Page 60 - Demo

Chapter 358Kinematic outcomeDuring the first test 1080 values were acquired (ten subjects, two knees, six variables, three trials for walking, three trials for SLHD and three trials for side jump). A total of 50 values had to be discarded due to technical errors (4.6%, n=10 in normal walking, n=27 in SLHD, n=13 in side jump) which were evenly distributed over the subjects. Seven participants performed the second test, leading to acquisition of 756 values, 30 of which had to be discarded due to technical errors (3.9% n=18 in normal walking, n=12 in SLHD, n=0 in side jump). No variables had to be discarded due to missing data.Table 1. Patient characteristics (n=10) and timeline.Mean (SD)Age 24 (4.4) yearsTotal body length 184 (10) cmTotal body weight 81.3 (8.9) kgBody mass index 24.0 (2.1) kg/m2Dominant leg injured 8 out of 10Injury to first test interval 3.2 (1.2) monthsInjury to surgery interval 4.6 (2.5) monthsSurgery to second test interval (n=7) 11.7 (1.9) monthsFirst to second test interval (n=7) 13 (1.1) monthsA significant difference between mean rTR in ACL-deficient knees compared to ACL-reconstructed knee was shown during the side jump. During all functional tests, a greater rTR was demonstrated after ACL reconstruction than shortly after ACL injury. This difference was only significant during the side jump (18.2 vs. 15.1, p=0.04). The same trend was seen during level walking and the SLHD, but these differences in rTR were not significant. These results are displayed in table 2; the values represent the data from the seven subjects who were available for both pre-operative and postoperative measurements. Before reconstruction, as shown in Table 3, rTR was smaller in ACL-deficient knees than in ACL-intact knees, although this difference was not significant. Mark Zee.indd 58 03-01-2024 08:56