Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Nov;18(11):1587-93.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1185-2. Epub 2010 Jun 12.

Adaptations in single-leg hop biomechanics following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Adaptations in single-leg hop biomechanics following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Karl F Orishimo et al. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

When a patient performs a clinically normal hop test based on distance, it cannot be assumed that the biomechanics are similar between limbs. The objective was to compare takeoff and landing biomechanics between legs in patients who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Kinematics and ground reaction forces were recorded as 13 patients performed the single-leg hop on each leg. Distance hopped, joint range of motion, peak joint kinetics and the peak total extensor moment were compared between legs during both takeoff and landing. Average hop distance ratio (involved/noninvolved) was 93 ± 4%. Compared to the noninvolved side, knee motion during takeoff on the involved side was significantly reduced (P = 0.008). Peak moments and powers on the involved side were lower at the knee and higher at the ankle and hip compared with the noninvolved side (Side by Joint P = 0.011; P = 0.003, respectively). The peak total extensor moment was not different between legs (P = 0.305) despite a decrease in knee moment and increases in ankle and hip moments (Side by Joint P = 0.015). During landing, knee motion was reduced (P = 0.043), and peak power absorbed was decreased at the knee and hip and increased at the ankle on the involved side compared to the noninvolved side (P = 0.003). The compensations by other joints may indicate protective adaptations to avoid overloading the reconstructed knee.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Clin J Sport Med. 2007 Jul;17(4):258-62 - PubMed
    1. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003 Aug;18(7):662-9 - PubMed
    1. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010 Feb;20(1):e12-9 - PubMed
    1. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1994 Aug;20(2):60-73 - PubMed
    1. Am J Sports Med. 1986 Mar-Apr;14(2):156-9 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources