Cargando…

Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction

OBJECTIVES: The combination of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction plus lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has shown promising results during preclinical biomechanical and clinical testing at reducing anterolateral rotatory laxity; however, no studies have examined its effectiveness...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Getgood, Alan M., Daniluk, Michal, Hewison, Christopher, Bryant, Dianne, Litchfield, Robert B., Willits, Kevin, Birmingham, Trevor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565064/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00355
_version_ 1783258357366259712
author Getgood, Alan M.
Daniluk, Michal
Hewison, Christopher
Bryant, Dianne
Litchfield, Robert B.
Willits, Kevin
Birmingham, Trevor
author_facet Getgood, Alan M.
Daniluk, Michal
Hewison, Christopher
Bryant, Dianne
Litchfield, Robert B.
Willits, Kevin
Birmingham, Trevor
author_sort Getgood, Alan M.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The combination of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction plus lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has shown promising results during preclinical biomechanical and clinical testing at reducing anterolateral rotatory laxity; however, no studies have examined its effectiveness during a dynamic functional task. Therefore, we used the drop vertical jump (DVJ) to compare in vivo biomechanics of ACL reconstructed patients with and without LET from a subset of patients within the Stability randomized clinical study. We hypothesized that there would be a difference in peak knee abduction moment (KAM) between the two treatment groups at six months following surgery. METHODS: This is a subset of patients taken from one center, within a pragmatic, multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial. Thirty patients were randomized to receive ACL reconstruction alone (n=16) or ACL reconstruction plus LET (n=14). At six months postoperative, all patients performed a drop vertical jump test and knee kinetics and kinematics were measured using three-dimensional motion analysis. Biomechanical variables of interest included peak initial contact and stance values for knee abduction moment and angle, knee flexion moment and angle and knee internal rotation moment and angle. Independent groups t-tests were used to assess kinetic and kinematic differences between the injured limbs of both treatment groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in peak KAM between those who received ACL reconstruction alone (1.31 %BW×ht) and those who received an ACL reconstruction plus LET (1.14 %BW×ht) (Mean Difference, 0.17; 95% CI, -0.50 to 0.84, p = 0.60). Similarly, there were no differences in peak knee flexion moment or peak knee internal rotation moment between treatment groups (p=0.59 and p=0.37 respectively). There were also no significant differences in knee abduction angle, knee flexion angle or knee internal rotation angle at initial contact (p=0.40, p=0.08, p=0.23 respectively) or peak stance phase (p=0.10, p=0.44, p=0.19 respectively). CONCLUSION: We found no significant biomechanical differences between treatment groups at six months postoperative. However, these are the preliminary results of a larger continuing study and, at this time, no definitive conclusions can be made.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5565064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55650642017-08-24 Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction Getgood, Alan M. Daniluk, Michal Hewison, Christopher Bryant, Dianne Litchfield, Robert B. Willits, Kevin Birmingham, Trevor Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: The combination of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction plus lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has shown promising results during preclinical biomechanical and clinical testing at reducing anterolateral rotatory laxity; however, no studies have examined its effectiveness during a dynamic functional task. Therefore, we used the drop vertical jump (DVJ) to compare in vivo biomechanics of ACL reconstructed patients with and without LET from a subset of patients within the Stability randomized clinical study. We hypothesized that there would be a difference in peak knee abduction moment (KAM) between the two treatment groups at six months following surgery. METHODS: This is a subset of patients taken from one center, within a pragmatic, multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial. Thirty patients were randomized to receive ACL reconstruction alone (n=16) or ACL reconstruction plus LET (n=14). At six months postoperative, all patients performed a drop vertical jump test and knee kinetics and kinematics were measured using three-dimensional motion analysis. Biomechanical variables of interest included peak initial contact and stance values for knee abduction moment and angle, knee flexion moment and angle and knee internal rotation moment and angle. Independent groups t-tests were used to assess kinetic and kinematic differences between the injured limbs of both treatment groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in peak KAM between those who received ACL reconstruction alone (1.31 %BW×ht) and those who received an ACL reconstruction plus LET (1.14 %BW×ht) (Mean Difference, 0.17; 95% CI, -0.50 to 0.84, p = 0.60). Similarly, there were no differences in peak knee flexion moment or peak knee internal rotation moment between treatment groups (p=0.59 and p=0.37 respectively). There were also no significant differences in knee abduction angle, knee flexion angle or knee internal rotation angle at initial contact (p=0.40, p=0.08, p=0.23 respectively) or peak stance phase (p=0.10, p=0.44, p=0.19 respectively). CONCLUSION: We found no significant biomechanical differences between treatment groups at six months postoperative. However, these are the preliminary results of a larger continuing study and, at this time, no definitive conclusions can be made. SAGE Publications 2017-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5565064/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00355 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
spellingShingle Article
Getgood, Alan M.
Daniluk, Michal
Hewison, Christopher
Bryant, Dianne
Litchfield, Robert B.
Willits, Kevin
Birmingham, Trevor
Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction
title Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction
title_full Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction
title_fullStr Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction
title_short Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Influence Knee Abduction Moment During Drop Vertical Jump Following ACL Reconstruction
title_sort lateral extra-articular tenodesis does not influence knee abduction moment during drop vertical jump following acl reconstruction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565064/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967117S00355
work_keys_str_mv AT getgoodalanm lateralextraarticulartenodesisdoesnotinfluencekneeabductionmomentduringdropverticaljumpfollowingaclreconstruction
AT danilukmichal lateralextraarticulartenodesisdoesnotinfluencekneeabductionmomentduringdropverticaljumpfollowingaclreconstruction
AT hewisonchristopher lateralextraarticulartenodesisdoesnotinfluencekneeabductionmomentduringdropverticaljumpfollowingaclreconstruction
AT bryantdianne lateralextraarticulartenodesisdoesnotinfluencekneeabductionmomentduringdropverticaljumpfollowingaclreconstruction
AT litchfieldrobertb lateralextraarticulartenodesisdoesnotinfluencekneeabductionmomentduringdropverticaljumpfollowingaclreconstruction
AT willitskevin lateralextraarticulartenodesisdoesnotinfluencekneeabductionmomentduringdropverticaljumpfollowingaclreconstruction
AT birminghamtrevor lateralextraarticulartenodesisdoesnotinfluencekneeabductionmomentduringdropverticaljumpfollowingaclreconstruction