Elsevier

Gait & Posture

Volume 64, July 2018, Pages 43-49
Gait & Posture

Full length article
Comparing the effects of mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface and manual perturbation training on joints kinematics after ACL-rupture

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.05.027Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Training on a compliant surface has an effect on joint kinematic after ACL rupture.

  • Compliant surface has different kinematics effects compared to manual perturbation.

  • Manual perturbation improves hip alignment and increased the knee flexion angles.

  • Mechanical perturbation with a compliant surface decreases the knee flexion angles.

Abstract

Introduction

Performing physical activities on a compliant surface alters joint kinematics and increases joints stiffness. However, the effect of compliant surface on joint kinematics after ACL-rupture is yet unknown.

Aim

To compare the effects of mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface to manual perturbation training on joint kinematics after ACL-rupture.

Methods

Sixteen level I/II athletes with ACL-rupture participated in this preliminary study. Eight patients received mechanical perturbation with compliant surface (Mechanical) and 8 patients received manual perturbation training (Manual). Patients completed standard gait analysis before (Pre) and after (Post) training.

Results

Significant group-by-time interactions were found for knee flexion angle at initial contact (IC) and peak knee flexion (PKF) (p<0.004), with manual group significantly increased knee flexion angle at IC and PKF (p<0.03). Main effects of group were found for hip flexion angle at IC (Manual:34.34+3.51°, Mechanical:27.68+4.08°, p = 0.011), hip rotation angle at PKE (Manual:-3.40+4.78°, Mechanical:5.43+4.78°, p < 0.0001), and knee adduction angle at PKE (Manual:-2.00+2.23°, Mechanical:0.55+2.23°, p = 0.039). Main effects of time were found for hip adduction angle at PKE (Pre:6.98+4.48°, Post:8.41+4.91°, p = 0.04), knee adduction angle at IC (Pre:-2.90+3.50°, Post:-0.62+2.58°, p = 0.03), ankle adduction angle at IC (Pre:2.16+3.54, Post:3.8+3.68, p = 0.008), and ankle flexion angle at PKF (Pre:-4.55+2.77°, Post:-2.39+3.48°, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Training on a compliant surface induces different effects on joint kinematics compared to manual perturbation training after ACL-rupture. Manual perturbation improved hip alignment and increased knee flexion angles, while mechanical training decreased knee flexion angles throughout the stance phase. Administering training on a compliant surface after ACL-rupture may help improving dynamic knee stability, however, long-term effects on knee health needs to be determined.

Introduction

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is the most injured ligament in the knee joint in athletic individuals, with 250,000 ACL-ruptures occurring annually in the United States [[1], [2], [3]]. Majority of patients with ACL-rupture exhibit dynamic knee instability during a variety of daily living and functional activities [[4], [5], [6], [7]]. Other complications commonly present after ACL-rupture include quadriceps weakness, range of motion deficits, impaired knee function, limb-to-limb movement asymmetry, and altered knee biomechanics [[4], [5], [6], [7]]. These complications, if not resolved, can affect the patients’ ability to participate in dynamic functional activities and may predispose the knee joint to further injuries or the development of joint osteoarthritis [8,9].

The incidence of dynamic knee instability may indicate a failure of the neuromuscular system to provide sufficient stability after ACL-rupture. Patients adapt abnormal gait patterns and decrease the intensity and level of activity participation to counteract experiencing dynamic knee instability [[10], [11], [12], [13]]. The combination of repeated episodes of knee instability and altered knee biomechanics are problematic to joint heath as they may cause further injuries to the intra-articular structures of the knee joint [[14], [15], [16]]. Therefore, rehabilitation treatment programs are needed to target and improve dynamic knee control and limit potentially negative sequelae.

Administering progressive quadriceps strengthening augmented with manual perturbation training have become standard treatments for patients with ACL-rupture who opt for non-operative management [[17], [18], [19]]. Manual perturbation training, type of neuromuscular training exercise, has been shown to be an effective intervention for improving dynamic knee stability and restoring knee motion during gait [[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]]. Administering perturbation training, however, has not been fully integrated into the rehabilitation clinics as part of the ACL rehabilitation training in the United States. Moreover, manual perturbation training is limited to standing position and requires complete engagement, and requires one-on-one treatment by the therapist during the training [27].

Previous studies revealed that athletes alter joints kinematics by increasing joints stiffness when performing physical activities on compliant surfaces [[28], [29], [30], [31]]. Increased joint stiffness might be the result of offsetting the increase in compliance of surfaces and ensuring similar locomotion regardless of the changes in the compliant of the surface [29,31]. This effect was observed in athletes while performing hopping and running activities on compliant surfaces [[28], [29], [30]]. Integrating training programs with compliant surfaces into rehabilitation program after ACL-rupture may help patients with poor neuromuscular control improve dynamic knee stability.

Recently, an automated perturbation device has been developed with an embedded plate that moves vertically, simulating a variably compliant surface. Ultimately, performing high-demand physical activities that include hopping, jumping, and landing activities on a compliant surface may help patients with ACL-rupture to develop successful neuromuscular strategies that improve dynamic knee stability. Mechanical perturbation devices have been integrated into rehabilitation programs and have been shown to help with improve neuromuscular coordination [[32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]]. To this end, the effectiveness of administrating mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface on the joint kinematics after ACL-rupture has not been investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of administrating mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface to manual perturbation training on gait kinematics after an acute ACL-rupture.

Section snippets

Methods

Twelve patients with an acute unilateral ACL rupture and between the ages of 14–55 were enrolled into this preliminary study. Four patients did not complete the study for commuting time, inability to commit the necessary time, experiencing pain during pre-training testing, or voluntarily. Full data set from eight patients who completed the study were included in the analysis of this study. These patients completed 10-sessions of mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface

Results

No significant differences were found between groups for age, BMI, and time from injury to pre-testing (P>0.19). Additionally, no significant differences were found between groups for kinematic measures (p>0.08) (Table 1).

Discussion

The results of this study indicate that both treatment modes have effects on joints’ kinematics of the injured limb after ACL-rupture. However, mechanical training with a compliant surface induced different effects on joints’ kinematics of the injured limb compared to manual training after ACL-rupture. In general, mechanical group showed a trend of decreasing knee flexion motion, while manual perturbation training increased the angles of knee flexion angles during stance phase of walking.

The

Conclusion

Mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface induced different effects on joint kinematics compared to manual perturbation training after ACL-rupture. Overall, manual perturbation training improved the hip joint alignment and increased the knee flexion angles, while mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface decreased the angles of knee joint motion throughout stance phase. Implementing unanticipated mechanical perturbation training with a compliant surface into the

Contributes

ZN, DL, and LSM conceived the idea of this study. ZN and MF conducted the testing and training of patients. ZN analyzed and interpreted the data. All authors contributed to and interpretation of the data and writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the rebuttal and revised the final draft of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that there were no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This pilot study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH/ Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)) (5R44 HD068054). All authors certify that there were no affiliations with or financial involvement in any organization or entity with a direct financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. We thank the University of Delaware Physical Therapy clinic (http://sites.udel.edu/ptclinic/) for facilitating

References (66)

  • T.P. Andriacchi et al.

    Interactions between kinematics and loading during walking for the normal and ACL deficient knee

    J. Biomech.

    (2005)
  • M. O’Connell et al.

    Postural sway and balance testing: A comparison of normal and anterior cruciate ligament deficient knees

    Gait Posture

    (1998)
  • C.D. Ingersoll et al.

    Neuromuscular consequences of anterior cruciate ligament injury

    Clin. Sports Med.

    (2008)
  • D.G. Lloyd et al.

    Strategies of muscular support of varus and valgus isometric loads at the human knee

    J. Biomech.

    (2001)
  • C.B. Frank et al.

    The science of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament

    J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.

    (1997)
  • L.Y. Griffin et al.

    Noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: risk factors and prevention strategies

    J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg.

    (2000)
  • M. Majewski et al.

    Epidemiology of athletic knee injuries: A 10-year study

    Knee

    (2018)
  • D. Logerstedt et al.

    Symmetry restoration and functional recovery before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

    Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc.

    (2013)
  • E.H. Hartigan et al.

    Time line for noncopers to pass return-to-sports criteria after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

    J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.

    (2010)
  • S.N. de Jong et al.

    Functional assessment and muscle strength before and after reconstruction of chronic anterior cruciate ligament lesions

    Arthroscopy

    (2007)
  • A.J. Wiggins et al.

    Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2016)
  • M.E. Eastlack et al.

    Laxity, instability, and functional outcome after ACL injury: copers versus noncopers

    Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.

    (1999)
  • K.A. McCullough et al.

    Return to high school and college-level football after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

    Am J Sport Med.

    (2012)
  • K.S. Rudolph et al.

    Dynamic stability in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Knee Surgery

    Sport Traumatol. Arthrosc.

    (2001)
  • M.D. Lewek et al.

    Knee stabilization in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis

    Arthritis Rheum.

    (2005)
  • B.D. Beynnon et al.

    Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries, part I

    Am. J. Sports Med.

    (2005)
  • C. Andersson et al.

    Knee function after surgical or nonsurgical treatment of acute rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: a randomized study with a long-term follow-up period

    Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.

    (1991)
  • D.S. Logerstedt et al.

    Knee stability and movement coordination impairments: knee ligament sprain

    J. Orthop. Sport Phys. Ther.

    (2010)
  • G.K. Fitzgerald et al.

    Proposed practice guidelines for non operative anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation of physically active individuals

    J. Orthop. Sport Phys. Ther.

    (2000)
  • G.K. Fitzgerald et al.

    A decision-making scheme for returning patients to high-level activity with nonoperative treatment after anterior cruciate ligament rupture

    Knee Surg. Sport Traumatol. Arthrosc.

    (2000)
  • G.K. Fitzgerald et al.

    The efficacy of perturbation training in nonoperative anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation programs for physical active individuals

    Phys. Ther.

    (2000)
  • W.J. Hurd et al.

    Perturbation-enhanced neuromuscular training alters muscle activity in female athletes

    Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc.

    (2006)
  • T.L. Chmielewski et al.

    Perturbation training improves knee kinematics and reduces muscle co-contraction after complete unilateral anterior cruciate ligament rupture

    Phys. Ther.

    (2005)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text