Objective To systematically review the biomechanical deficits after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) during single leg hop for distance (SLHD) testing and report these differences compared with the contralateral leg and with healthy controls.
Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.
Data sources A systematic search in Pubmed (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, grey literature and trial registries, was conducted from inception to 1 April 2018.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies reporting kinematic, kinetic and/or electromyographic data of the ACLR limb during SLHD with no language limits.
Results The literature review yielded 1551 articles and 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed strong evidence of lower peak knee flexion angle and knee flexion moments during landing compared with the uninjured leg and with controls. Also, moderate evidence (with large effect size) of lower knee power absorption during landing compared with the uninjured leg. No difference was found in peak vertical ground reaction force during landing. Subgroup analyses revealed that some kinematic variables do not restore with time and may even worsen.
Conclusion During SLHD several kinematic and kinetic deficits were detected between limbs after ACLR, despite adequate SLHD performance. Measuring only hop distance, even using the healthy leg as a reference, is insufficient to fully assess knee function after ACLR.
PROSPERO trial registration number CRD42018087779.
- sporting injuries
- knee surgery
- injury prevention
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors All authors contributed significantly to the review. AK conducted the entire review, with VK and RW as second and third reviewers. SVR and IJ provided advice throughout the review. All authors contributed to the final manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.