strike. ACL-R also had lower maximum knee extension moment (DP: -0.13Nm/kg, CI [-0.23;-0.02]) and internal knee rotation moment (SPM: 34–41%GC, P < 0.001; DP: -0.03Nm/kg, CI [-0.06;-0.00]) during stance, and greater maximum semitendinosus activity before heel strike (DP: 11.2%maximum voluntary contraction, CI [0.1;21.3]) than controls. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest comparable ambulatory knee function 2 years after ACL-IB and ACL-R, with ACL-IB showing only small differences between legs. However, the differences between both ACL groups and controls suggest that function in the involved leg is not fully recovered and that ACL tear is not only a mechanical disruption but also affects the sensorimotor integrity, which may not be restored after surgery. The trend toward fewer abnormalities in knee moments and semitendinosus muscle function during walking after ACL-IB warrants further investigation and may underscore the importance of preserving the hamstring muscles as ACL agonists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04429165 (12/06/2020). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06916-7.