4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Gait retraining after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 85, Issue 5, Pages 848-856

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.07.014

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament; gait; knee; rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To examine the effects of 2 gait retraining protocols on the gait patterns of patients with bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Design: Randomized control, repeated-measures design. Setting: Private orthopedic center and research facility. Participants: Sixteen patients with bone-patellar tendon-bone ACL reconstruction, randomly subdivided into 2 groups (group 1, n=8; group 2, n=8), and a healthy control group of 8 subjects. Intervention: The 16 subjects with ACL reconstruction were randomly assigned to 2 different gait retraining protocols over a 6-week training interval: (1) a protocol using a predicted stride frequency calculated from the resonant frequency of a force-driven harmonic oscillator (FDHO) model or (2) a protocol using the preferred stride frequency (PSF). Main Outcome Measures: Gait analyses examining the lower-extremity kinematic, kinetic, and energetic gait patterns of each group. Results: Gait retraining with the FDHO model showed improvements in lower-extremity positions, hip and knee extensor angular impulse, and work parameters. Gait retraining with the PSF demonstrated no statistical improvements. The FDHO training protocol facilitated a greater midstance knee range of motion (ROM) and greater rates of improvement for midstance ROM, hip extensor angular impulse, and concentric hip extensor work. Conclusions: Gait retraining with the resonant frequency of an FDHO model facilitated a greater recovery of gait function compared with training with the PSF.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available