4.5 Article

Differences in tibial rotation during walking in ACL reconstructed and healthy contralateral knees

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 43, Issue 9, Pages 1817-1822

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.02.010

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament; Knee kinematics; Osteoarthritis; Walking; Reconstruction

Funding

  1. National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) [5R01-AR039421]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study tested the hypotheses that in patients with a successful anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the internal-external rotation, varus-valgus, and knee flexion position of reconstructed knees would be different from uninjured contralateral knees during walking. Twenty-six subjects with unilateral ACL reconstructions (avg 31 years, 1.7 m, 68 kg, 15 female, 24 months past reconstruction) and no other history of serious lower limb injury walked at a self-selected speed in the gait laboratory, with the uninjured contralateral knee as a matched control. Kinematic measurements of tibiofemoral motion were made using a previously-described point-cluster technique. Repeated-measures ANOVA (alpha=0.017) was used to compare ACL-reconstructed knees to their contralateral knees at four distinct points during the stance phase of walking. An offset towards external tibial rotation in ACL-reconstructed knees was maintained over all time points (95%Cl 2.3 +/- 1.3). Twenty-two out of twenty-six individuals experienced an average external tibial rotation offset throughout stance phase. Varus-valgus rotation and knee flexion were not significantly different between reconstructed and contralateral knees. These findings show that differences in tibial rotation during walking exist in ACL reconstructed knees compared to healthy contralateral knees, providing a potential explanation why these patients are at higher risk of knee osteoarthritis in the long-term. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available