Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) continues to be associated with a variable rate of return to sports and a concerning rate of further anterior cruciate ligament injury. Persistent functional deficits may explain these results and support the need to keep exploring lower limb functional indexes, especially during vertical jumping. This would help improve rehabilitation through the return-to-sports continuum and improve postoperative outcomes.

Hypothesis:

Vertical jumping performance indexes are impaired among patients 7 months after ACLR.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 202 patients who underwent ACLR and 50 healthy participants performed single-leg vertical jump (SLVJ) and single-leg drop jump (SLDJ) testing. Jump height (H) as well as reactive strength index (RSI) were assessed and the limb symmetry index (LSI) of each parameter was compared between both groups. Vertical jumping indexes were also compared between healthy participants and the injured and contralateral legs of ACLR patients. Frequency analysis (chi-square test) of participants exhibiting an LSI >90% for each parameter was calculated in both groups. The level of association between SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI was evaluated using the Pearson coefficient (r).

Results:

At 6.6 ± 0.7 months (mean ± SD) postoperatively, participants after ACLR exhibited poorer LSI than the control group for all parameters (79.1 ± 14.8 vs 93.9 ± 4.5, 77.3 ± 14.6 vs 93.4 ± 5.2, and 71.9 ± 17.4 vs 93.4 ± 3.8; all P < .001; for the SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI, respectively). Vertical jumping performance was lower on both injured and contralateral legs compared with healthy participants (all P < .001). Only 27%, 25%, and 16% of the ACLR patients exhibited an LSI >90% for the SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI, respectively, in comparison with 80%, 72%, and 86% in the control group. Moderate correlations were observed between SLDJ-H and SLVJ-H (r = 0.494; P < .001) as well as between SLDJ-RSI and SLVJ-H (r = 0.488; P < .001) in the ACLR group.

Conclusion:

Vertical jumping indexes (both symmetry and absolute values) were highly impaired 7 months after ACLR. Deficits were more marked for reactive strength ability. Clinicians should focus on restoring vertical jumping abilities to improve functional performance after ACLR.

Keywords

ACL physical therapy/rehabilitation jumping return to sports

Current recommendations after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) encourage the use of a battery of isokinetic and functional tests to improve return to sports (RTS) and reduce the risk of reinjury.^9,21,22,37 While clinicians agree on isokinetic assessment protocol, there remains a lack of consensus for functional and athletic assessments^4,5,21,42,49 with a large disparity in protocols, therefore requiring data^4,5,42,49 to determine the most meaningful tests regarding the constraints of sport activities.^4,9,12,49,52

The functional test battery currently used is mostly based on horizontal and lateral jumps (eg, single-leg hop for distance) with a passing criterion for limb symmetry index (LSI) >90%.^1,7,16 Vertical jumping is rarely performed even though it targets the capacity of lower limbs to produce power output during a functional task commonly encountered in sport activities.^{9,28,38,39,56,62} Overall lower limb vertical power is considered the primary contributor to vertical jumping performance.^9,11,13,18 Moreover, Kotsifaki et al^34-36 observed that the knee joint (and the associated muscle groups) was the most important joint contributor during vertical jumps. The percentage of total work contribution for the knee joint is higher during the propulsion phase of vertical jumping than horizontal jumping (34.1% vs 12.9%, respectively) justifying the implementation of vertical jumping in functional test batteries after ACLR.

External power capacity represents the ability to produce the greatest force at the highest velocity in the shortest time.⁶³ Lower limb power output generation can be assessed through 2 distinct types of vertical jumps: single-leg vertical jump (SLVJ) and single-leg drop jump (SLDJ). Performance during an SLVJ is mostly related to concentric power production associated with a slow stretch-shortening cycle.^{6,17,20,45,60} On the contrary, performance during an SLDJ is mainly related to plyometric power production associated with a fast stretch-shortening cycle (F-SSC), and thus the reactive strength, meaning the ability to effectively use the F-SSC.^{13,18,30,43,44,46,47}

Vertical jumping performance can be assessed during the SLVJ by measuring the height of the jump (SLVJ-H)^10,13,19,48 and during the SLDJ by measuring the height of the jump (SLDJ-H) or the reactive strength index (SLDJ-RSI), which is calculated by dividing the jump height by the ground contact time.^8,20,24

Performance on vertical jumping tests after ACLR has already been evaluated, and previous studies consistently identified a deficit in performance on the injured leg.^{13,25,29,34,37,42,45,54} It is worth noting that some studies comparing jumping performance between ACLR and control participants also observed a poorer performance on the uninjured leg in ACLR patients.^15,51 However, to the best of our knowledge, SLVJ and SLDJ variables (SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI), which inform different jumping qualities, have never been explored concomitantly after ACLR with comparisons in their recovery and with healthy individuals.

The aim of this study was therefore to explore both SLVJ and SLDJ performance 7 months after ACLR by (1) comparing the symmetry of these indexes in ACLR patients and healthy participants, (2) comparing these indexes of the injured and contralateral legs of ACLR patients with that of healthy participants, and (3) evaluating the association between the 3 jumping indexes assessed during SLVJ and SLDJ (SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI).

Our initial hypothesis was that the LSI for vertical jumping performance would be lower after ACLR compared with healthy participants. We also supposed that only a small proportion of patients after ACLR would be able to achieve an LSI >90% at 7 months postsurgery, particularly for SLDJ-RSI. Our third hypothesis was that the performance of the uninjured leg of the ACLR group would be lower than that of healthy participants.

Methods

Population

All ACLR patients who performed functional testing at our center between January 2019 and December 2021 were screened for eligibility. We obtained data on 202 patients. Inclusion criteria for the ACLR group were (1) participants between 16 and 40 years, (2) ACL rupture with or without associated meniscal injury, (3) patellar tendon or hamstring tendon graft, (4) preinjury Tegner score from 5 to 9, and (5) vertical jump tests performed between 6 and 8 months after ACLR. Patients were excluded from the study if they had associated grade 3 collateral ligament injury.

We obtained data on 50 healthy individuals (control group) matched to the ACLR group for mean age, height, mass, Tegner score, and sex. Inclusion criteria were (1) participants aged between 16 and 40 years and (2) Tegner score from 5 to 9. Exclusion criteria were (1) previous ACL injuries, (2) recent lower limb injury (<7 months; eg, ankle sprain), and (3) symptoms that limited lower limb testing, such as pain.

The characteristics of the 2 groups are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of ACLR and Control Groups^a

	ACLR Group (N = 202)	Control Group (n = 50)
Sex, male, %	73.8	80
Age, y, mean ± SD	23.6 ± 6.2	24.5 ± 3.9
BMI, kg/m², mean ± SD	22.8 ± 2.5	23.2 ± 1.9
Tegner score, mean ± SD (min-max)	7.5 ± 1.2 (5-9)	7.8 ± 1.1 (6-9)
Time postsurgery, mo, mean ± SD	6.6 ± 0.7	N/A
Graft, %	75.2 (H); 24.8 (BPTB)	N/A

ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; BMI, body mass index; BPTB, bone-patellar tendon-bone; H, hamstring tendon graft; N/A, not applicable.

Protocol

All assessments were performed by the same evaluator (T.C.), a senior physical therapist at our rehabilitation center. Both groups performed the same standardized protocol: (1) global warm-up: 15 minutes of cycling at an intensity of 150 watts; (2) specific warm-up: 4 SLVJs and 4 SLDJs on each lower limb; and (3) testing procedure with 3 SLVJs followed by 3 SLDJs performed on each lower limb (with shoes).

SLVJs were performed from a standing position with hands on the hips. The hands had to remain on the hips throughout the test. The instruction was to “spend as little time as possible on the ground and jump as high as possible.”

For SLDJs, patients stood on a 30 cm–high box. They dropped down on their lower limb and performed a maximal vertical jump. The final landing had to be stabilized on the same lower limb. The hands had to remain on the hips throughout the test. The instructions were “to react as quickly as possible on the ground and jump as high as possible during the vertical jump.”

Measurements and Data Processing

All measurements were collected and analyzed with the OPTOGAIT RX system (Microgate). The jump height (in meters) was calculated from the flight time measured during the SLVJ and SLDJ.

The SLDJ-RSI (m/s) was the ratio between the jump height during SLDJ and the contact time:

For each parameter, the LSI percentage was calculated from the following equation:

L S I = \frac{V a l u e o f t h e i n j u r e d / w e a k s i d e}{V a l u e o f t h e n o n i n j u r e d / s t r o n g s i d e} \times 100

Statistical Analysis

The distribution normality of the data set was verified by Shapiro-Wilk tests. Two-way mixed analyses of variance (within group: SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, SLDJ-RSI; between group: ACLR and control) were performed on LSI values. When an interaction or main effect was significant, post hoc tests (Holm) were performed.

For each parameter, a frequency analysis (χ² test) was performed to determine the proportion of participants who obtained an LSI >90%.

Values of SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI of both the injured and the contralateral legs of ACLR participants were compared with those of healthy participants (mean of both legs) with independent-samples t tests.

We assessed the linear correlations between all parameters with Pearson correlation tests to determine the associations between SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI. The correlation magnitude (r) was defined according to the following guidelines: ≤0.20 = very weak; >0.20 to 0.40 = weak; >0.40 to 0.70 = moderate; >0.70 to 0.90 = strong; and >0.90 = very strong.⁵⁴

For all analyses, the significance level was set at .05. Statistical analyses were performed using JASP software (Version 0.14.1.0). Effect sizes (Cohen d or partial η²) were calculated and interpreted using the Hopkins scale.

Results

A significant interaction between the 3 parameters and the 2 groups was found (P = .003). Post hoc tests showed a lower value of LSI for all parameters in the ACLR group compared with the control group (SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI; all P < .001). When focusing on the ACLR group, the LSI for SLDJ-RSI was lower than for SLVJ-H (P < .001) and SLDJ-H (P < .001). Conversely, no difference was found in the control group between the different parameters (all P > .05) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

LSI percentage for the SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI for the ACLR and control groups (mean ± SD). LSI, limb symmetry index; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; SLDJ-H, single-leg drop jump–height; SLDJ-RSI, single-leg drop jump–reactive strength index; SLVJ-H, single-leg vertical jump–height.

Frequency analysis (participants with an LSI >90%) showed significant differences between the ACLR and control groups for SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI, respectively (all P < .001). In the ACLR group, only 27% of the participants exhibited an LSI >90% for the SLVJ-H, 25% for the SLDJ-H, and 16% for the SLDJ-RSI, respectively (Figure 2). In the control group, 80% of the participants had an LSI >90% for the SLVJ-H, 72% for the SLDJ-H, and 86% for the SLDJ-RSI, respectively (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Percentage of participants with limb symmetry index above (gray) or below (black) 90% for SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI in the ACLR group (top) and Control group (bottom). ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; SLDJ-H, single-leg drop jump–height; SLDJ-RSI, single-leg drop jump–reactive strength index; SLVJ-H, single-leg vertical jump–height.

There were significant differences between the control group and both the injured and the contralateral legs of the ACLR group for the SLVJ-H, the SLDJ-H, and the SLDJ-RSI (all P < .001) with lower values in the ACLR group (Table 2).

Table 2

Values for Injured and Contralateral Legs of ACLR Group and Mean of Both Legs for Control Group^a

	ACLR Group		Control Group
	Injured Leg	Contralateral Leg	Mean of Both Legs
SLVJ-H, m	0.115 ± 0.039^b	0.145 ± 0.038^c	0.184 ± 0.041
SLDJ-H, m	0.128 ± 0.041^b	0.166 ± 0.039^c	0.194 ± 0.041
SLDJ-RSI, m/s	0.269 ± 0.111^b	0.374 ± 0.120^c	0.572 ± 0.165

Data are presented as mean ± SD.SLDJ-H, single-leg drop jump–height; SLDJ-RSI, single-leg drop jump–reactive strength index; SLVJ-H, single-leg vertical jump–height.

Comparison between the injured leg of ACLR and control; P < .001.

Comparison between the contralateral leg of ACLR and control; P < .001.

In the ACLR group, the LSI of SLVJ-H was significantly but moderately correlated with LSI of both SLDJ-H and SLDJ-RSI. There was no significant correlation in the control group (Table 3).

Table 3

Association Between LSIs of SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI Within ACLR and Control Groups (Pearson Correlation Coefficient)^a

	Pearson r	P
ACLR group
SLDJ-H/SLVJ-H	0.494	<.001
SLDJ-RSI/SLVJ-H	0.488	<.001
SLDJ-RSI/SLDJ-H	0.794	<.001
Control group
SLDJ-H/SLVJ-H	0.149	.150
SLDJ-RSI/SLVJ-H	0.138	.170
SLDJ-RSI/SLDJ-H	0.189	.194

ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; LSI, limb symmetry index; SLDJ-H, single-leg drop jump–height; SLDJ-RSI, single-leg drop jump–reactive strength index; SLVJ-H, single-leg vertical jump–height.

Discussion

This study explored the vertical jumping performance in patients 7 months after ACLR in comparison with a group of healthy participants. Our results confirmed our first hypothesis, with lower LSI values in the ACLR group compared with the control group for all vertical jumping performance parameters. This demonstrated a deficit of vertical power generation on the injured leg, specifically during an F-SSC movement such as the SLDJ when returning to sport after ACLR.

Our results are consistent with previous studies reporting that the vertical jumping performance is highly altered after ACLR.^{8,13,25,29,34,36,40,41,43,53} The symmetry of performance during the SLDJ was the most altered, specifically the LSI of the SLDJ-RSI (reactive strength ability). This can be explained by a finer assessment with the inclusion of both ground contact time and jump height for the calculation of the RSI than only the measure of jump height.

The primary distinction between the SLVJ and the SLDJ lies in the duration of the stretch-shortening cycle, categorized as a slow and fast stretch-shortening cycle, respectively. Notably, in the SLDJ, there is a greater emphasis on the recruitment and stimulation of type 2 muscle fibers.^2,3,31,50,58 It is conceivable that an altered neuromuscular activation pattern in motor units, particularly when producing rapid contractions^28,31-33 that are inherent to athletic performance,⁹ may persist. This alteration could potentially result in a reduced rate of force development among patients after ACLR, particularly evident during an F-SSC movement such as the SLDJ. Electromyography or inverse dynamic analyses are required to determine the underlying factors responsible for these deficits.

In functional testing after ACLR, an LSI value of 90% is commonly used as a threshold of success. In this study, the success rates for vertical jumping at the time of RTS were much lower than those found for horizontal jumping in the literature (>95%^36,62). Our results confirm our hypothesis, with only 27%, 25%, and 16% of participants after ACLR displaying an LSI >90% for SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI, respectively. The contribution from the knee joint is larger during vertical jumping than during horizontal jumping and may explain these discrepancies.³⁵ Vertical jumping seems therefore more discriminant to reveal persistent deficit of power output generation after knee injuries during functional task (notably at the knee joint) than horizontal jumping, which is currently used in the majority of current RTS evaluations.^{14,26,36,53,54,61,62} Our results support a combined use of vertical and horizontal jump testing for assessing the whole spectrum of functional knee joint recovery after ACLR.

Moreover, our results showed a high success rate in the control group, with a minimum LSI value of 80%, 72%, and 86% for the SLVJ-H, SLDJ-H, and SLDJ-RSI, respectively. A threshold LSI value of 85% (±2 SD) for the SLDJ-RSI seems to be meaningful in order to determine an appropriate symmetry recovery of reactive strength at the time of RTS.

Our findings also highlight a significant decrease in performance values in the uninjured leg of the ACLR group compared with the control group in all assessed parameters. These results are in accordance with the literature and suggest a deconditioning effect on the contralateral leg in ACLR patients.^15,51 This observation confirms that relying solely on the LSI can potentially lead to an overestimation of the actual performance of the injured leg.^23,27,57,59 While the use of the LSI has its merits in the context of RTS evaluation, it is crucial to bear in mind that after rehabilitation, the patient may still lack the necessary physical capabilities required for the resumption of high-intensity sports activities. Beyond the clinical and functional aspects, it becomes essential to assess the athletic performance of patients before permitting their RTS, and normative data are required to help in the decision-making process. A simplistic reliance on LSI readings after ACLR proves to be insufficient.

Finally, we found moderate associations between LSIs measured during SLVJ (SLVJ-H) and SLDJ (SLDJ-H or SLDJ-RSI). This confirmed that SLVJ and SLDJ are 2 specific jumping tasks assessing different strength capacities (ie, power output production during slow and F-SSC movements, respectively). Including both tests during a functional test battery seems therefore meaningful to evaluate the neuromuscular requirements related to sport participation. Our results suggest that clinicians should monitor vertical jumping abilities through the RTS continuum and implement specific training to restore functional performance.

This study presents certain limitations. We did not consider morphological specificities or preinjury athletic ability of the participants. It would have been meaningful to standardize the drop-jump height based on biomorphological attributes and preinjury jumping abilities. This may explain why 28% of the participants in the control group were not able to meet the RTS criteria (LSI >90%) on the SLDJ-H.

We also did not perform subgroup analysis by type and level of sport (Tegner score), and this could have influenced the results of our studies. However, at group level, there was no difference in Tegner scores.

Conclusion

Vertical jumping performance is still highly impaired 7 months after ACLR, specifically, reactive strength ability. Incomplete restoration of vertical jumping symmetry and altered performance on both injured and contralateral legs may compromise the ability to RTS after ACLR.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the participants involved in this study. The authors also acknowledge Pierre Samozino and Benoit Pairot de Fontenay as co-last authors in recognition of their significant contributions to this research.

Final revision submitted January 25, 2024; accepted February 12, 2024.

The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. 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.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Conseil d’Orientation Scientifique Ramsay Santé (COS-RGDS-2023-01-004-PAIROT-DE-FONTENAY-B).

References

Abrams

Harris

Gupta

, et al. Functional performance testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(1):2325967113518305. doi:10.1177/2325967113518305

Ageberg

Roos

Silbernagel

Thomeé

Roos

EM.

Knee extension and flexion muscle power after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon graft or hamstring tendons graft: a cross-sectional comparison 3 years post surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009;17(2):162-169. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0645-4

Angelozzi

Madama

Corsica

, et al. Rate of force development as an adjunctive outcome measure for return-to-sport decisions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(9):772-780. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3780

Ardern

Glasgow

Schneiders

, et al. 2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(14):853-864. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278

Ardern

Webster

Taylor

Feller

JA.

Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(7):596-606. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364

Barker

Harry

Mercer

JA.

Relationships between countermovement jump ground reaction forces and jump height, reactive strength index, and jump time. J Strength Cond Res. 2018;32(1):248-254. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002160

Blakeney

Ouanezar

Rogowski

, et al. Validation of a composite test for assessment of readiness for return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the K-STARTS test. Sports Health. 2018;10(6):515-522. doi:10.1177/1941738118786454

Brumitt

Dorociak

Dunn

Critchfield

Benner

Cuddeford

Lower preseason reactive strength index scores are associated with injury in female collegiate volleyball players but not male collegiate basketball players. J Sci Med Sport. 2021;24(6):549-554. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.11.018

Buckthorpe

Optimising the late-stage rehabilitation and return-to-sport training and testing process after ACL reconstruction. Sports Med. 2019;49(7):1043-1058. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01102-z

10.

Buckthorpe

Morris

Folland

JP.

Validity of vertical jump measurement devices. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(1):63-69. doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.624539

11.

Buckthorpe

Roi

GS.

The time has come to incorporate a greater focus on rate of force development training in the sports injury rehabilitation process. Muscle Ligaments Tendons J. 2019;7(3):435-441. doi:10.32098/mltj.03.2017.05

12.

Burgi

Peters

Ardern

, et al. Which criteria are used to clear patients to return to sport after primary ACL reconstruction? A scoping review. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(18):1154-1161. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099982

13.

Carolan

King

Richter

Franklyn-Miller

Moran

Jackson

Differences in strength, patient-reported outcomes, and return-to-play rates between athletes with primary versus revision ACL reconstruction at 9 months after surgery. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(9):2325967120950037. doi:10.1177/2325967120950037

14.

Chang

Norcross

Johnson

Kitagawa

Hoffman

Relationships between explosive and maximal triple extensor muscle performance and vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(2):545-551. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000652

15.

Chung

Yeom

, et al. Are muscle strength and function of the uninjured lower limb weakened after anterior cruciate ligament injury?: two-year follow-up after reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(12):3013-3021. doi:10.1177/0363546515606126

16.

Czuppon

Racette

Klein

Harris-Hayes

Variables associated with return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(5):356-364. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091786

17.

De Villarreal

ESS

Kellis

Kraemer

Izquierdo

Determining variables of plyometric training for improving vertical jump height performance: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(2):495-506. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318196b7c6

18.

Delaney

Scott

Ballard

, et al. Contributing factors to change-of-direction ability in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(10):2688-2696. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000960

19.

Fischer

Blank

Dünnwald

, et al. Isokinetic extension strength is associated with single-leg vertical jump height. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(11):2325967117736766. doi:10.1177/2325967117736766

20.

Flanagan

Comyns

TM.

The use of contact time and the reactive strength index to optimize fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength Cond J. 2008;30(5):32-38. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e318187e25b

21.

Gokeler

Dingenen

Hewett

TE.

Rehabilitation and return to sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: where are we in 2022?

Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022;4(1):e77-e82. doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2021.10.025

22.

Grindem

Snyder-Mackler

Moksnes

Engebretsen

Risberg

MA.

Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(13):804-808. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031

23.

Gustavsson

Neeter

Thomeé

, et al. A test battery for evaluating hop performance in patients with an ACL injury and patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthr. 2006;14(8):778-788. doi:10.1007/s00167-006-0045-6

24.

Healy

Kenny

Harrison

AJ.

Assessing reactive strength measures in jumping and hopping using the Optojump system. J Hum Kinet. 2016;54(1):23-32. doi:10.1515/hukin-2016-0032

25.

Hirohata

Aizawa

Ohmi

, et al. Reactive strength index during single-limb vertical continuous jumps after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: cross-sectional study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2022;14(1):150. doi:10.1186/s13102-022-00542-x

26.

Hubley

Wells

RP.

A work-energy approach to determine individual joint contributions to vertical jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1983;50(2):247-254. doi:10.1007/BF00422163

27.

Ithurburn

Paterno

Ford

Hewett

Schmitt

LC.

Young athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with single-leg landing asymmetries at the time of return to sport demonstrate decreased knee function 2 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(11):2604-2613. doi:10.1177/0363546517708996

28.

Jordan

Aagaard

Herzog

Lower limb asymmetry in mechanical muscle function: a comparison between ski racers with and without ACL reconstruction: bilateral asymmetry in ACL-R ski racers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(3):e301-e309. doi:10.1111/sms.12314

29.

King

Richter

Daniels

KAJ

, et al. Can biomechanical testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction identify athletes at risk for subsequent ACL injury to the contralateral uninjured limb? Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(3):609-619. doi:10.1177/0363546520985283

30.

King

Richter

Franklyn-Miller

, et al. Whole-body biomechanical differences between limbs exist 9 months after ACL reconstruction across jump/landing tasks. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28(12):2567-2578. doi:10.1111/sms.13259

31.

Knezevic

Mirkov

Kadija

Nedeljkovic

Jaric

Asymmetries in explosive strength following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2014;21(6):1039-1045. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.07.021

32.

Konishi

Aihara

Sakai

Ogawa

Fukubayashi

Gamma loop dysfunction in the quadriceps femoris of patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains bilaterally. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007;17(4):393-399. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2006.00573.x

33.

Konishi

Fukubayashi

Takeshita

Mechanism of quadriceps femoris muscle weakness in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: mechanism of quadriceps femoris muscle weakness. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2002;12(6):371-375. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0838.2002.01293.x

34.

Kotsifaki

Van Rossom

Whiteley

, et al. Single leg vertical jump performance identifies knee function deficits at return to sport after ACL reconstruction in male athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(9):490-498. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104692

35.

Kotsifaki

Van Rossom

Whiteley

, et al. Symmetry in triple hop distance hides asymmetries in knee function after ACL reconstruction in athletes at return to sports. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(2):441-450. doi:10.1177/03635465211063192

36.

Kotsifaki

Whiteley

Van Rossom

, et al. Single leg hop for distance symmetry masks lower limb biomechanics: time to discuss hop distance as decision criterion for return to sport after ACL reconstruction? Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(5):249-256. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103677

37.

Kyritsis

Bahr

Landreau

Miladi

Witvrouw

Likelihood of ACL graft rupture: not meeting six clinical discharge criteria before return to sport is associated with a four times greater risk of rupture. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(15):946-951. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908

38.

Laudner

Evans

Wong

, et al. Relationship between isokinetic knee strength and jump characteristics following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(3):272-280.

39.

Lee

Yang

Cho

Lee

Kim

JG.

Single-leg vertical jump test as a functional test after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2018;25(6):1016-1026. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2018.07.014

40.

Lem

Cheng

Chang

Hung

Yeh

WL.

Single leg drop jump performance identifies functional deficit in collegiate athletes who have returned to sports after ACL reconstruction: a case–control study. Medicine. 2022;101(49):e31790. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000031790

41.

Lloyd

Oliver

Kember

Myer

Read

PJ.

Individual hop analysis and reactive strength ratios provide better discrimination of ACL reconstructed limb deficits than triple hop for distance scores in athletes returning to sport. Knee. 2020;27(5):1357-1364. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2020.07.003

42.

Losciale

Zdeb

Ledbetter

Reiman

Sell

TC.

The association between passing return-to-sport criteria and second anterior cruciate ligament injury risk: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(2):43-54. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8190

43.

Maestroni

Read

Bishop

Turner

Strength and power training in rehabilitation: underpinning principles and practical strategies to return athletes to high performance. Sports Med. 2020;50(2):239-252. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01195-6

44.

Maestroni

Read

Turner

Korakakis

Papadopoulos

Strength, rate of force development, power and reactive strength in adult male athletic populations post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther Sport. 2021;47:91-104. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.11.024

45.

Makaruk

Starzak

Suchecki

Czaplicki

Stojiljković

The effects of assisted and resisted plyometric training programs on vertical jump performance in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci Med. 2020;19(2):347-357.

46.

Maloney

Richards

Jelly

Fletcher

IM.

Unilateral stiffness interventions augment vertical stiffness and change of direction speed. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(2):372-379. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002006

47.

Maloney

Richards

Nixon

DGD

Harvey

Fletcher

IM.

Do stiffness and asymmetries predict change of direction performance?

J Sports Sci. 2017;35(6):547-556. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1179775

48.

Markovic

Dizdar

Jukic

Cardinale

Reliability and factorial validity of squat and countermovement jump tests. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(3):551. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18<551:RAFVOS>2.0.CO;2

49.

Meredith

Rauer

Chmielewski

, et al; The Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group. Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(8):2403-2414. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06009-1

50.

Moisala

Järvelä

Kannus

Järvinen

Muscle strength evaluations after ACL reconstruction. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(10):868-872. doi:10.1055/s-2007-964912

51.

Pairot de Fontenay

Argaud

Blache

Monteil

Contralateral limb deficit seven months after ACL-reconstruction: an analysis of single-leg hop tests. Knee. 2015;22(4):309-312. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2015.04.012

52.

Rambaud

AJM

Semay

Samozino

, et al. Criteria for return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with lower reinjury risk (CR’STAL study): protocol for a prospective observational study in France. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e015087. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015087

53.

Read

Davies

Bishop

McAuliffe

Wilson

Turner

AN.

Residual deficits in reactive strength indicate incomplete restoration of athletic qualities following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in professional soccer players. J Athl Train. Published online November 5, 2020. doi:10.4085/169-20

54.

Robertson

Fleming

Kinetics of standing broad and vertical jumping. Can J Sport Sci. 1987;12(1):19-23.

55.

Salkind

Rasmussen

Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. SAGE Publications; 2007.

56.

Taylor

Westbrook

Head

Glover

Paquette

Ford

KR.

The single-leg vertical hop provides unique asymmetry information in individuals after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020;80:105107. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105107

57.

Thomeé

Kaplan

Kvist

, et al. Muscle strength and hop performance criteria prior to return to sports after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(11):1798-1805. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1669-8

58.

Welling

Benjaminse

Seil

Lemmink

Zaffagnini

Gokeler

Low rates of patients meeting return to sport criteria 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective longitudinal study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(12):3636-3644. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-4916-4

59.

Wellsandt

Failla

Snyder-Mackler

Limb symmetry indexes can overestimate knee function after anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(5):334-338. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7285

60.

Young

Pryor

Wilson

GJ.

Effect of instructions on characteristics of countermovement and drop jump performance. J Strength Cond Res. 1995;9(4):232. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(1995)009<0232:EOIOCO>2.3.CO;2

61.

Lin

Garrett

WE.

Lower extremity biomechanics during the landing of a stop-jump task. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21(3):297-305. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.11.003

62.

Zarro

Stitzlein

Lee

, et al. Single-leg vertical hop test detects greater limb asymmetries than horizontal hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in NCAA Division 1 collegiate athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2021;16(6):1405-1414. doi:10.26603/001c.29595

63.

Zatsiorsky

. Biomechanics of strength and strength training. In: Komi

, ed. Strength and Power in Sport. Blackwell Science Ltd; 2003:439-487. doi:10.1002/9780470757215.ch23

Impaired Symmetry in Single-Leg Vertical Jump and Drop Jump Performance 7 Months After ACL Reconstruction

Abstract

Background:

Hypothesis:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Population

Protocol

Measurements and Data Processing

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

References