4.3 Article

Correlation between proprioception, muscle strength, knee laxity, and dynamic standing balance in patients with chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency

Journal

KNEE
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 387-391

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.01.006

Keywords

Proprioception; Muscle strength; Dynamic stance balance; Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Proprioception and Muscle strength are both reported to influence single-limb stance balance in patients with chronic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. However, the effects of these parameters on dynamic stance balance in such patients are currently unknown. This study was undertaken to ascertain whether proprioception, muscle strength, and knee laxity are correlated with dynamic standing balance in patients with ACL deficiency. Ten young men with unilateral ACL deficiency participated in this study. The mean time interval from the injury to the study was 12.8 months. Knee laxity measurements, passive re-positioning (PRP) and threshold for detection of passive motion (TTDPM) proprioception tests, quadriceps and hamstring muscle strength tests, and dynamic single-limb balance tests were performed for both injured and uninjured limbs. Significant differences between the injured and uninjured sides were observed for all test parameters. As independent variables, knee laxity, PRP proprioception, and muscle strength did not correlate with dynamic standing balance for the injured limb. However, a significant positive correlation (P<0.05) between TTDPM proprioception and dynamic single-limb stance balance was observed for the injured limb. To improve dynamic single-limb stance balance in patients with ACL injuries, training in TTDPM proprioceptive ability is recommended as the most important initial approach for such patients. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available