Page 65 - Demo

ACL reconstruction is not the only factor controlling tibial rotation633studies are shown in Table 5. As seen in table 5, we measured a smaller rTR after ACLR compared to the contralateral intact knee, as did other authors. Table 5. Overview of reported values for range of tibial rotation using motion capture systems. Author Task performed ACL status Range of tibial rotationZee (current study)SLHD Intact 19.4°Deficient 16.9°SB reconstruction 18.4°Cheng 7 Jump off platform, pivot 90° Intact 6.7°Deficient 13.5°SB reconstruction 7.8°DB reconstruction 7.5°Lam25 Jump off platform, pivot 90° Deficient 12.6°SB reconstruction 8.9°Misonoo31 Jump off platform, pivot 45° Intact 20.8°SB reconstruction 21.4°DB reconstruction 22.0°Ristanis36 Step off stairs, pivot 90° Intact 19.0°SB reconstruction 18.6°Tsahouras42 Standing, pivoting 60° Intact 13.9°Deficient 15.1°SB reconstruction 13.4°DB reconstruction 13.4°Tsahouras43 Step off stairs, pivot 60° Intact 14.2°Deficient 15.3°SB reconstruction 12.7°DB reconstruction 13.9°ACL = anterior cruciate ligament, SLHD = single-leg hop for distance, SB = single bundle, DB = double bundleTwo key features of our study are distinctly different from previous research, which could explain the differences found in the ACL-deficient knees: we performed our tests within three months after injury and used high-demand tasks. Firstly, time since injury is an important aspect when measuring rTR in ACL-deficient knees, as it seems that in the acute phase subjects are able to limit rTR. Testing more than one year after the injury, both Cheng and Tsarouhas found a greater rTR in ACL-deficient knees compared to contralateral intact knees.7,42,43 Miyaji et al., on the other hand, studied ACL-deficient subjects with a median time since injury of 10 weeks (range 3.3–450 weeks, mean 47 weeks) and observed a smaller Mark Zee.indd 63 03-01-2024 08:56