Skip to main content
. 2014 Sep 5;2(9):2325967114548831. doi: 10.1177/2325967114548831

TABLE 3.

Performance Comparison Before and After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (Cases)a

Before After P Valueb 95% CIc
Goals per season, n 12.9 ± 10.5 13.9 ± 13.2 .733 –6.6 to 4.6
Assists per season, n 17.7 ± 12.2 18.1 ± 12.6 .904 –6.2 to 5.5
Points scored per season 31.1 ± 22.0 32.5 ± 25.1 .805 –12 to 9.7
+/– goal differential per seasond 1.05 ± 6.08 –0.265 ± 8.75 .482 –2.4 to 5.0
Penalty time per season, min 41.9 ± 30.4 41.0 ± 29.7 .899 –13 to 15
Even-strength goals per season, n 8.95 ± 6.09 10.3 ± 8.84 .459 –5.1 to 2.3
Power play goals per season, n 4.27 ± 3.83 4.43 ± 4.23 .875 –2.1 to 1.8
Short-handed goals per season, n 0.697 ± 0.840 0.487 ± 0.789 .298 –0.19 to 0.61
Shots per season, n 120 ± 63.0 138 ± 75.5 .300 –52 to 16
Shooting percentage per season, % 10.5 ± 5.50 9.94 ± 4.64 .667 –2.0 to 3.0
Time on ice per season, min 983 ± 421 1172 ± 437 .088 –407 to 29
Time on ice per game, min 17.0 ± 3.90 17.5 ± 4.11 .599 –2.6 to 1.5

aValues are expressed as mean ± SD.

bPaired-samples Student t test with Bonferroni correction (statistical significance, P < .01).

c95% CI of the difference between before and after values.

dA measure of how the player’s team did when he was on the ice. If the player has a positive number, more goals were scored by his team when he was on the ice than allowed; if he has a negative number, his team allowed more goals than they scored when he was on the ice.