| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
|
|
|||||||
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
|||||||||
Department of Human Performance, San Jose State University, San Jose, California
Biomechanics/Sports Medicine Laboratory, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Oregon
Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Oregon
Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Oregon
Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Oregon
Currently used measures of knee stability and function for ACL reconstructed knees have not gained universal acceptance. Clinical test results often are given more value than the patient's subjective evaluation of the surgical outcome. This study was designed to identify specific knee stability and function variables that were most predictive of the patient's rating of knee function following one of two types of combined (intraarticular and extraarticular) ACL reconstruction procedures. In dividual measures of knee stability and function were also evaluated for differences between contralateral operated and nonoperated limbs. Postoperative and healthy contralateral knees of 51 male and female patients aged 18 to 49 years (mean, 23.7 years) were evaluated on a battery of tests at an average of 48.0 months after surgery (range, 24 to 101 months). All subjects possessed a normal contralateral knee for comparative purposes. The results of this retrospective study indicated that the variables selected were not highly correlated with, nor could they effectively predict, the patients' perceptions of postoperative knee status as measured by the Knee Function Rating Form (KFR). Statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) between operated and nonoperated knees were found for 9 of 11 variables analyzed. The data suggest that patients' perceptions of postoperative knee status were inde pendent of the results of static and dynamic clinical tests commonly used to assess knee stability and function. Postoperative deficits of up to 30% between the surgically reconstructed and normal contralateral knees on specific measures of knee stability and func tion did not greatly influence the patients' perceptions of knee function. Development of new, more specific dynamic tests may be necessary before stronger rela tionships between clinical test results and patients' perceptions of knee status in the ACL reconstructed knee can be realized.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. S. George, W. R. Dunn, and K. P. Spindler Current Concepts Review: Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 2006; 34(12): 2026 - 2037. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Tashman, D. Collon, K. Anderson, P. Kolowich, and W. Anderst Abnormal Rotational Knee Motion During Running After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., June 1, 2004; 32(4): 975 - 983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. R. Dunn, A. E. Lincoln, R. Y. Hinton, G. S. Smith, and P. J. Amoroso Occupational Disability After Hospitalization for the Treatment of an Injury of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 2003; 85(9): 1656 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Yagi, E. K. Wong, A. Kanamori, R. E. Debski, F. H. Fu, and S. L-Y. Woo Biomechanical Analysis of an Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2002; 30(5): 660 - 666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Bowditch Anterior cruciate ligament rupture and management Trauma, October 1, 2001; 3(4): 249 - 261. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. K.H. Wu, G. Y.F. Ng, and A. F.T. Mak Effects of Knee Bracing on the Sensorimotor Function of Subjects with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2001; 29(5): 641 - 645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. D. Barber-Westin, F. R. Noyes, T. P. Heckmann, and B. L. Shaffer The Effect of Exercise and Rehabilitation on Anterior-Posterior Knee Displacements After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Autograft Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., January 1, 1999; 27(1): 84 - 93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. HOGERVORST and R. A. BRAND Current Concepts Review - Mechanoreceptors in Joint Function J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., September 1, 1998; 80(9): 1365 - 1378. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Mohtadi Development and Validation of the Quality Of Life Outcome Measure (Questionnaire) for Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Deficiency Am. J. Sports Med., May 1, 1998; 26(3): 350 - 359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Snyder-Mackler, G. K. Fitzgerald, A. R. Bartolozzi III, and M. G. Ciccotti The Relationship Between Passive Joint Laxity and Functional Outcome After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1997; 25(2): 191 - 195. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Maeda, K. Shino, S. Horibe, K. Nakata, and G. Buccafusca Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Multistranded Autogenous Semitendinosus Tendon Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 1996; 24(4): 504 - 509. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Yasuda, J. Tsujino, Y. Ohkoshi, Y. Tanabe, and K. Kaneda Graft Site Morbidity with Autogenous Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendons Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 1995; 23(6): 706 - 714. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. R. Bach JR, G. T. Jones, C. A. Hager, F. A. Sweet, and S. Luergans Arthrometric Results of Arthroscopically Assisted Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction using Autograft Patellar Tendon Substitution Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1995; 23(2): 179 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. Lephart, M. S. Kocher, C. D. Harner, and F. H. Fu Quadriceps strength and functional capacity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Patellar tendon autograft versus allograft Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 1993; 21(5): 738 - 743. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. D. Barber-Westin and F. R. Noyes The effect of rehabilitation and return to activity on anterior-posterior knee displacements after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1993; 21(2): 264 - 270. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Kramer, D. Nusca, P. Fowler, and S. Webster-Bogaert Knee flexor and extensor strength during concentric and eccentric muscle actions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the semitendinosus tendon and ligament augmentation device Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1993; 21(2): 285 - 291. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Yasuda, Y. Ohkoshi, Y. Tanabe, and K. Kaneda Quantitative evaluation of knee instability and muscle strength after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar and quadriceps tendon Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 1992; 20(4): 471 - 475. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. F. Anderson, R. B. Snyder, C. F. Federspiel, and A. B. Lipscomb Instrumented evaluation of knee laxity: A comparison of five arthrometers Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1992; 20(2): 135 - 140. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Marder, J. R. Raskind, and M. Carroll Prospective evaluation of arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendons Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 1991; 19(5): 478 - 484. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Sommerlath, J. Lysholm, and J. Gillquist The long-term course after treatment of acute anterior cruciate ligament ruptures: A 9 to 16 year followup Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1991; 19(2): 156 - 162. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
