RESUMO
Purpose: Comprehensive understanding of force plate parameters distinguishing individuals postprimary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) from healthy controls during countermovement jumps (CMJ) and/or drop jumps (DJ) is lacking. This review addresses this gap by identifying discriminative force plate parameters and examining changes over time in individuals post-ACLR during CMJ and/or DJ. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta analyses following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Nine databases were searched from inception to March 2022. We included cross-sectional papers comparing post-ACLR with healthy controls or longitudinal studies of individuals at least 6 months postprimary ACLR while performing CMJ and/or DJ on force plates. The methodological quality was appraised using the Modified Downs and Black Checklist. Results: Thirty-three studies including 1185 (50.38%) participants post-ACLR, and 1167 (49.62%) healthy controls, were included. Data were categorised into single-leg CMJ, double-leg CMJ, single-leg DJ, and double-leg DJ. Jump height was reduced in both single (mean difference [MD] = -3.13; p < 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-4.12, -2.15]) and double-leg (MD = -4.24; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [-5.14, -3.34]) CMJs amongst individuals with ACLR. Similarly, concentric impulse and eccentric/concentric impulse asymmetry could distinguish between ACLR (MD = 3.42; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [2.19, 4.64]) and non-ACLR (MD = 5.82; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [4.80, 6.80]) individuals. In double-leg DJs, peak vertical ground reaction forces were lower in the involved side (MD = -0.10; p = 0.03; 95% CI: [-0.18, -0.01]) but higher in the uninvolved side (MD = 0.15; p < 0.01; 95% CI: [0.10, 0.20]) when compared to controls and demonstrated significant changes between 6 months and 3 years post-ACLR. Conclusion: This study identified discriminative kinetic parameters when comparing individuals with and without ACLR and also monitored neuromuscular function post-ACLR. Due to heterogeneity, a combination of parameters may be required to better identify functional deficits post-ACLR. Level of Evidence: Level III.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Our primary objectives were to (1) describe current approaches for kinetic measurements in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and (2) suggest considerations for methodological reporting. Secondarily, we explored the relationship between kinetic measurement system findings and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O'Malley's 6-stage framework. Seven electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2020. Original research papers reporting parameters measured by kinetic measurement systems in individuals at least 6-months post primary ACLR were included. RESULTS: In 158 included studies, 7 kinetic measurement systems (force plates, balance platforms, pressure mats, force-measuring treadmills, Wii balance boards, contact mats connected to jump systems, and single-sensor insoles) were identified 4 main movement categories (landing/jumping, standing balance, gait, and other functional tasks). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the methods used and outcomes assessed; this review highlighted common methodological reporting gaps for essential items related to movement tasks, kinetic system features, justification and operationalization of selected outcome parameters, participant preparation, and testing protocol details. Accordingly, we suggest considerations for methodological reporting in future research. Only 6 studies included PROMs with inconsistency in the reported parameters and/or PROMs. CONCLUSION: Clear and accurate reporting is vital to facilitate cross-study comparisons and improve the clinical application of kinetic measurement systems after ACLR. Based on the current evidence, we suggest methodological considerations to guide reporting in future research. Future studies are needed to examine potential correlations between kinetic parameters and PROMs.