Page 103 - Demo

The correlation between tibial slope and dynamic knee kinematics1015baseline testing procedures. At follow-up, 12 months after surgery seven subjects remained (N=7), as one subject had sustained a re-rupture (four months after reconstruction, due to a new trauma) and two subjects were lost to follow-up as they moved away from the Groningen region. The first measurements from the subjects lost to follow up were included when comparing ACL-deficient knees to contralateral ACL-intact knees (N=10). Patient characteristics and measured PTS values are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Patient Characteristics and PTS valuesMean (SD)Age 24 (4.4) yearsTotal body height 184 (10) cmTotal body weight 81.3 (8.9) kgBody mass index 24.0 (2.1) kg/m2Injury-to-surgery interval 4.6 monthsMedial PTS - 6.7 (2.5) degreesLateral PTS - 5.7 (2.0) degreesΔ PTS - 1.0 (3.5) degrees ΔPTS = difference between medial PTS and lateral PTS. PTS = posterior tibial slope, SD = standard deviationIntraobserver reliability for the medial PTS showed an ICC of 0.82 for observer 1 and 0.83 for observer 2. For the lateral PTS, the ICC for intraobserver reliability was 0.39 for observer 1 and 0.30 for observer 2. Interobserver reliability for the medial PTS demonstrated an ICC of 0.82 and 0.46 for the lateral PTS.The mean values for rTR and ATT during the different movements are displayed in Table 2 for the contralateral ACL-intact, the ACL-deficient and the ACL-reconstructed knees. Compared to the contralateral ACL-intact knees, both the ACL-deficient and the ACL-reconstructed knees showed no significant difference in terms of ATT and rTR. (see Table 2). As an example, figure 1 shows a graph containing the results of the rTR during SLHD both before and after reconstruction. Mark Zee.indd 101 03-01-2024 08:56