No difference between mechanical perturbation training with compliant surface and manual perturbation training on knee functional performance after ACL rupture. Issue 5 (28th November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nawasreh, Zakariya; Logerstedt, David; Failla, Mathew; Snyder‐Mackler, Lynn
• Is Part Of: Journal of orthopaedic research. Volume 36:Issue 5(2018)
• Page Start: 1391
• Page End: 1397
• Publication Date: 2017-11-28
• Subjects: Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal system -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1002/jor.23784
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0736-0266

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Manual perturbation training improves dynamic knee stability and functional performance after anterior cruciate ligament rupture (ACL‐rupture). However, it is limited to static standing position and does not allow time‐specific perturbations at different phase of functional activities. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether administering mechanical perturbation training including compliant surface provides effects similar to manual perturbation training on knee functional measures after an acute ACL‐rupture. Sixteen level I/II athletes with ACL‐ruptures participated in this preliminary study. Eight patients received mechanical (Mechanical) and eight subjects received manual perturbation training (Manual). All patients completed a functional testing (isometric quadriceps strength, single‐legged hop tests) and patient‐reported measures (Knee Outcome Survey‐Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS‐ADLS), Global Rating Score (GRS), International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC 2000) at pre‐ and post‐training. 2 × 2 ANOVA was used for data analysis. No significant group‐by‐time interactions were found for all measures ( p > 0.18). Main effects of time were found for single hop (Pre‐testing: 85.14% ± 21.07; Post‐testing: 92.49% ± 17.55), triple hop (Pre‐testing: 84.64% ± 14.17; Post‐testing: 96.64% ± 11.14), KOS‐ADLS (Pre‐testing: 81.13% ± 11.12; Post‐testing: 88.63% ± 12.63), GRS (Pre‐testing: 68.63% ± 15.73; Post‐testing: 78.81% ± 13.85), and IKDC 2000 (Pre‐testing: 66.66% ± 9.85; Post‐testing: 76.05% ± 14.62) ( p < 0.032). Administering mechanical perturbation training using compliant surfaces induce effects similar to manual perturbation training on knee functional performance after acute ACL‐rupture. The clinical significance is both modes of training improve patients' functional‐performance and limb‐to‐limb movement symmetry, and enhancing the patients' self‐reported of knee functional measures after ACL rupture. Mechanical perturbation that provides a compliant surface might be utilized as part of the ACL rehabilitation training. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1391–1397, 2018. Abstract : Mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface induces effects similar to the manual perturbation training on knee functional performance and patient‐reported measures after ACL‐rupture. Administering mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface improves patients' knee functional performance and limb‐to‐limb movement symmetry during functional activities, and enhanced the patients' self‐reported outcomes on knee symptoms and function. Mechanical perturbation that provides a compliant surface might be utilized as part of the ACL rehabilitation training to improve dynamic knee stability and knee outcomes.