Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy logoLink to International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
. 2023 Oct 1;18(5):1076–1084. doi: 10.26603/001c.86130

Hop to It! The Relationship Between Hop Tests and The Anterior Cruciate Ligament – Return to Sport Index After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in NCAA Division 1 Collegiate Athletes

Michael Zarro 1,2,✉, Madelyn Dickman 1, Timothy Hulett 1, Robert Rowland 1,2, Derrick Larkins 1, Jeffrey Taylor 3, Christa Nelson 4
PMCID: PMC10547069  PMID: 37795334

Abstract

Background

Outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may not be optimal, with poor physical and psychological function potentially affecting return to sport (RTS) ability. Understanding the relationship between commonly used hop tests and the Anterior Cruciate Ligament – Return to Sport Index (ACL-RSI) may improve rehabilitation strategies and optimize patient outcomes.

Hypothesis/Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between ACL-RSI scores and limb symmetry index (LSI) for the single hop for distance (SHD), triple hop for distance (THD), crossover hop for distance (CHD), timed 6-meter hop (T6H), and single leg vertical hop (SLVH) in a cohort of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 collegiate athletes after ACLR. The hypothesis was that SLVH LSI would be more highly correlated with ACL-RSI score than all horizontal hop tests.

Study design

Cross-Sectional Study

Methods

Twenty-one National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 collegiate athletes (7 males, 14 females) at 6.62 ± 1.69 months after ACLR were included in this retrospective study. Primary outcomes were ACL-RSI score and LSI for SHD, THD, CHD, T6H, and SLVH. The relationship between ACL-RSI scores and performance on hop tests (LSIs) was evaluated using correlation analysis and step-wise linear regression (p ≤ 0.05).

Results

There were significant correlations found when comparing ACL-RSI and the LSI for SHD (rs = 0.704, p < 0.001), THD (rs = 0.617, p = 0.003), CHD (rs = 0.580, p = 0.006), and SLVH (rs = 0.582, p = 0.006). The CHD explained 66% (R2 value of 0.660) of the variance in the ACL-RSI, while the other hop tests did not add to the predictive model.

Conclusions

Physical function has the capacity to influence psychological status after ACLR. Clinicians should recognize that SLVH, SHD, THD, and CHD are correlated with ACL-RSI and improvements in physical function during rehabilitation may improve psychological status and optimize RTS after ACLR.

Level of evidence

Level 3

Keywords: Anterior Cruciate Ligament, ACL reconstruction, hop testing, rehabilitation, return to sport, ACL-RSI, psychological status, physical therapy, athletic training, sports medicine, orthopedics

INTRODUCTION

There are over 120,000 anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears per year in the United States.1 In athletes, the majority of these tears are addressed with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) surgery.2 Post-surgical rehabilitation attempts to restore knee function and promote return to activities of daily living (ADLs) and sport. However, despite surgery and rehabilitation, outcomes after ACLR may not be optimal. A systematic review of prospective studies found that 5.8% of patients sustained an ipsilateral ACLR autograft failure and 11.8% of patients had an ACL tear in the contralateral limb within the first five years after surgery.3 Ardern et al. reported that while 74% to 87% of patients returned to sports, only 59% to 72% of patients returned to their pre-injury sport, and only 46% to 63% of patients returned to competitive sports.4 Furthermore, fear of re-injury may contribute to the inability to return to sport. Kvist et al. found in a survey of patients after ACLR, of the 47% that had not returned to their pre-injury activity, with 24% of those patients reporting fear of re-injury as the reason.5

To optimize outcomes, sports medicine and rehabilitation professionals should attempt to restore patients to their prior level of function, including pre-injury physical and psychological performance. Clinicians may use return to sport (RTS) testing batteries to measure these outcomes and guide rehabilitation and return to sport after ACLR.6–10 A common return to sport test battery may include a series of horizontal and vertical hops.6,11–16 These tests are proposed to evaluate lower extremity status in a manner that is relevant to athletic ability by assessing dynamic movement in multiple planes.6,11,15 Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the Anterior Cruciate Ligament – Return to Sport Index (ACL-RSI) may also be included in RTS testing batteries after ACLR to quantify subjective information regarding patients’ psychological status, an area of paramount importance that may influence return to play ability and fear of re-injury.17–22

Many other RTS tests have been described to assess various physical, neurocognitive, and psychosocial outcomes however it is difficult to design the optimal RTS battery as the evidence is emerging (and is mixed) regarding the association between RTS testing, successful return to play, and future injury risk.23 Sports medicine and rehabilitation professionals must balance the challenges of clinical practice with a detailed understanding of RTS testing options in order to provide optimal care to patients after ACLR.23–30

Despite the challenges of RTS testing, hop testing and collection of PROMs are simple, low cost, and easy to perform in the clinic. They have demonstrated appropriate reliability and validity to evaluate outcomes after ACLR.18,31 The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between patient-reported ACL-RSI scores and limb symmetry indices (LSIs) for single hop for distance (SHD), triple hop for distance (THD), crossover hop for distance (CHD), timed 6-meter hop (T6H), and single leg vertical hop (SLVH) in a cohort of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 collegiate athletes after ACLR. Further research into the intersection between psychological status and functional performance may provide valuable insight into drivers of optimal outcomes after ACLR. The hypothesis was that SLVH LSI would be more highly correlated with ACL-RSI score than all other hop tests after ACLR as its vertical component may better reflect perceived knee function and influence self-reported psychological status.

METHODS

Participants

A retrospective review was conducted to examine a consecutive series of patients between August 2018-May 2022 who met the inclusion criteria of 1) being an NCAA Division 1 collegiate athlete referred one of two Sports Medicine practices and 2) having undergone unilateral ACLR. Patients were excluded from the study for 1) a history of prior ACLR to either knee or 2) any other lower extremity musculoskeletal surgery within the previous two years. Based on previous studies, an a priori power analysis was conducted to determine that a sample size of 14 was required to detect an effect size of 0.8 for the primary outcome measure, ACL-RSI, with α ≤ 0.05 and a power (1- β) = 0.80.11,14 The Institutional Review Board at the University of Maryland determined this study to be exempt.

Procedures

Demographic and outcomes data were extracted and de-identified from subjects’ electronic medical records. Demographic data is included in Tables 1 and 2. Outcomes included LSI for SHD, THD, CHD, T6H, and SLVH and ACL-RSI score and are reported in Table 3. Data were collected as part of usual clinical practice by two physical therapists who are board-certified in either sports or orthopedic physical therapy and each have over nine years of experience working with patients with ACL injuries.

Table 1. Patient demographics (Nominal data are displayed as number (%), interval and ratio data are displayed as mean ± standard deviation).

Demographic variable All (n=21)
Male: Number (%) 7 (33%)
Female: Number (%) 14 (67%)
Age, years 20.38 ± 1.67
Height, meters 1.74 ± 1.12
Weight, kilograms 73.31 ± 14.81
Body mass index,
kilograms/meters2 		24.05 ± 2.54
Time since surgery, months 6.62 ± 1.69
Open in a new tab

Table 2. Sport Played by Patients.

Sport Played All (n=21)
Women’s Soccer 3
Men’s Soccer 1
Women’s Lacrosse 5
Men’s Lacrosse 3
Field Hockey 2
Volleyball 1
Gymnastics 2
Track & Field 1
Football 3
Open in a new tab

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics (Means ± Standard Deviations) for Primary Outcome Measures.

Outcome Measure Mean ± Standard Deviations
SHD LSI 88.64 ± 13.92%
THD LSI 90.09 ± 11.63%
CHD LSI 92.31 ± 12.38%
T6H LSI 96.31 ± 14.95%
SLVH LSI 76.25 ± 14.68%
ACL-RSI 78.76 ± 16.73%
Open in a new tab

ACL-RSI: Anterior Cruciate Ligament – Return to Sports Index, LSI: Limb Symmetry Index, SHD: Single hop for distance, THD: Triple hop for distance, CHD: Crossover hop for distance, T6H: Timed 6-meter hop, SLVH: Single leg vertical hop for height

Testing procedures for hop tests included standardized instructions, warmup, and two practice trials followed by two test trials. Test trials were averaged and included in statistical analysis.6,31 The testing order began with the SHD, THD, and CHD which were performed over ground and measured with a tape measure. The T6H followed and was performed over ground and measured with the stopwatch function on a smart phone. The SLVH was last and was performed using the Just Jump System (JJS, Probotics Inc, Huntsville, AL, USA), a commercially available jump mat that calculates jump height and is valid when compared to three-camera motion analysis.32

For all hop tests, LSIs were calculated by dividing the result on the involved limb by the result on the uninvolved limb and multiplying by 100 to produce a percentage, except for the T6H, when the numerator and denominator were reversed as a lower time indicates better performance. For all hop tests, an LSI less than 100% indicates a worse performance on the surgical limb compared to the non-surgical limb while a value greater than 100% indicated better performance on the surgical limb compared to the non-surgical limb.

The ACL-RSI is a twelve-item PROM that evaluates emotions, confidence in performance and risk appraisal and has been validated for use after ACLR.18 It was administered electronically using a smart phone application after all completion of all hop tests with the final score expressed as a percentage out of 100% (Felipe Andai Ignacio, Orthosoft ©).18 A higher percentage on the ACL-RSI indicates greater psychological function in the context of return to sporting activity.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for demographic data and all dependent variables (hop test LSI and ACL-RSI score). Normality of the primary outcome measures was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk test. Due to a significant Shapiro-Wilk test for five of the six variables (indicating non-normal nature of the data), a non-parametric Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficient was used to determine if a significant relationship exists between LSI for each hop test and ACL-RSI. Significance level was determined a priori as p ≤ 0.05. Correlations were qualified as very strong (r = 0.90-1.00), strong (r = 0.70-0.89), moderate ( r= 0.40-0.69), weak (r = 0.10-0.39) or negligible (r = 0.00-0.10).33

Finally, LSI variables determined to have a significant correlation with RSI were then utilized in a step-wise linear regression model to determine which hop tests (independent variables) best predicted the ACL-RSI (dependent variable). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 28.0.0.1 (14) (IBM Corp.).

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients (7 males, 14 females) with an average age of 20.38 ± 1.67 years were included (Table 1). Sport played by each patient is displayed in Table 2. All patients had undergone primary ACLR with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft and were an average of 6.62 ± 1.69 months since surgery. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for all outcome measures are included in Table 3.

There were significant correlations found between ACL-RSI and SHD, THD, CHD, and SLVH (Figure 1). Overall, the correlation was strong when comparing ACL-RSI and the LSI for SHD (rs = 0.704, p < 0.001), moderate when comparing ACL-RSI and the LSI for THD (rs = 0.617, p = 0.003), CHD (rs = 0.580, p = 0.006), and SLVH (rs = 0.582, p = 0.006). There was a poor correlation (non-significant) between ACL-RSI and the LSI for the T6H (rs = 0.252, p=0.271).

Figure 1. Relationship between ACL-RSI and LSI for each of the five hop tests, with ACL-RSI (y-axis) compared to each horizontal hop tests (A-E, x-axis).

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

ACL-RSI: Anterior Cruciate Ligament – Return to Sports Index, LSI: Limb Symmetry Index, SHD: Single hop for distance, THD: Triple hop for distance, CHD: Crossover hop for distance, T6H: Timed 6-meter hop, SLVH: Single leg vertical hop for height

While the LSI for SHD, THD, CHD, and SLVH were significantly correlated with ACL-RSI, when all four of these variables were entered into the stepwise regression model, only CHD remained in the model as a significant predictor for the primary outcome of ACL-RSI. The CHD explained 66% (R2 value of 0.660) of the variance in ACL-RSI (Table 4).

Table 4. Regression model developed to predict ACL-RSI.

Table 4.

Open in a new tab

ACL-RSI: Anterior Cruciate Ligament – Return to Sports Index, LSI: Limb Symmetry Index, SHD: Single hop for distance, THD: Triple hop for distance, CHD: Crossover hop for distance, T6H: Timed 6-meter hop, SLVH: Single leg vertical hop for height

DISCUSSION

The initial hypothesis that SLVH LSI would be more highly correlated with ACL-RSI score than all horizontal hop tests was not supported. The correlation between ACL-RSI and SLVH was moderate, as were the correlations between ACL-RSI and THD and CHD. The correlation was strongest between ACL-RSI and SHD. Additionally, the CHD explained 66% of the variance in ACL-RSI and was the strongest predictor variable shown in the regression analysis.

The SHD, THD, and CHD require the patient to decelerate horizontal momentum in the sagittal plane.34 These tests may simulate deceleration and landing in the context of sport and explain their correlation with ACL-RSI. Furthermore, the patients can self-reflect on their outcomes as the tape measure in the testing area provides immediate feedback regarding hop distance while providing an external focus of attention. The perception of successful performance on horizontal hop tests may influence ACL-RSI scores as patients may be more likely to believe that they will perform well on deceleration and landing tasks in sport.

Furthermore, the CHD provides an additional challenge to frontal and transverse plane stability that may be more related a change of direction or cutting activity, directly stressing the function of the ACL.6,35 Approximately 70% of ACL injuries are non-contact and caused by multidirectional forces during landing, cutting, and deceleration movements during sport.36–38 Patients may be familiar with these tasks and their relationship to injury mechanism which may indicate why performance on the CHD explained approximately two-thirds of the variance in ACL-RSI score and remained the best predictor variable in the overall regression model.

Despite not demonstrating the highest correlation with ACL-RSI, the SLVH was moderately correlated and does carry clinical value. For example, this test requires concentric impulse to achieve high jump heights, likely making it a good proxy for quadriceps function which may influence overall psychological status.11,13,14,16,39,40 Previous research has demonstrated that SLVH is sensitive to capacity at the knee joint and patients typically exhibit greater asymmetries when compared to horizontal hop tests suggesting it is relevant to a comprehensive evaluation.11,14,16

Testing order may also have affected the results as SLVH was performed as the final hop test. Though there has been no published research specifically evaluating the effect of test order on performance after ACLR, there is evidence that neuromuscular fatigue can diminish functional performance, knee stability, and increase forward tibial translation.41 This is problematic as authors have proposed that neuromuscular fatigue is a risk factor for ACL injury and re-injury.42 Interestingly, during RTS testing, fatigue may decreased performance more in the involved limb than the involved limb after ACLR.43 In the case of the present study, SLVH performance could be decreased on the uninvolved limb as it was tested last, altering LSI asymmetry. This may result in a weaker correlation and variance relationship with ACL-RSI compared to horizontal hop tests performed earlier in the testing battery and should be considered in future studies.

Criterion- and performance-based testing remains a critical component of the return-to-sport process. Without these objective measures, the clinical decision process would rely on time since surgery or other non-performance related factors.44 However, there is considerable need to optimize criterion-based return-to-sport testing batteries that typically include a series of strength, performance, neurocognitive, and patient reported outcome measures. Webster and Hewett indicate that only 23% of athletes fully pass a testing battery before returning to sport.23 Further, passing a return-to-sport test may not reduce the overall risk of a subsequent ACL injury, potentially reducing the risk of graft rupture but increasing the risk of contralateral injury.23 A 2021 consensus statement suggested that return-to-sport testing should also involve the assessment of specific functional skills, psychological readiness, and contextual factors such as type of sport, time of season, and level of competition.44

Both the ACL-RSI and single-leg hop tests used in this study can inform return to play decisions. They require minimal equipment or expertise to reliably carry out in a standard clinical setting. Most standard paradigms utilize distances or LSIs as outcome measures of these hop tests, though advanced technology like three-dimensional motion capture systems and force platforms may allow for more discrete measures and analysis and may become more available in the future.45,46

While the data and interactions between ACL-RSI and hop tests is interesting, there are several limitations to consider. First, the study was retrospective in nature, which could introduce selection bias and is limited by the accuracy of the electronic medical record. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and careful data extraction by two authors were emphasized to reduce error. Similarly, despite exceeding the number of subjects determined by power analysis, the sample included twice as many females than males and were all NCAA Division 1 collegiate athletes; therefore, the results cannot be generalized to all patients after ACLR. Lastly, as psychological status is multifactorial, the present study is unable to draw conclusions regarding several important variables such as gender, injury mechanism, or playing surface, which likely have a large influence on ACL-RSI. Future studies should investigate these variables to improve the overall understanding of predictors of psychological status after ACLR.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that physical function has the capacity to influence psychological status after ACLR. To improve outcomes, clinicians should consider this important relationship and recognize that SLVH, SHD, THD, and CHD are correlated with ACL-RSI but the psychomotor properties of each test likely relate to their clinical utility. Specifically, CHD explained the greatest variance in ACL-RSI and may be relevant due to the multiplanar nature of ACL injury. All horizontal hop for distance tests are valuable in that deceleration and landing in the sagittal plane are important qualities to consider as well. The clinical relevance of SLVH lies with its ability to assess knee function with a vertical propulsion bias. Lastly, the T6H did not correlate with ACL-RSI however continuous hopping for speed may still be part of the overall clinical picture. All together these tests appear to influence ACL-RSI through different, yet converging, avenues and carry value as combing them may enhance the robustness of clinical assessment after ACLR. Clinicians should consider the emerging data regarding the benefits and shortcomings of various hop tests to promote a comprehensive approach to rehabilitation and optimize outcomes after ACLR and better appreciate the intersection between physical and psychological function.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. Sport-specific yearly risk and incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears in high school athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gornitzky Alex L., Lott Ariana, Yellin Joseph L., Fabricant Peter D., Lawrence J. Todd, Ganley Theodore J. Jul 20;2016 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 44(10):2716–2723. doi: 10.1177/0363546515617742. doi: 10.1177/0363546515617742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Trends in incidence of ACL reconstruction and concomitant procedures among commercially insured individuals in the United States, 2002-2014. Herzog Mackenzie M., Marshall Stephen W., Lund Jennifer L., Pate Virginia, Mack Christina D., Spang Jeffrey T. Oct 24;2018 Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 10(6):523–531. doi: 10.1177/1941738118803616. doi: 10.1177/1941738118803616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. Wright Rick W., Magnussen Robert A., Dunn Warren R., Spindler Kurt P. Jun;2011 The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 93(12):1159–1165. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.j.00898. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.j.00898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Ardern Clare L, Taylor Nicholas F, Feller Julian A, Webster Kate E. Aug 25;2014 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 48(21):1543–1552. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093398. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Kvist Joanna, Ek Anna, Sporrstedt Katja, Good Lars. Feb 10;2005 Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 13(5):393–397. doi: 10.1007/s00167-004-0591-8. doi: 10.1007/s00167-004-0591-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Noyes Frank R., Barber Sue D., Mangine Robert E. Sep;1991 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 19(5):513–518. doi: 10.1177/036354659101900518. doi: 10.1177/036354659101900518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Test–retest reliability of knee rating scales and functional hop tests one year following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Hopper Diana M, Goh Suet C, Wentworth Laurel A, Chan Derek Y.K, Chau Jay H.W, Wootton Gregory J, Strauss Geoffrey R, Boyle Jeffrey J.W. Feb;2002 Physical Therapy in Sport. 3(1):10–18. doi: 10.1054/ptsp.2001.0094. doi: 10.1054/ptsp.2001.0094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Grindem Hege, Snyder-Mackler Lynn, Moksnes Håvard, Engebretsen Lars, Risberg May Arna. May 9;2016 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 50(13):804–808. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Likelihood of ACL graft rupture: not meeting six clinical discharge criteria before return to sport is associated with a four times greater risk of rupture. Kyritsis Polyvios, Bahr Roald, Landreau Philippe, Miladi Riadh, Witvrouw Erik. May 23;2016 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 50(15):946–951. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Keep calm and carry on testing: a substantive reanalysis and critique of ‘what is the evidence for and validity of return-to-sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis’. Capin Jacob John, Snyder-Mackler Lynn, Risberg May Arna, Grindem Hege. Jul 9;2019 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 53(23):1444–1446. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100906. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Single-leg vertical hop test detects greater limb asymmetries than horizontal hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in NCAA Division 1 collegiate athletes. Zarro Michael J, Stitzlein Matthew G, Lee Jason S, Rowland Robert W, Gray Vicki L, Taylor Jeffrey B, Meredith Sean J, Packer Jonathan D, Nelson Christa M. Dec 2;2021 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 16(6):1405–1414. doi: 10.26603/001c.29595. doi: 10.26603/001c.29595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Single-leg vertical jump test as a functional test after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Lee Dhong Won, Yang Sang Jin, Cho Seung Ik, Lee Jung Ho, Kim Jin Goo. Dec;2018 The Knee. 25(6):1016–1026. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2018.07.014. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2018.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Isokinetic extension strength Is associated with single-leg vertical jump height. Fischer Felix, Blank Cornelia, Dünnwald Tobias, Gföller Peter, Herbst Elmar, Hoser Christian, Fink Christian. Nov;2017 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 5(11):232596711773676. doi: 10.1177/2325967117736766. doi: 10.1177/2325967117736766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. The single-leg vertical hop provides unique asymmetry information in individuals after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Taylor Jeffrey B., Westbrook Audrey E., Head Penny L., Glover Katie M., Paquette Max R., Ford Kevin R. Dec;2020 Clinical Biomechanics. 80:105107. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105107. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Vertical and horizontal hop performance: contributions of the hip, knee, and ankle. Kotsifaki Argyro, Korakakis Vasileios, Graham-Smith Philip, Sideris Vasileios, Whiteley Rod. Feb 9;2021 Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach. 13(2):128–135. doi: 10.1177/1941738120976363. doi: 10.1177/1941738120976363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Single leg vertical jump performance identifies knee function deficits at return to sport after ACL reconstruction in male athletes. Kotsifaki Argyro, Van Rossom Sam, Whiteley Rod, Korakakis Vasileios, Bahr Roald, Sideris Vasileios, Jonkers Ilse. Feb 8;2022 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 56(9):490–498. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104692. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-104692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. The role of psychological readiness in return to sport assessment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Faleide Anne Gro Heyn, Magnussen Liv Heide, Strand Torbjørn, Bogen Bård Erik, Moe-Nilssen Rolf, Mo Ingunn Fleten, Vervaat Willemijn, Inderhaug Eivind. Mar 3;2021 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 49(5):1236–1243. doi: 10.1177/0363546521991924. doi: 10.1177/0363546521991924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Webster Kate E., Feller Julian A., Lambros Christina. Feb;2008 Physical Therapy in Sport. 9(1):9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2007.09.003. doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2007.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Factors associated with psychological readiness to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Webster Kate E., Nagelli Christopher V., Hewett Timothy E., Feller Julian A. May 2;2018 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 46(7):1545–1550. doi: 10.1177/0363546518773757. doi: 10.1177/0363546518773757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Progression of the psychological ACL-RSI score and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective 2-year follow-up study from the French Prospective anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Cohort Study (FAST) Sadeqi Mansour, Klouche Shahnaz, Bohu Yoann, Herman Serge, Lefevre Nicolas, Gerometta Antoine. Dec 1;2018 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 6(12):2325967118812819. doi: 10.1177/2325967118812819. doi: 10.1177/2325967118812819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Psychological and functional readiness for sport following advanced group training in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Meierbachtol Adam, Yungtum William, Paur Eric, Bottoms John, Chmielewski Terese L. Nov;2018 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 48(11):864–872. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.8041. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.8041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Factors associated with psychological readiness to return to sports with cutting, pivoting, and jump-landings after primary ACL reconstruction. Aizawa Junya, Hirohata Kenji, Ohji Shunsuke, Ohmi Takehiro, Koga Hideyuki, Yagishita Kazuyoshi. Nov 1;2020 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 8(11):2325967120964484. doi: 10.1177/2325967120964484. doi: 10.1177/2325967120964484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. What is the evidence for and validity of return-to-sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Webster Kate E., Hewett Timothy E. Mar 23;2019 Sports Medicine. 49(6):917–929. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01093-x. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01093-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Optimization of the return-to-sport paradigm after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a critical step back to move forward. Dingenen Bart, Gokeler Alli. Jan 11;2017 Sports Medicine. 47(8):1487–1500. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0674-6. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0674-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Development of a test battery to enhance safe return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Gokeler Alli, Welling Wouter, Zaffagnini Stefano, Seil Romain, Padua Darin. 2017Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 25(1):192–199. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4246-3. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4246-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Return to play in elite sport: a shared decision-making process. Dijkstra H Paul, Pollock Noel, Chakraverty Robin, Ardern Clare L. 2017British Journal of Sports Medicine. 51(5):419–420. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096209. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Factors influencing return to play and second anterior cruciate ligament injury rates in level 1 athletes after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 2-year follow-up on 1432 reconstructions at a single center. King Enda, Richter Chris, Jackson Mark, Franklyn-Miller Andy, Falvey Eanna, Myer Gregory D., Strike Siobhan, Withers Dan, Moran Ray. Feb 7;2020 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 48(4):812–824. doi: 10.1177/0363546519900170. doi: 10.1177/0363546519900170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Who passes return-to-sport tests, and which tests are most strongly associated with return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Webster Kate E., Feller Julian A. Dec 1;2020 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 8(12):2325967120969425. doi: 10.1177/2325967120969425. doi: 10.1177/2325967120969425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Can biomechanical testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction identify athletes at risk for subsequent ACL injury to the contralateral uninjured limb? King Enda, Richter Chris, Daniels Katherine A.J., Franklyn-Miller Andy, Falvey Eanna, Myer Gregory D., Jackson Mark, Moran Ray, Strike Siobhan. Feb 9;2021 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 49(3):609–619. doi: 10.1177/0363546520985283. doi: 10.1177/0363546520985283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Combining neurocognitive and functional tests to improve return-to-sport decisions following ACL reconstruction. Grooms Dustin R., Chaput Meredith, Simon Janet E., Criss Cody R., Myer Gregory D., Diekfuss Jed A. Aug;2023 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 53(8):415–419. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2023.11489. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2023.11489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hop testing provides a reliable and valid outcome measure during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Reid Andrea, Birmingham Trevor B, Stratford Paul W, Alcock Greg K, Giffin J Robert. Mar 1;2007 Physical Therapy. 87(3):337–349. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060143. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Validity of two alternative systems for measuring vertical jump height. Leard John S., Cirillo Melissa A., Katsnelson Eugene, Kimiatek Deena A., Miller Tim W., Trebincevic Kenan, Garbalosa Juan C. 2007The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 21(4):1296–1299. doi: 10.1519/r-21536.1. doi: 10.1519/r-21536.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Schober Patrick, Boer Christa, Schwarte Lothar A. May;2018 Anesthesia & Analgesia. 126(5):1763–1768. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000002864. doi: 10.1213/ane.0000000000002864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Symmetry in triple hop distance hides asymmetries in knee function after ACL reconstruction in athletes at return to sports. Kotsifaki Argyro, Van Rossom Sam, Whiteley Rodney, Korakakis Vasileios, Bahr Roald, Sideris Vasileios, Smith Philip Graham, Jonkers Ilse. 2022The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 50(2):441–450. doi: 10.1177/03635465211063192. doi: 10.1177/03635465211063192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mechanism of injury and risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury. Wetters Nathan, Weber Alexander E., Wuerz Thomas H., Schub David L., Mandelbaum Bert R. Mar;2016 Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine. 24(1):2–6. doi: 10.1053/j.otsm.2015.09.001. doi: 10.1053/j.otsm.2015.09.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mechanism of non-contact ACL injury: OREF Clinical Research Award 2021. Boden Barry P., Sheehan Frances T. Jan 6;2022 Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 40(3):531–540. doi: 10.1002/jor.25257. doi: 10.1002/jor.25257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Biomechanical deficit profiles associated with ACL injury risk in female athletes. Pappas Evangelos, Shiyko Mariya P., Ford Kevin R., Myer Gregory D., Hewett Timothy E. Jan;2016 Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 48(1):107–113. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000000750. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000000750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Functional performance testing following knee ligament injury. Clark Nicholas C. May;2001 Physical Therapy in Sport. 2(2):91–105. doi: 10.1054/ptsp.2001.0035. doi: 10.1054/ptsp.2001.0035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Quadriceps strength influences patient function more than single leg forward hop during late-stage ACL rehabilitation. Chaput Meredith, Palimenio Marcus, Farmer Brooke, Katsavelis Dimitrios, Bagwell Jennifer J., Turman Kimberly A., Wichman Chris, Grindstaff Terry L. Feb 1;2021 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 16(1):145. doi: 10.26603/001c.18709. doi: 10.26603/001c.18709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Quadriceps strength predicts self-reported function post-ACL reconstruction. Pietrosimone Brian, Lepley Adam S., Harkey Matthew S., Luc-Harkey Brittney A., Blackburn J. Troy, Gribble Phillip A., Spang Jeffrey T., Sohn David H. Sep;2016 Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 48(9):1671–1677. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000000946. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000000946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Fatigue affects quality of movement more in ACL-reconstructed soccer players than in healthy soccer players. van Melick N., van Rijn L., Nijhuis-van der Sanden M. W. G., Hoogeboom T. J., van Cingel R. E. H. 2019Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 27(2):549–555. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5149-2. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5149-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Is fatigue a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? Bourne Matthew N., Webster Kate E., Hewett Timothy E. Jun 10;2019 Sports Medicine. 49(11):1629–1635. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01134-5. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01134-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. The role of fatigue in return to sport testing following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Tallard Justin C, Hedt Corbin, Lambert Bradley S, McCulloch Patrick C. Aug 1;2021 International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 16(4):1043–1051. doi: 10.26603/001c.25687. doi: 10.26603/001c.25687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther symposium ACL injury return to sport consensus group. Meredith Sean J., Rauer Thomas, Chmielewski Terese L., Fink Christian, Diermeier Theresa, Rothrauff Benjamin B., Svantesson Eleonor, Hamrin Senorski Eric, Hewett Timothy E., Sherman Seth L., Lesniak Bryson P., Bizzini Mario, Chen Shiyi, Cohen Moises, Villa Stefano Della, Engebretsen Lars, Feng Hua, Ferretti Mario, Fu Freddie H., Imhoff Andreas B., Kaeding Christopher C., Karlsson Jon, Kuroda Ryosuke, Lynch Andrew D., Menetrey Jacques, Musahl Volker, Navarro Ronald A., Rabuck Stephen J., Siebold Rainer, Snyder-Mackler Lynn, Spalding Tim, van Eck Carola, Vyas Dharmesh, Webster Kate, Wilk Kevin, the Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group Jun 1;2020 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 8(6):2325967120930829. doi: 10.1177/2325967120930829. doi: 10.1177/2325967120930829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Automated quantification of the Landing Error Scoring System with a markerless motion-capture system. Mauntel Timothy C., Padua Darin A., Stanley Laura E., Frank Barnett S., DiStefano Lindsay J., Peck Karen Y., Cameron Kenneth L., Marshall Stephen W. Nov 1;2017 Journal of Athletic Training. 52(11):1002–1009. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-52.10.12. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-52.10.12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Concurrent assessment of gait kinematics using marker-based and markerless motion capture. Kanko Robert M., Laende Elise K., Davis Elysia M., Selbie W. Scott, Deluzio Kevin J. Oct;2021 Journal of Biomechanics. 127:110665. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110665. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy are provided here courtesy of North American Sports Medicine Institute

RESOURCES