Modeling Control Adaptations During Recovery From Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis A. DiBerardino ◽  
Harry Dankowicz ◽  
Elizabeth T. Hsiao-Wecksler
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Compensation Strategy ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Recovery Times ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Functional Task ◽  
Main Factor

In this paper, we aim to model a functional task affected by injury, along with the corresponding neuromuscular compensation strategy, in order to understand differences in task performance during recovery from the injury. This study is motivated by differing rates of functional task improvements during recovery from anterior cruciate ligament repair. In particular, clinical studies have shown faster recovery times for single-limb forward hopping versus single-limb crossover hopping (hopping back and forth laterally while moving forward). Modeling this hopping task will help us understand whether the main factor of the differing functional results is from the physical restrictions of the injury, the compensation strategies used to overcome these restrictions, or a combination of both. Our hypothesis is that the discrepancies in clinical functional results will be reproduced by employing a feedforward compensation strategy, where the compensation is learned and adjusted over time.

scholarly journals Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e23-e29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Romain Delaloye ◽  
Jozef Murar ◽  
Thais Dutra Vieira ◽  
Adnan Saithna ◽  
Johannes Barth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterolateral Ligament ◽  
Ligament Repair ◽  
Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

scholarly journals Bioaugmentation in the surgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries: A review of current concepts and emerging techniques

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 205031212092105
Author(s):  
Austin MacFarland Looney ◽  
Joseph Daniel Leider ◽  
Andrew Ryan Horn ◽  
Blake Michael Bodendorfer
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Injuries involving the anterior cruciate ligament are among the most common athletic injuries, and are the most common involving the knee. The anterior cruciate ligament is a key translational and rotational stabilizer of the knee joint during pivoting and cutting activities. Traditionally, surgical intervention in the form of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has been recommended for those who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament rupture and wish to remain active and return to sport. The intra-articular environment of the anterior cruciate ligament makes achieving successful healing following repair challenging. Historically, results following repair were poor, and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction emerged as the gold-standard for treatment. While earlier literature reported high rates of return to play, the results of more recent studies with longer follow-up have suggested that anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may not be as successful as once thought: fewer athletes are able to return to sport at their preinjury level, and many still go on to develop osteoarthritis of the knee at a relatively younger age. The four principles of tissue engineering (cells, growth factors, scaffolds, and mechanical stimuli) combined in various methods of bioaugmentation have been increasingly explored in an effort to improve outcomes following surgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Newer technologies have also led to the re-emergence of anterior cruciate ligament repair as an option for select patients. The different biological challenges associated with anterior cruciate ligament repair and reconstruction each present unique opportunities for targeted bioaugmentation strategies that may eventually lead to better outcomes with better return-to-play rates and fewer revisions.

scholarly journals The Effects of Tunnel Position in Patients Who Underwent the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Transfix Method on the Clinical and Functional Results

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0005
Author(s):  
Tayyar Taylan Öz ◽  
Kaya Akan ◽  
İrfan Esenkaya ◽  
Samet Erinç ◽  
Burak Özturan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Tibial Tunnel ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ikdc Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Tunnel Positions

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyse the effects of femoral and tibial tunnel localization in the sagittal plane in the patients who underwent the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transfix method in our clinic on the clinical and functional results. Methods: 36 patients underwent the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction performed by different surgeons with the same method between January 2010 and December 2014 in Istanbul Medeniyet University Goztepe Training and Research Hospital Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic. Femoral and tibial tunnel localization was conducted on the lateral radiography of the knee of the patients. The clinical evaluations of the patients were carried out with lysholm score, IKDC score, tegner activity score, extensor and flexor measured by CYBEX CSMI dynamometer for muscular strength loss. Results: It was observed that femoral tunnel positions of 47.2% (n=17) of the patients were at the intended location while the ones of 52.8% (n=19) were in anterior. Tibial tunnel positions of 52.8% (n=19) of the patients were at the intended location while the ones of 33.3% (n=12) were in anterior, and the ones of 13.9% (n=5) were in posterior. The postoperative lysholm scores of F (+) T (+) group were significantly higher than F (+) T (-) (p=0.004), F (-) T (+) (p=0.004) and F (-) T (-) (p=0.004) groups. The postoperative IKDC score normality of F (+) T (+) group were significantly higher than F (-) T (+). The postoperative tegner measurements of F (+) T (+) group were significantly higher than F (-) T (+). The measurements of extensor deficit of F (+) T (+) (p=0.022) group and F (+) T (-) (p=0.049) group were significantly lower than F (-) T (-) group. The measurements of flexor deficit of F (+) T (+) group were significantly lower than F (-) T (+) (p=0.011) group and F (-) T (-) (p=0.040) group and F (+) T (-) group of flexor deficit measurements significantly lower than F (-) T (+) group (p=0.028) (p<0.05). Conclusion: Misplacement of femoral and tibial tunnels has negative effects on clinic functional results. While misplacement of tibial tunnel can be tolerated better, the placement of femoral tunnel in anterior cannot be tolerated and has further effects on the results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document