Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) is a process in which neural inhibition after injury or surgery to the knee results in quadriceps activation failure and knee extension deficit.

Purpose:

To determine the incidence and spectrum of the severity of AMI after acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury using the Sonnery-Cottet classification, to determine the interobserver reliability of the classification system, and to investigate potential important factors associated with AMI after ACL injury.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Consecutive patients who had an acute ACL injury between October 2021 and February 2022 were considered for study inclusion. Eligible patients underwent a standardized physical examination at their first outpatient appointment. This included an assessment of quadriceps inhibition, identification of any extension deficits, and grading of AMI and its reversibility according to the Sonnery-Cottet classification.

Results:

A total of 300 consecutive patients with acute ACL ruptures were prospectively enrolled in the study. Of them, 170 patients (56.7%) had AMI. Patients evaluated with AMI showed a significantly inferior Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Simple Knee Value, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score than patients without AMI (P < .0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of effusion, concomitant injuries, and high pain scores were associated with a significantly greater risk of AMI. Additional associations with the presence of AMI included a short duration between injury and evaluation, the use of crutches, and using a pillow as a support at night. In contrast, a previous ACL injury was associated with significantly lower odds of developing AMI (OR, 0.025; 95% CI, 0-0.2; P = .014). Among the 170 patients with AMI, 135 patients (79%) showed a resolution of their inhibition at the end of the consultation after application of simple exercises; the remaining 35 patients required specific rehabilitation. Interobserver reliability of the classification system was almost perfect (95% CI, 0.86-0.99).

Conclusion:

AMI occurs in over half of patients with acute ACL injuries. When it occurs, it is easily reversible in the majority of patients with simple exercises targeted at abolishing AMI. The presence of “red flags” should increase the index of suspicion for the presence of AMI, and these include the presence of an effusion, high pain scores, a short time between injury and evaluation, multiligament injuries, the use of crutches, and using a pillow as a support at night. Patients with a history of ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury are at a significantly lower risk of AMI than those with a first-time ACL injury.

Keywords

arthrogenic muscle inhibition quadriceps knee injury ACL reconstruction

Arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) is a frequent but underrecognized cause of quadriceps activation failure and knee extension deficit after acute knee injury and surgery.^4,44 Although AMI is thought to represent a protective mechanism against further injury (by limiting movement and force transmission through the joint), it can also pose a major challenge to effective rehabilitation and cause significant morbidity.^10,11,18,31 Sequalae of AMI include gait abnormality, quadriceps atrophy and weakness, poor function, dynamic instability, joint contracture, cyclops syndrome, persistent knee pain, proprioceptive deficits, impaired motor coordination, altered movement patterns, and early osteoarthritis.^** However, a recent scoping review demonstrated that there is moderate-quality evidence supporting the efficacy of physical exercises and cryotherapy in improving quadriceps activation failure after ACL injury and reconstruction.⁴⁴ This suggests that the morbidity of AMI might be reduced by improving recognition of this condition and prescribing targeted therapeutic interventions. The first step in doing so would be having an appropriate index of suspicion and understanding risk factors for the development of AMI. However, to the knowledge of the authors, the existing literature on the epidemiology and risk factors for the development of AMI is sparse.

Most of the previous literature on this topic has focused on seeking to better understand the mechanisms of AMI. This body of work has demonstrated that swelling and pain after injury results in changes in the discharge of articular sensory receptors and inhibitory signals at the spinal cord level that can lead to altered spinal reflex excitability (affecting group 1 nonreciprocal [1B] inhibitory pathway, the flexion reflex, and the gamma loop), alteration in muscle resting motor thresholds, and abnormal cortical activity (intracortical inhibition and a requirement for greater frontal cortex theta power in basic movement and joint position sense tasks) resulting in decreased quadriceps motor neuron excitability and increased hamstring flexor reflex (Figure 1).^{8,15,23,25,35,37} Although this information is paramount in understanding the pathophysiology, these characteristics are not easily measured or evaluated in daily clinical practice, and this may also lead to underrecognition and consequent undertreatment of AMI.⁴²

Figure 1.

Pathophysiological processes leading to arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI). ACL, anterior cruciate ligament. (Reproduced with permission from the American Journal Sports Medicine.⁶)

The aim of this study was 3-fold: (1) to use the recently described clinical classification of AMI⁴³ to determine the incidence and spectrum of AMI after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, (2) to determine the interobserver reliability of the classification system, and (3) to investigate potentially important clinical factors for their association with the presence of AMI after ACL injury. The hypotheses of this study were that AMI is common after ACL injury, but most cases are easily reversible; the classification system would show good to excellent interobserver reliability; and high pain scores, the presence of effusion, and concomitant injuries would increase the risk of AMI.

Methods

Study Design and Participants

Institutional review board approval (COS-RGDS-2022-03-001-SONNERY COTTET-B) was granted for this prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients who had an acute knee injury (interval between injury and presentation, <6 weeks) between October 2021 and February 2022 were considered for study inclusion if physical examination (Lachman and pivot-shift test) findings and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed an ACL injury (including injury to a native ACL or an ACL graft). Patients were only excluded if they declined to participate in the study.

Data Collection

All included patients participated in a standardized interview, completed forms for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (visual analog scale [VAS] pain score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score, Lysholm score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Simple Knee Value, and preinjury Tegner activity level), and underwent physical examination at the time of their initial outpatient clinic visit (Centre Orthopedique Santy). Physical examination included standard knee examination (Lachman and pivot-shift tests), an assessment of anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference measurement using a Rolimeter (Aircast Europa), and an assessment of AMI based on clinical features of vastus medialis oblique (VMO) inhibition, the presence of extension deficit, and reversibility of these features according to the Sonnert-Cottet classification of AMI.⁴³ The evaluation of the grade of AMI was performed independently by 2 orthopaedic surgeons (1 junior surgeon [L.G.] and 1 senior surgeon [B.S.C.]) in succession at the time of the initial outpatient clinic visit (Centre Orthopedique Santy).⁴³ For the purposes of this study, the reversibility of grade 1A and 2A AMI was defined as restoration of the patient’s ability to normally contract the VMO (grade 0) and abolishment of extension deficit after participation in simple exercises aimed at abolishing AMI at the first outpatient appointment, respectively. Relaxation of hamstring contractures followed by VMO wake-up was conducted by the senior surgeon during the consultation, and reversibility was assessed by the senior and junior surgeons by checking recovery of full extension and effective VMO contraction with heel elevation from the examination table.⁵

The Sonnery-Cottet classification⁴³ grades AMI as follows (video):

Grade 0: normal VMO contraction

Grade 1A: VMO contraction is inhibited but activation failure is reversible with simple exercises

Grade 1B: same as grade 1a but requires longer and specific rehabilitation programs

Grade 2A: VMO contraction is inhibited with an associated extension deficit due to hamstring contracture, but activation failure and loss of range of motion are reversible with simple exercises

Grade 2B: same as grade 2a but refractory to simple exercises and longer and specific rehabilitation programs are required

Grade 3: chronic extension deficit that is irreducible without extensive posterior arthrolysis

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive data analysis was conducted depending on the nature of the considered criteria. For qualitative data, this included the number of filled and missing data and, for each modality, the frequency and percentage (referring to filled data). Proportions were estimated with their exact 95% confidence intervals when appropriate. Comparisons of data were made using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test, according to the expected values under the assumption of independence. For quantitative data, this included number of filled and missing data, arithmetic mean, standard deviation, median, first and third quartiles, and minimum and maximum. Comparisons of data were made using a Student t test or Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test depending on the distribution of the variable of interest.

Patient characteristics, injury characteristics, and other potentially important factors were investigated for association with the presence of AMI using a Firth penalized logistic regression model. The probability of having AMI was modeled using the following factors:

Patient characteristics (age, sex, and body mass index [BMI])

Time between injury and first outpatient appointment

Previous ipsilateral ACL rupture or contralateral ACL rupture

Magnitude of side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference

Patient-reported occurrence of knee swelling on the day of injury

Presence or absence of knee effusion at the time of clinical evaluation

VAS pain score at the time of first outpatient appointment

Patient using crutches at first outpatient appointment

Patient reported use of pillow under the knee while sleeping immediately before first outpatient appointment

Patient reported participation in physical therapy before first outpatient appointment

History of knee aspiration before first outpatient appointment

Presence or absence of concomitant injuries demonstrated on MRI (including lateral femoral notch sign, bone bruising, meniscal tears, cartilage lesions, and other ligament injuries)

Variables were included in the initial multivariate model if they were significantly associated with the dependent variable (AMI status) at a significance level of P = .20 or if they were considered potentially important prognostic factors based on existing literature. The final model was the result of a manual backward stepwise selection of variables with a significance level of P = .05. The confounding factors were tested. All comparisons were performed at the level of statistical significance set at P < .05. All calculations were made with SAS for Windows (Version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc). Interobserver agreement was calculated using kappa coefficients (95% confidence interval).¹³ The kappa values were classified as described by Landis and Koch,¹⁶ with values of 0.81 to 1.00 indicating excellent agreement, 0.61 to 0.80 substantial agreement, 0.41 to 0.60 moderate agreement, 0.21 to 0.40 fair agreement, and 0 to 0.20 slight agreement.

Results

A total of 300 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. Overall, 56.7% (n = 170) of the enrolled population had features of AMI. The spectrum and incidence of different grades of AMI, stratified according to the classification, are reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Incidence of AMI According to the Sonnery-Cottet Classification^{43

a}

AMI Grade	n (%)	95% CI
0	130 (43.3)	37.7-48.9
1A	73 (24.3)	35.5-50.4
1B	13 (4.3)	3.7-11.6
2A	62 (20.7)	29.2-43.7
2B	22 (7.3)	7.9-18.0
3	00 (0)	NA

AMI, arthrogenic muscle inhibition; NA, no applicable.

Patient data, stratified by the presence or absence of AMI, are reported in Table 2. In summary, there were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex distribution, BMI, side of injury, or preinjury Tegner activity level.

Table 2

Characteristics of the Study Population, Stratified by Group (AMI or No AMI)^a

	Grade 0 (No AMI) (n = 130)	Grades 1 and 2 (AMI) (n = 170)	Analyzed Population (N = 300)	P Value
Age, y	28.6 ± 11.1	29.8 ± 11.4	29.3 ± 11.3	.3789^b
Male sex	85 (65.4)	100 (58.8)	185 (61.7)	.2468^c
BMI	24.0 ± 3.5	24.0 ± 3.4	24.0 ± 3.4	.9680^b
Right knee	62 (47.7)	77 (45.3)	139 (46.3)	.6798^c
Tegner score	7.2 ± 1.5	7.1 ± 1.3	7.1 ± 1.4	.4579^b

Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SD. AMI, arthrogenic muscle inhibition; BMI, body mass index.

Student t test.

Chi-square test.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Patients evaluated with AMI showed a significantly inferior Lysholm score, IKDC score, Simple Knee Value, and KOOS than patients without AMI (P < .0001) (Table 3).

Table 3

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Study Population, Stratified by Group (AMI or No AMI)^a

	Grade 0 (No AMI) (n = 130)	Grades 1 and 2 (AMI) (n = 170)	AnalyzedPopulation (N = 300)	P Value
Lysholm score	74.3 ± 14.9	60.5 ± 7.4	66.5 ± 17.7	<.0001 ^b
IKDC score	64.0 ± 15.6	49.3 ± 15.4	55.7 ± 17.1	<.0001 ^b
Simple Knee Value	48.7 ± 20.5	35.7 ± 19.4	41.3 ± 20.9	<.0001 ^b
KOOS symptoms	82.9 ± 14.4	63.0 ± 21.1	71.6 ± 21.0	<.0001 ^c
KOOS pain	78.8 ± 13.2	66.2 ± 17.7	71.7 ± 17.1	<.0001 ^b
KOOS daily function	85.1 ± 13.5	69.4 ± 19.2	76.2 ± 18.7	<.0001 ^c
KOOS sport function	39.2 ± 28.3	23.2 ± 22.9	30.1 ± 26.5	<.0001 ^c
KOOS quality of life	46.7 ± 23.3	36.2 ± 22.2	40.7 ± 23.2	<.0001 ^b

Data are presented as mean ± SD. P-values represent the tests between Grade (0) no AMI, vs Grades 1 and 2 (presence of AMI). Boldface P values indicate statistical significance. AMI, arthrogenic muscle inhibition; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

Student t test.

Wilcoxon test.

Risk Factors

Table 4 displays the characteristics of the study population, stratified by group (AMI or no AMI).

Table 4

Characteristics in the Study Population, Stratified by Group (AMI or No AMI)^a

	Grade 0 (No AMI) (n = 130)	Grades 1 and 2 (AMI) (n = 170)	Analyzed Population(N = 300)	P Value
Side-to-side measurement, mm	5.4 ± 1.3	5.5 ± 1.2	5.4 ± 1.3	.5557^b
Ipsilateral ACL graft rupture	17 (13.1)	0 (0.0)	17 (5.7)	<.0001 ^b
History of previous contralateral ACL injury	19 (14.6)	9 (5.3)	28 (9.3)	.0060 ^b
Time between injury and first outpatient appointment, days	22.8 ± 11.7	17.8 ± 10.7	20.0 ± 11.4	.0010 ^c
Patient-reported knee swelling on the day of injury	108 (83.1)	155 (91.2)	263 (87.7)	.0403 ^b
Effusion present at time of first outpatient appointment	29 (22.3)	88 (51.8)	117 (39.0)	<.0001 ^b
Pain score at first outpatient appointment	1.3 ± 1.5	2.3 ± 2.0	1.9 ± 1.8	<.0001 ^d
Using crutches at first outpatient appointment	53 (40.8)	113 (66.5)	166 (55.3)	<.0001 ^b
Aspiration performed before first outpatient appointment	7 (5.4)	13 (7.6)	20 (6.7)	.4363^b
Using a pillow under knee at night	32 (24.6)	77 (45.3)	109 (36.3)	.0002 ^b
MRI findings^e
Lateral notch	34 (36.6)	59 (63.4)	93 (31.0)	.1181
Bone bruising	103 (41.2)	147 (58.8)	250 (83.3)	.1008
Medial meniscal tear	54 (42.5)	73 (57.5)	127 (42.3)	.8107
Lateral meniscal tear	12 (28.6)	30 (71.4)	42 (14.0)	.0462
Cartilage lesion	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)	5 (1.7)	.1807
Multiligament injury	14 (23.0)	47 (77.0)	61 (20.3)	.0006

Data are presented as n (%) or mean ± SD. Boldface P values indicate statistical significance. ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; AMI, arthrogenic muscle inhibition; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

Chi-square test.

Student t test.

Wilcoxon test.

The percentages at MRI findings are based on the total amount of the respective finding in the total population.

Table 5 reports the factors included in the multivariate model. In summary, multivariate analysis demonstrated that a shorter duration between injury and the first outpatient appointment, presence of an effusion, increased pain score, use of crutches, using a pillow at night, and multiligament injuries were significantly associated with the presence of AMI. In contrast, a history of ACL injury (either ipsilateral ACL graft rupture or contralateral ACL rupture) was associated with a lower risk of AMI (Table 5 and Figures 2 and 3).

Table 5

Risk Factors for AMI^a

	OR	95% CI	P Value
Ipsilateral ACL graft rupture	0.025	0.000-0.202	.0140
Previous contralateral ACL rupture	0.385	0.152-0.924	.0404
Time between injury and review	2.043	1.18-3.579	.0118
Pain score at review	2.268	1.226-4.294	.0107
Effusion at review	2.216	1.252-3.974	.0073
Using crutches	2.136	1.239-3.706	.0069
Pillow at night	2.675	1.475-4.963	.0015
Multiligament injuries	2.333	1.152-4.943	.0232

Adjusted odds ratio on previous ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, previous contralateral ACL rupture, time between injury and review, effusion at review, pain at review, use of crutches, using a pillow at night, and multiligament injuries. Boldface P values indicate statistical significance. AMI, arthrogenic muscle inhibition.

Figure 2.

Factors influencing the occurrence of arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI). ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; multilig, multiligament.

Figure 3.

Forest plot of the risk factors for arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI). The odds ratios of the previous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture and previous contralateral ACL rupture were reversed and are presented as less risk of AMI to adjust the forest plot.

Reducibility

Among the 170 patients with AMI, 135 patients (79%) showed a resolution of their inhibition at the end of the consultation after application of simple exercises involving hamstring fatiguing and reactivation of quadriceps muscle contraction, as previously described.⁵ These patients were not evaluated with AMI again until surgery. In the postoperative period, if a patient is evaluated with AMI, the same management is repeated according to the classification.

The remaining 35 patients required specific rehabilitation programs before surgery. These programs involved electromyographic biofeedback (converting the action potential of the quadriceps into feedback signals of a visual or auditory nature, so it can affect the patient’s voluntary task)^19,24,36 and neuromotor reprogramming treatment based on the use of proprioceptive sensations associated with motor imagery and low-frequency sounds.⁷

Interobserver Reliabilities of the Classification System

The interobserver reliability data as determined by the kappa statistic are reported in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6

Interobserver Reliabilities (Kappa Coefficient) for Evaluation of 104 Patients^a

	Kappa			Agreement (%)
	Coefficient (SE)	95% CI	Interpretation	Observed Agreement	Observed Disagreement
AMI grade	0.929 (0.034)	0.862-0.996	Almost perfect agreement	100/104 (96.2)	4/104 (3.8)

AMI, arthrogenic muscle inhibition.

Table 7

Interobserver Agreement for Each Grade: Analyzed Population (n = 104)^a

	Kappa			Agreement (%)
AMI Grade	Coefficient (SE)	95% CI	Interpretation	Observed Agreement	Observed Disagreement
0	0.958 (0.029)	0.901-1.000	Almost perfect agreement	102/104 (98.1)	2/104 (1.9)
1A	0.892 (0.061)	0.772-1.000	Almost perfect agreement	101/104 (97.1)	3/104 (2.9)
1B	0.852 (0.145)	0.567-1.000	Almost perfect agreement	103/104 (99.0)	1/104 (1.0)
2A	0.955 (0.045)	0.866-1.000	Almost perfect agreement	103/104 (99.0)	1/104 (1.0)
2B	0.884 (0.115)	0.659-1.000	Almost perfect agreement	103/104 (99.0)	1/104 (1.0)

AMI, arthrogenic muscle inhibition.

Treatment

Twenty (6.7%) patients had an aspiration, 13 (7.6%) with AMI and 7 (5.4%) without AMI (P = .4363, chi-square test). A total of 128 patients (42.7%) had physical therapy before their consultation at our center, 64 (37.6%) with AMI and 64 (49.2%) without AMI (P = .0444, chi-square test). However, physical therapy was not associated with a lower risk of AMI in the multivariate analysis.

Discussion

The main finding of this study was that more than half of patients with an acute ACL injury were evaluated with features of AMI at their first outpatient appointment, and the majority (79%) of those with AMI had easily reversible types (grade 1A or 2A). This is an important finding because it allows clinicians to hold an appropriate index of suspicion for the presence of AMI, and demonstrates that when AMI is identified, it can usually be easily treated with simple exercises at the first outpatient appointment.⁵

Several studies have identified impairments in the neural and morphological characteristics of the quadriceps after ACL injury.^{9,12,17,22,26,33} A further important finding was the identification of several factors that were associated with the presence of AMI after ACL injury. Based on empirical observations in clinical practice, it was hypothesized that the presence of effusion, concomitant injuries, and high pain scores would increase the risk of AMI, and this was proven to hold true in multivariate analysis. These findings are broadly consistent with previous studies, particularly because the role of effusion is well recognized in the pathogenesis of AMI, and artificial knee effusions are frequently used in experimental models studying the condition.^28,29,38 Furthermore, joint effusions are more likely to be present with higher injury severities³ and particularly in the multiligament setting; therefore, these findings appear logical.

The current study also demonstrated an association between the use of crutches and/or a pillow behind the knee at night, shorter intervals between injury and the first outpatient appointment, and AMI. It is our opinion that these are not risk factors for AMI, but rather they are hallmarks of patients with more severe symptoms and functional limitations, as reflected by significantly worse PROMs in those with AMI. Collectively, these characteristics should therefore be considered “red flags” for AMI, and when present, they should raise the index of suspicion for its presence.

Additionally, it was an interesting finding that patients who had sustained a previous contralateral ACL injury or an ipsilateral ACL graft rupture had a significantly lower risk of AMI. There are several potential explanations for these findings, all of which require additional study to further delineate. However, given that both previous ipsilateral and contralateral injuries significantly reduced the likelihood of AMI, this strongly suggests that central neuroplasticity occurs after the index injury. However, localized joint phenomena such as deafferentation, loss of native proprioceptive fibers, or the degree of pain and/or effusion may also play some role. These findings also serve to highlight the fact that an elevated index of suspicion for AMI is required in patients with a first-time ACL injury. Furthermore, increasing delay between injury and the first outpatient appointment was also found to be associated with less risk of AMI. This is also consistent with empirical observation in clinical practice whereby those with chronic ACL injuries rarely have extension deficit or quadriceps activation failure. However, it is also clear from empirical observation that left untreated, not all cases of AMI improve with time, and it seems plausible that those who are most symptomatic may self-select to present acutely.

It is clear that extension deficit in the early period after ACL reconstruction leads to a significantly increased risk of reoperation for stiffness-related complications.⁶ Preoperative extension deficit is an important predictor of postoperative extension deficit.³⁴ This study demonstrates that with simple exercises for AMI, the majority of cases of preoperative extension deficit are easily resolved provided that specific approaches to fatigue the hamstrings and improve quadriceps activation while also influencing neural modulation, providing biofeedback, and facilitating motor excitability are used.^5,7,27,32,44 A further important finding of this study was that the reliability of the Sonnery-Cottet classification of AMI was established with good to excellent interobserver reliabilities.

The main limitation of this study was that clinical diagnoses and classifications of AMI were not correlated with established objective measures such as the quadriceps central activation ratio. However, measuring the central activation ratio is time consuming and not routinely used in daily clinical practice. In contrast, a major appeal of the classification system used was its ease of use and incorporation into clinical practice. A further limitation was the failure to investigate whether there was any association between the presence of AMI at the first outpatient appointment and subsequent clinical outcomes of treatment. Additionally, the incidence of grade 3 AMI was not studied because its diagnosis requires considerably longer durations of follow-up that were beyond the scope of this study.

Conclusion

AMI occurs in more than half of patients with acute ACL injuries. When it occurs, it is easily reversible in the majority of patients with simple exercises targeted at abolishing AMI. The presence of red flags should increase the index of suspicion for the presence of AMI; these include the presence of an effusion, high pain scores, short time between injury and evaluation, multiligament injuries, use of crutches, and using a pillow as a support at night. Patients with a history of ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury are at a significantly lower risk of AMI than those with a first-time ACL injury.

Footnotes

Submitted April 5, 2023; accepted September 11, 2023.

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: B.S.C. has received consulting fees and royalties from Arthrex. J.M.F. is consultant for Arthrex and New Clip Technics. M.T. is a consultant for Arthrex. E.C. is a consultant for Arthrex. G.P.H. has received a fellowship grant from Arthrex. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

ORCID iDs

Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet

Graeme P. Hopper

Charles Pioger

Thais Dutra Vieira

Adnan Saithna

Notes

References

Amin

Baker

Niu

. Quadriceps strength and the risk of cartilage loss and symptom progression in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(1):189-198.

Becker

Berth

Nehring

Awiszus

. Neuromuscular quadriceps dysfunction prior to osteoarthritis of the knee. J Orthop Res. 2004;22(4):768-773.

Cecava

Dieckman

Banks

Mansfield

. Traumatic knee injury: correlation of radiographic effusion size with the presence of internal derangement on magnetic resonance imaging. Emerg Radiol. 2018;25(5):479-487.

Criss

Melton

Ulloa

, et al. Rupture, reconstruction, and rehabilitation: a multi-disciplinary review of mechanisms for central nervous system adaptations following anterior cruciate ligament injury. Knee. 2021;30:78-89.

Delaloye

Murar

Sánchez

, et al. How to rapidly abolish knee extension deficit after injury or surgery: a practice-changing video pearl from the Scientific Anterior Cruciate Ligament Network International (SANTI) Study Group. Arthrosc Tech. 2018;7(6):e601-e605.

Delaloye

Murar

Vieira

, et al. Knee extension deficit in the early postoperative period predisposes to cyclops syndrome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a risk factor analysis in 3633 patients from the SANTI Study Group Database. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(3):565-572.

Dos Anjos

Gabriel

Vieira

Hopper

Sonnery-Cottet

. Neuromotor treatment of arthrogenic muscle inhibition after knee injury or surgery. Sports Health. Published online April 27, 2023. doi:10.1177/19417381231169285

Grooms

Page

Onate

. Brain activation for knee movement measured days before second anterior cruciate ligament injury: neuroimaging in musculoskeletal medicine. J Athl Train. 2015;50(10):1005-1010.

Gumucio

Sugg

Enselman

ERS

. Anterior cruciate ligament tear induces a sustained loss of muscle fiber force production. Muscle Nerve. 2018;58(1):145-148.

10.

Hart

Pietrosimone

Hertel

Ingersoll

. Quadriceps activation following knee injuries: a systematic review. J Athl Train. 2010;45(1):87-97.

11.

Hopkins

Ingersoll

. Arthrogenic muscle inhibition: 20 years on. J Sport Rehabil. 2022;31(6):665-666.

12.

Kapreli

Athanasopoulos

Gliatis

. Anterior cruciate ligament deficiency causes brain plasticity: a functional MRI study. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(12):2419-2426.

13.

Karanicolas

Bhandari

Kreder

, et al. Evaluating agreement: conducting a reliability study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 3):99-106.

14.

Konishi

Kinugasa

Oda

Tsukazaki

Fukubayashi

. Relationship between muscle volume and muscle torque of the hamstrings after anterior cruciate ligament lesion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(11):2270-2274.

15.

Konishi

Yoshii

Ingersoll

. Gamma loop dysfunction as a possible neurophysiological mechanism of arthrogenic muscle inhibition: a narrative review of the literature. J Sport Rehabil. 2022;31(6):736-741.

16.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.

17.

Lepley

Grooms

Burland

Davi

Kinsella-Shaw

Lepley

. Quadriceps muscle function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: systemic differences in neural and morphological characteristics. Exp Brain Res. 2019;237(5):1267-1278.

18.

Lepley

. Mechanisms of arthrogenic muscle inhibition. J Sport Rehabil. 2022;31(6):707-716.

19.

Levitt

Deisinger

Remondet Wall

Ford

Cassisi

. EMG feedback-assisted postoperative rehabilitation of minor arthroscopic knee surgeries. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1995;35(3):218-223.

20.

Lewek

Rudolph

Axe

Snyder-Mackler

. The effect of insufficient quadriceps strength on gait after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002;17(1):56-63.

21.

Lindström

Strandberg

Wredmark

Felländer-Tsai

Henriksson

. Functional and muscle morphometric effects of ACL reconstruction. A prospective CT study with 1 year follow-up. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(4):431-442.

22.

Lisee

Lepley

Birchmeier

O’Hagan

Kuenze

. Quadriceps strength and volitional activation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2019;2019;11(2):163-179.

23.

Luc-Harkey

Harkey

Pamukoff

, et al. Greater intracortical inhibition associates with lower quadriceps voluntary activation in individuals with ACL reconstruction. Exp Brain Res. 2017;235(4):1129-1137.

24.

Morales-Sánchez

Falcó

Hernández-Mendo

Reigal

. Efficacy of electromyographic biofeedback in muscle recovery after meniscectomy in soccer players. Sensors. 2022;22(11):4024.

25.

Neto

Sayer

Theisen

Mierau

. Functional brain plasticity associated with ACL injury: a scoping review of current evidence. Neural Plast. 2019;2019:3480512.

26.

Noehren

Andersen

Hardy

. Cellular and morphological alterations in the vastus lateralis muscle as the result of ACL injury and reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(18):1541-1547.

27.

Norte

Rush

Sherman

. Arthrogenic muscle inhibition: best evidence, mechanisms, and theory for treating the unseen in clinical rehabilitation. J Sport Rehabil. 2021;31(6):717-735.

28.

Palmieri

Tom

Edwards

, et al. Arthrogenic muscle response induced by an experimental knee joint effusion is mediated by pre- and post-synaptic spinal mechanisms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14(6):631-640.

29.

Palmieri-Smith

Kreinbrink

Ashton-Miller

Wojtys

. Quadriceps inhibition induced by an experimental knee joint effusion affects knee joint mechanics during a single-legged drop landing. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(8):1269-1275.

30.

Palmieri-Smith

Lepley

. Quadriceps strength asymmetry after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction alters knee joint biomechanics and functional performance at time of return to activity. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1662-1669.

31.

Palmieri-Smith

Thomas

. A neuromuscular mechanism of posttraumatic osteoarthritis associated with ACL injury. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2009;37(3):147-153.

32.

Pastora-Bernal

Estebanez-Pérez

Lucena-Anton

García-López

Bort-Carballo

Martín-Valero

. The effectiveness and recommendation of motor imagery techniques for rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A systematic review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(3):428.

33.

Pietrosimone

Lepley

Ericksen

Clements

Sohn

Gribble

. Neural excitability alterations after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Athl Train. 2015;50(6):665-674.

34.

Pinto

Thaunat

Daggett

, et al. Hamstring contracture after ACL reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of cyclops syndrome. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(1):2325967116684121.

35.

Piskin

Benjaminse

Dimitrakis

Gokeler

. Neurocognitive and neurophysiological functions related to ACL injury: a framework for neurocognitive approaches in rehabilitation and return-to-sports tests. Sports Health. 2022;14(4):549-555.

36.

Raeissadat

Rayegani

Sedighipour

, et al. The efficacy of electromyographic biofeedback on pain, function, and maximal thickness of vastus medialis oblique muscle in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. J Pain Res. 2018;11:2781-2789.

37.

Rice

McNair

. Quadriceps arthrogenic muscle inhibition: neural mechanisms and treatment perspectives. Semin Arthritis Rheum Dec. 2010;40(3):250-266.

38.

Rice

McNair

Lewis

Dalbeth

. Quadriceps arthrogenic muscle inhibition: the effects of experimental knee joint effusion on motor cortex excitability. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(6):502.

39.

Segal

Glass

Torner

, et al. Quadriceps weakness predicts risk for knee joint space narrowing in women in the MOST cohort. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(6):769-775.

40.

Shelbourne

Gray

. Minimum 10-year results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how the loss of normal knee motion compounds other factors related to the development of osteoarthritis after surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(3):471-480.

41.

Shelbourne

Wilckens

Mollabashy

DeCarlo

. Arthrofibrosis in acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The effect of timing of reconstruction and rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19(4):332-336.

42.

Sonnery-Cottet

. Mise Au Point Sur l’inhibition Motrice d’origine Centrale Dans Les Suites d’une Entorse Du Genou. Thesis. Université de Toulouse, Université Toulouse III—Paul Sabatier; 2022. Accessed October 25, 2023. https://www.theses.fr/2022TOU30254

43.

Sonnery-Cottet

Hopper

Gousopoulos

. Arthrogenic muscle inhibition following knee injury or surgery: pathophysiology, classification, and treatment. Video J Sports Med. 2022;2(3). doi:10.1177/26350254221086295

44.

Sonnery-Cottet

Saithna

Quelard

, et al. Arthrogenic muscle inhibition after ACL reconstruction: a scoping review of the efficacy of interventions. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(5):289-298.

45.

Tengman

Brax Olofsson

Stensdotter

Nilsson

Häger

. Anterior cruciate ligament injury after more than 20 years. II. Concentric and eccentric knee muscle strength. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(6):e501-e509.

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Arthrogenic Muscle Inhibition in Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: A Cross-Sectional Study and Analysis of Associated Factors From the SANTI Study Group

Abstract

Background:

Purpose:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Study Design and Participants

Data Collection

Statistical Analysis

Results

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Risk Factors

Reducibility

Interobserver Reliabilities of the Classification System

Treatment

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Notes

References