Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 16.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Sports Med. 2017 Sep 13;45(14):3272–3279. doi: 10.1177/0363546517724417

TABLE 2.

Effect of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction on Bilateral Kinematic Differences During Passive and Active Loadinga

Passive Loading Active Loading


Mean (95% CI) P Value Mean (95% CI) P Value
Tibiofemoral
 Abduction, deg −0.8 (−2.0 to 0.5) .107 −0.6 (−1.8 to 0.6) .374
 Internal rotation, deg −1.1 (−3.9 to 1.6) .477 −2.4 (−4.8 to 0.0) .021
 Lateral translation, mm −0.5 (−1.8 to 0.8) .564 −1.1 (−2.2 to 0.0) .066
 Anterior translation, mm 0.0 (−1.1 to 1.2) .355 0.8 (−0.3 to 1.8) .112
 Superior translation, mm 0.0 (−0.8 to 0.8) .686 −0.2 (−0.8 to 0.3) .366
Patellofemoral
 Flexion, deg 0.1 (−1.6 to 1.8) .816 −0.5 (−1.4 to −0.4) .436
 Lateral rotation, deg −0.9 (−2.6 to 0.9) .230 −0.9 (−2.6 to 0.7) .183
 Medial tilt, deg −0.7 (−2.0 to 0.5) .210 −0.9 (−2.3 to 0.5) .138
 Lateral translation, mm −0.8 (−2.1 to 0.5) .199 −1.0 (−2.6 to 0.5) .195
 Anterior translation, mm −0.4 (−1.2 to 0.5) .391 −0.1 (−0.7 to 0.5) .572
 Superior translation, mm 0.2 (−0.9 to 1.3) .550 0.6 (−0.6 to 1.9) .251
a

Values are expressed as mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the measurements from the anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed (ACLR) legs minus the measurements from the healthy legs. Significant differences associated with ACLR are boldface.