Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy logoLink to International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
. 2021 Aug 1;16(4):1043–1051. doi: 10.26603/001c.25687

The Role of Fatigue in Return to Sport Testing Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Justin C Tallard 1, Corbin Hedt 1,✉, Bradley S Lambert 1, Patrick C McCulloch 1
PMCID: PMC8329315  PMID: 34386283

Abstract

Background

Fatigue may play a role in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, but has not been incorporated into objective test batteries for return to sport decisions following ACL reconstruction (ACLR) surgery. The effect of fatigue on muscle function and performance following surgery and rehabilitation has been poorly studied.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of fatigue on performance of various hop tests used in clinical rehabilitation settings by examining LSI scores. The authors hypothesized that participants will have worse limb symmetry index scores following the fatigue protocol and that the operative limb (ACLR) will have a greater decline in function than the non-operative limb (CON).

Study Design

Cross-Sectional Study.

Methods

Participants (n=21 [Male = 15, Female = 6]; AGE = 24.6 ± 9.3) were at least six months post ACLR and in rehabilitation. Testing was performed over two separate sessions in either a non-fatigued (NFS) or fatigued state (FS). In the FS, individuals performed a series of exercises to exhaust muscular endurance, strength, and power systems, after which they performed as battery of seven hop tests (single hop for distance, triple hop for distance, crossover hop for distance, 6-meter timed hop, lateral rotation hop for distance, medial rotation hop for distance, and vertical jump for height). A 2(limb) x 2(time) ANOVA was used to compare limbs between each state.

Results

Differences between limbs (CON vs ACLR) were observed for all hop tests in the NFS whereby the ACLR limb was observed to have reduced performance (↓5.4-9.1%, p <0.05). When tested in the FS, significant differences in performance between limbs remained for only the crossover (↓4.9%), medial rotation (↓7.1%), lateral rotation (↓5.5%), and vertical hop (↓10.0%)(p<0.05). When comparing the NFS and FS states, only the CON limb was observed to have significant decreases in performance of the Triple Hop (↓7.4%), Crossover (↓8.7%), and Lateral Rotation (↓5.2%)(p<0.05).

Conclusions

Following ACL reconstruction, there appears to be a greater loss in jump performance in the CON limb in the FS. These findings suggest it may be crucial to consider and assess the endurance of both limbs rather than just the ACLR limb when determining readiness for return to play.

Level of Evidence

Level 3

Keywords: movement system, return to sport testing, lower extremity, knee, hop testing, acl

INTRODUCTION

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries can be devastating for athletes across many sports and age groups. In the United States, there are between 100,000 and 200,000 ACL injuries per year.1 Athletes who experience an ACL injury typically miss extended periods of sports participation and suffer both short and long-term consequences including functional limitations, muscle weakness, and most significantly chronic knee pain and osteoarthritis.2 Almost 30% of active individuals who undergo ACL reconstruction suffer a second ACL injury in the first two years after surgery.1,2 This increased risk exists not only for the ipsilateral limb, but the contralateral limb as well. Multiple studies have shown that contralateral injuries occur more often than ipsilateral injuries, especially in female athletes.3–5 Not only do individuals suffer subsequent ACL injuries, but individuals are at increased risk of secondary meniscus injury following ACL reconstructions. Up to 50% of individuals undergo meniscus surgery following return to play after ACL reconstruction.1,2 Predictors of primary and secondary ACL injuries include younger age and participation in sports that involve jumping, pivoting and cutting.1,2 A proposed additional risk factor includes exercise-induced decreases in a muscle’s ability to produce force or power, also known as neuromuscular fatigue.6 Neuromuscular fatigue has frequently been accepted as a risk factor, but its full role in ACL injury is not yet known. It is suggested that fatigue results in reduced muscle strength, and potential alteration in lower extremity kinematics.6,7 It is worth noting that the definition of, and factors that affect neuromuscular fatigue are numerous and defining these is outside of the scope of this study.

The primary reason for undergoing ACL reconstruction is the intent to return to sports.1,2 Health care professionals, responsible for the rehabilitation of individuals following surgery, attempt to mitigate the risk of secondary injury through the use of objective return to sport criteria. These criteria typically include the establishment of a Limb Symmetry Index (LSI) in tests such as quadriceps muscle strength, single leg hop tests, agility, etc. LSI compares the affected limb to the uninvolved limb, using the uninvolved limb as a reference standard and “healthy” control.8 Despite the use of strict return to sport criteria including LSI, under 14% of individuals meet these standards (isokinetic strength testing, hop testing, etc.) within six months.9 Current practice patterns suggest that rehabilitation professionals do not implement objective testing as frequently needed, and when these tests are implemented the standards for safe return to play (RTP) are not met.9–12

Despite numerous research studies and publications, there remains no gold standard for objective RTP criteria, and secondary injury rates remain high. It remains to be seen if LSI provide clinicians any meaningful data beyond that of symmetry. The use of the unaffected limb as a “control” may not be appropriate given that there are bilateral muscle strength, endurance, power, and rate of force development deficits following ACL injury.8 Though studies exist to assess overall resistance to fatigue (YoYo Fitness Test, Lower Extremity Functional Test), the overall effect on movement and injury risk following ACL injury remains to be seen.12 Furthermore, current assessment methods for RTP fail to account for the effects of fatigue on performance, the individuals’ overall endurance and fitness level, or its effects on movement quality.13–15 ACL rehabilitation can last anywhere from six to 12 months resulting in a significant period of changed activity levels. Investigations have shown that long periods of relative inactivity and reduced training volume result in significant reductions in functional capacity. These deficits are sustained locally in the affected limb, as well as globally throughout the rest of the body.8,9

While previous authors have attempted to determine the effect of fatigue on ACL injury risk, or to qualitatively assess fatigue’s effect on kinematics and kinetics, there has yet to be a study assessing fatigue’s effect on performance on objective RTP criteria.3,4,11As a result, the purpose of this study was to assess the effect of fatigue on performance of various hop tests used in clinical rehabilitation settings by examining LSI scores.2,8,9 It was hypothesized that individual hop distances would be lower for the operative limb (ACLR) than the non-operative limb (CON) in a fatigued state (FS), and that overall LSI scores would be lower in the fatigued versus non-fatigued states (NFS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

Approval was first obtained by the Houston Methodist Institutional Review Board (IRB) and written informed consent and/or parental permission were obtained prior to testing from all participants and/or the parent/guardian. This study included individuals undergoing rehabilitation following ACLR (n=21). Participants were recruited from physical therapy clinics within the local hospital network between 2018 and 2020. All participants were at or after six months post-operative, and had been deemed ready for RTP testing by their treating rehabilitation specialist or physician. Each participant passed objective testing with >90% limb symmetry in the clinic or rehabilitation setting with their respective rehabilitation specialist (including Y-balance testing, single leg step down test, 1 repetition max testing for leg press and hamstring curl, and isometric strength testing via hand-held dynamometer). Specific inclusion criteria included (1) unilateral ACLR, (2) completion of formal rehabilitation program following surgery (including, but not limited to: strength and conditioning training, power and plyometric training, and agility training) (3) deemed appropriate for RTP testing by treating rehabilitation specialist, and (4) planned to return to cutting and pivoting sports. The rehabilitation program after ACLR was not monitored or controlled by this study. Participants were included in this study regardless of graft type (patellar bone-tendon-bone autograft, hamstring tendon autograft, and allograft). Additionally, those with meniscus repair or partial meniscectomy at time of ACL reconstruction were included. Exclusion criteria included (1) age <16 or >50, (2) further injury or surgery that would preclude standardized rehabilitation protocols for ACL rehabilitation.

Objective Criteria Measures

Objective criterion for RTP used in this study were based on recommendations in the literature. This included quadriceps and hamstring strength measurements, and single leg hop tests (single hop, triple hop, crossover hop, 6-meter timed hop, vertical jump, medial rotation hop, lateral rotation hop, and vertical jump).1–3,6–9,15 The selected measures were determined based on common tests seen in the literature to assess single and multi-planar movement ability, power production, and neuromuscular control. (Figure 1). Prior to all testing, participants completed a 15-minute dynamic warm-up including high knees, butt kicks, leg swings, lateral shuffles, carioca shuffles, A-skip, and other activities designed to prepare individuals for movement as directed by their treating therapist.

Figure 1. Diagram depicting hop tests.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab
  1. Single leg hop for distance, (B) triple hop for distance, (C) crossover hop for distance, (D) 6 meter timed hop, (E) medial rotation hop for distance (F) lateral rotation hop for distance (G) vertical jump for height

Participants completed two separate hop testing sessions after they met inclusion criteria. Testing consisted of a NFS test session (control test), and a FS test session; each performed on a separate day within one week of the first test session to prevent any variance in results due to neuromuscular or strength adaptations. Participants were randomized to perform testing in a NFS or a FS first based on enrollment in the study; with odd numbered participants performing NFS testing first, and even numbered participants performing FS testing first.

Fatigue Protocol

To achieve fatigue in participants prior to FS testing, a fatigue protocol was developed based on existing literature (Figure 2).16–20 Prior to performing single leg hop tests, participants performed the fatigue protocol until achieving fatigue. Fatigue was defined as an inability to reach 70% of maximal counter-movement jump (CMJ) height two times consecutively.15,17,18 First, maximal CMJ was measured with a vertical jump height device (Vertec, PeformBetter, Rhode Island, US) by taking the highest of three trials for maximum jump performance.19 Researchers calculated and marked 70% of the participants maximal CMJ on the Vertec. Participants then performed one practice trial of the activities within the fatigue protocol that consisted of four exercises performed consecutively upon completion. Exercises were performed in the following order: 10 bodyweight squats to at least 90 degrees of knee flexion, five single leg non-countermovement jumps from a standard 18 inch box, two maximal CMJs, and a 20 yard sprint. Close observation was provided throughout the fatigue protocol to ensure quality movement and appropriate effort throughout. After completing the protocol, participants re-tested maximal CMJ with the Vertec two times consecutively; if participant’s new CMJ height was greater than the 70% fatigue threshold, they were directed to perform the fatigue protocol again. Once the subjects’ CMJ fell below 70% on two consecutive attempts, the fatigue protocol was terminated.

Figure 2. Fatigue Protocol Procedures.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: FP, fatigue protocol; CMJ, counter movement jump; BW, body weight; SL, single leg; NCMJ, non-counter movement jump.

Upon achieving fatigue as defined by this study, participants were asked to give a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) for their overall perception of fatigue. Participants were shown a standard Borg RPE scale, from 6 to 20; 6 meaning “no exertion at all” and 20 meaning “maximal exertion”.15 RPE is commonly used to determine activity and session intensity and was developed to estimate individual’s heart rate based on how they feel.15 Single leg hop testing was then initiated within 30 seconds of completion of the fatigue protocol to ensure fatigue was present during testing.

Single Leg Hop Tests

Participants performed the seven single leg hop tests in the following order: single hop for distance, triple hop for distance, crossover hop for distance, 6-meter timed hop, lateral rotation hop for distance, medial rotation hop for distance, and vertical jump for height. Four of these hop tests are commonly used clinically and have good measurement reliability in individuals following ACL reconstruction.20 Participants completed a practice trial for each hop prior to performing three measured trials for the ACLR and CON limb, with limbs being tested in random order. Participants were given sufficient attempts, within reason, to successfully achieve three hops where they “stuck the landing”; meaning they were able to maintain single limb balance for >2 seconds after landing. If participants were unable to achieve three successful hops, data was recorded for the number of available hops. Quality of these jumps was not assessed as without motion capture technology this is a purely subjective measure, and is beyond the scope of the current study. The average of the three trials was utilized to calculate a LSI for hop testing: for distance and height measures LSI = (ACLR average/CON average) x 100%; for 6-meter timed hop LSI = (ACLR average/CON average) x 100%. A total LSI for all seven single leg hop tests was created as the mean of each individual score. A LSI less than 100% represents a deficit in the involved limb.

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using SPSS (version 23.0 for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). A 2 (fatigue state) by 2 (limb) mixed model ANOVA was used to determine and compare the effects of fatigue within and between each limb (operative & non-operative). Significant interactions indicated by Type III tests of fixed effects were then followed by a Tukey’s post-hoc test for pairwise comparisons. In addition, a paired samples t-test was used to compare the ratio of ACLR to CON limb measures in the NFS and FS. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p<0.05. For all significant pairwise comparisons, effect size was calculated using a Cohen’s d statistic whereby effect size (ES) was interpreted as follows: <0.1, Negligible (N); 0.1-0.3, Small (S); 0.3-0.5, Moderate (M); 0.5-0.7, Large (L); >0.7, Very Large (VL).21–25

RESULTS

There were a total of 21 subjects in this study (15 male, 6 female) and their demographic and testing information can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Participant Demographics, Fatigue Protocol Completion Time, and Rating of Perceived Exertion.

Subject Age Sex Days Post-Op at Test Time to Fatigue RPE
1 29 M 276 0:18:04 17
2 37 M 297 0:22:13 18
3 16 M 173 0:13:30 15
4 16 M 196 0:18:00 18
5 16 M 246 0:12:50 16
6 18 M 285 0:18:08 17
7 14 F 283 0:11:05 16
8 19 M 192 0:10:48 16
9 34 F 260 0:29:20 17
10 20 F 273 0:08:30 17
11 42 M 358 0:08:14 17
12 16 F 196 0:19:24 14
13 27 M 238 0:02:20 14
14 18 M 175 0:41:03 20
15 21 M 167 0:12:30 15
16 24 M 197 0:30:20 15
17 18 M 189 0:16:02 19
18 25 F 210 0:22:37 15
19 31 M 222 0:14:06 17
20 49 M 198 0:30:27 17
21 26 F 197 0:15:46 18
Mean/Total 24.57 M = 15; F = 6 229.90 0:17:52 16.57
SD 9.29   49.40 0:08:50 1.53
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: M, male; F, female; RPE, rating of perceived exertion. Time to fatigue listed as hours:minutes:seconds. RPE utilizing Borg Scale (6 to 20).

Hop Testing Results

Single Leg (Figure 3A): The ACLR limb was observed to have reduced hop distance compared to the CONTROL limb in the NFS [p=0.0002, Mean Individual Diff.= -15±3cm, ES=0.40(M)] that was not observed in the FS. This resulted in a significant change in CON / ACLR limb symmetry between the NFS and the FS [p=0.010, ES=0.42].

Figure 3A. Descriptive Statistics for CONTROL and ACLR Hop Testing Results in a Fatigued and Non-Fatigued State.

Figure 3A.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CONTROL, non-operative limb; ACLR, operative limb. P-values: *, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.05); **, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.01); #, significantly different from non-op limb at same time point (p<0.05); ##, significantly different from non-op limb at the same time point (p<0.01); ^^, significantly different from non-op limb for %change (p<0.05). Values are Mean ± SD.

Triple Hop (Figure 3B): The ACLR limb was observed to have reduced hop distance compared to the CON limb in the NFS [p=0.005, Mean Individual Diff.= -27±8cm, ES=0.24(S)] that was not observed in the FS. Only the CON limb was observed to have a decrease in hop distance between the NFS and FS [p=0.045, Mean Individual Diff.= -37±17cm, ES=0.28(S)].

Figure 3B. Descriptive Statistics for CONTROL and ACLR Hop Testing Results in a Fatigued and Non-Fatigued State.

Figure 3B.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CONTROL, non-operative limb; ACLR, operative limb. P-values: *, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.05); **, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.01); #, significantly different from non-op limb at same time point (p<0.05); ##, significantly different from non-op limb at the same time point (p<0.01); ^^, significantly different from non-op limb for %change (p<0.05). Values are Mean ± SD.

Crossover (Figure 3C): The ACLR limb was observed to have reduced hop distance compared to the CON limb in the NFS [p=0.008, Mean Individual Diff.= -28±9cm, ES=23(S)] and FS [p=0.005, Mean Individual Diff.= -21±7cm, ES=14(S)]. Only the CON limb was observed to have a decrease in hop distance between the NFS and FS [p=0.016, Mean Individual Diff.= -41±16cm, ES=0.34(M)].

Figure 3C. Descriptive Statistics for CONTROL and ACLR Hop Testing Results in a Fatigued and Non-Fatigued State.

Figure 3C.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CONTROL, non-operative limb; ACLR, operative limb. P-values: *, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.05); **, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.01); #, significantly different from non-op limb at same time point (p<0.05); ##, significantly different from non-op limb at the same time point (p<0.01); ^^, significantly different from non-op limb for %change (p<0.05). Values are Mean ± SD.

6 Meter (Figure 3D): The ACLR limb was observed to have an increased 6 Meter hop time (reduced performance) compared to the CON limb in the NFS [p=0.014, Mean Individual Diff.= 0.12±0.04 seconds, ES=0.36(M)] that was not observed in the FS.

Figure 3D. Descriptive Statistics for CONTROL and ACLR Hop Testing Results in a Fatigued and Non-Fatigued State.

Figure 3D.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CONTROL, non-operative limb; ACLR, operative limb. P-values: *, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.05); **, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.01); #, significantly different from non-op limb at same time point (p<0.05); ##, significantly different from non-op limb at the same time point (p<0.01); ^^, significantly different from non-op limb for %change (p<0.05). Values are Mean ± SD.

Medial Rotation (Figure 3E): The ACLR limb was observed to have reduced medial rotation compared to the CON limb in the NFS [p=0.0002, Mean Individual Diff.= -14±3cm, ES=0.33(M)] and FS [p=0.003, Mean Individual Diff.= -12±3cm, ES=0.28(S)].

Figure 3E. Descriptive Statistics for CONTROL and ACLR Hop Testing Results in a Fatigued and Non-Fatigued State.

Figure 3E.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CONTROL, non-operative limb; ACLR, operative limb. P-values: *, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.05); **, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.01); #, significantly different from non-op limb at same time point (p<0.05); ##, significantly different from non-op limb at the same time point (p<0.01); ^^, significantly different from non-op limb for %change (p<0.05). Values are Mean ± SD.

Lateral Rotation (Figure 3F): The ACLR limb was observed to have reduced lateral rotation compared to the CON limb in the NFS [p=0.002, Mean Individual Diff.= -10±3cm, ES=0.26(S)] and FS [p=0.032, Mean Individual Diff.= -8±4cm, ES=0.21(S)]. Only the CON limb was observed to have a decrease in hop distance between the NFS and FS [p=0.009, Mean Individual Diff.=-8±3cm, ES=0.21(S)].

Figure 3F. Descriptive Statistics for CONTROL and ACLR Hop Testing Results in a Fatigued and Non-Fatigued State.

Figure 3F.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CONTROL, non-operative limb; ACLR, operative limb. P-values: *, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.05); **, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.01); #, significantly different from non-op limb at same time point (p<0.05); ##, significantly different from non-op limb at the same time point (p<0.01); ^^, significantly different from non-op limb for %change (p<0.05). Values are Mean ± SD.

Vertical (Figure 3G): The ACLR limb was observed to have reduced vertical hop height compared to the CON limb in the NFS [p=0.002, Mean Individual Diff.= -4±1cm, ES=0.36(M)] and FS [p=0.004, Mean Individual Diff.= -3±1cm, ES=0.39(M)].

Figure 3G. Descriptive Statistics for CONTROL and ACLR Hop Testing Results in a Fatigued and Non-Fatigued State.

Figure 3G.

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CONTROL, non-operative limb; ACLR, operative limb. P-values: *, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.05); **, significant difference from pre to post fatigue within the same limb (p<0.01); #, significantly different from non-op limb at same time point (p<0.05); ##, significantly different from non-op limb at the same time point (p<0.01); ^^, significantly different from non-op limb for %change (p<0.05). Values are Mean ± SD.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of fatigue on LSI during the performance of hop tests in non-fatigued versus fatigued states, post-ACLR with the intention of informing RTP decision making. Results from this study showed that in a NFS, the CON limb generally exhibited improved performance versus the FS on several hop tests. Additionally, in the NFS, participants were able to jump further, higher, and faster on their CON limb as compared to their ACLR limb. Conversely, in a FS, an ACLR to CON comparison indicates that jump distance, heights, and times were closer in magnitude. These results did not support the researcher’s original hypothesis that a fatigued state would have a greater effect on the ACLR limb. However, the most relevant finding of this study was that fatigue had a greater effect on the non-operative (CON) limb. Although the magnitude of differences within and between limbs across differing states of fatigue was generally small to moderate (ES=0.14 – 0.40), these data may provide useful information for future studies that examine fatigue and return to sport protocols, and highlight the potential role of fatigue as it pertains to injury risk for the non-operative limb in the early phases of return to sport participation.

A litany of research has been performed on the rehabilitation aspect of ACL reconstruction to date. However, there has been relatively little consensus throughout the literature on which measures are most clinically appropriate and whether or not fatigue should be considered during examination. Based on results of the current study, clinicians can be better informed on the clinical relevance of LSI and how fatigue may affect reported scoring measures.

Possible factors contributing to the current results include: (1) an overall detraining effect as a result of injury, surgery, and inactivity, and (2) a greater effect of said detraining on the unaffected limb as a result of increased focus by rehab clinicians on the operative limb. Previous authors have suggested that detraining occurs bilaterally as a result of injury and lengthy periods of altered activity levels.8,9,26–31 Future studies should attempt to screen for endurance prior to testing, but it remains possible that the current results indicate a neglect of the unaffected limb during rehabilitation, or a reduced resistance to fatigue.

Tests of limb symmetry are the most commonly used and reported objective criteria for determining readiness for RTP.6,8,9,26,27,29 Scores of <90% are indicative of a higher risk for re-injury, and current clinical commentary defines >95% as a more meaningful score for a successful and efficacious return to sport.8,29,30 These studies propose caution when interpreting limb symmetry scores, however, as function could actually be over-estimated with objective testing batteries – even when achieving “passing criteria” an athlete’s readiness to return may not be comprehensively reported.8,18 Fatigue is an under-reported element of return to sport assessment, and may provide valuable information in refining limb symmetry batteries.

The present study is not without limitations. First, fatigue is difficult to quantify and measure; there are multiple factors that affect the presence of fatigue, multiple forms of fatigue (cognitive, neuromuscular, etc.), and varying objective definitions of what is “a fatigued state”. Without the presence of live monitoring data such as a heart rate monitor or other biometric measurements, actual state of “fatigue” is unknown and could have been affected by the small time gap between the collection of RPE, and initiation of testing. The investigators attempted to account for this with a less than 30 second turnover to begin testing. Due to a lack of literature defining fatigue in an ACL population, the current study was designed to induce fatigue across multiple energy systems. Further investigation into objective measures of fatigue would benefit future research. Second, although the most common RTP testing criteria were used, there were other aspects of RTP testing that could be affected by fatigue including qualitative movement analysis and psychological/psychosocial variables of performance that were not accounted for. Future studies should aim to assess both quantitative and qualitative movement analyses in order to create a more complete picture of the effect fatigue has on movement following ACL reconstruction. Third, post-operative rehabilitation leading up to the study was not controlled, and may have varied greatly based on the treating rehabilitation specialist; this is an important factor to consider as treatment varies significantly based on clinical specialty and experience level.32,33 Based on the results of the current study, it is possible that increased focus on the CON throughout the course of rehabilitation could have altered results. Mirkov et al.33 and Hiemstra et al.34 highlight the effect of initial ACL injury on both the contractile and neural properties of the muscle, but as a whole, current studies fail to fully quantify and explain the magnitude of the detraining and initial injury on the CONTROL limb.33,34 As a result, further investigation into the effects of ACL injury on the unaffected limb is warranted.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide insight into the effect of fatigue on hop performance in individuals following ACLR which may inform RTP considerations. The results indicate that the effect of fatigue on the ACLR was generally less than on the CON limb for the given measures, which could have profound implications for RTP decision making when utilizing LSI as a criterion for RTP. As a result, the sole use of LSI in determining readiness for RTP may not be sufficient. Further research into the effect fatigue has on objective measures is needed to improve clinician’s decision making regarding RTP following ACL reconstruction. Although the full extent of the role of fatigue in ACL rehabilitation is not yet known, the findings in this study indicate that assessment of both limbs should be considered rather than just the ACLR limb when determining RTP criteria.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interests.

References

  1. Gordon M.D., Steiner M.E. Orthopaedic Knowledge Update Sports Medicine III. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; Rosemont, IL: Anterior cruciate ligament injuries; p. 169. [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Paterno Mark V., Rauh Mitchell J., Schmitt Laura C., Ford Kevin R., Hewett Timothy E. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 7. Vol. 42. SAGE Publications; Incidence of second ACL injuries 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport; pp. 1567–1573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Swärd Per, Kostogiannis Ioannis, Roos Harald. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 3. Vol. 18. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; Risk factors for a contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury; pp. 277–291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Incidence of contralateral and ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Paterno Mark V., Rauh Mitchell J., Schmitt Laura C., Ford Kevin R., Hewett Timothy E. Mar;2012 Clin J Sport Med. 22(2):116–121. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0b013e318246ef9e. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0b013e318246ef9e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bourne Matthew N., Webster Kate E., Hewett Timothy E. Sports Medicine. 11. Vol. 49. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; Is fatigue a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? pp. 1629–1635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fatigue increases ACL injury risk in youth athletes: risk assessment study using drop-jump test. Fidai Mohsin S., Okoroha Kelechi, Meldau Jason E., Borowsky Peter A., Meta Fabien, Lizzio Vincent A., Redler Lauren H., Moutzouros Vasilios, Makhni Eric C. Jul 1;2018 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 6(7):sup 4. doi: 10.1177/2325967118s00074. doi: 10.1177/2325967118s00074. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wellsandt Elizabeth, Failla Mathew J., Snyder-Mackler Lynn. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 5. Vol. 47. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT); Limb symmetry indexes can overestimate knee function after anterior cruciate ligament injury; pp. 334–338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Young athletes cleared for sports participation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how many actually meet recommended return-to-sport criterion cutoffs? Toole Allison R., Ithurburn Matthew P., Rauh Mitchell J., Hewett Timothy E., Paterno Mark V., Schmitt Laura C. Oct 7;2017 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 47(11):825–833. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7227. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2017.7227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. functional performance measures used for return-to-sport criteria in youth following lower-extremity injury. Powell Christie, Jensen Jody, Johnson Samantha. Nov;2018 Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 27(6):581–590. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2017-0061. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2017-0061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Return to play guidelines after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Myklebust G., Bahr R. 2005B. J Sports Med. 39:127–131. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.010900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Test-retest reliability of the yo-yo test: a systematic review. Grgic Jozo, Oppici Luca, Mikulic Pavle, Bangsbo Jens, Krustrup Peter, Pedisic Zeljko. Jul 3;2019 Sports Medicine. 49(10):1547–1557. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01143-4. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01143-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. The yo-yo intermittent recovery test: a useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Bangsbo Jens, Iaia F Marcello, Krustrup Peter. 2008Sports Medicine. 38(1):37–51. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838010-00004. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838010-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fatigue-induced ACL injury risk stems from a degradation in central control. McLean SCOTT G., Samorezov JULIA E. Aug;2009 Med Sci Sports Exerc. 41(8):1661–1672. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31819ca07b. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31819ca07b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Single-leg jump performance before and after exercise in healthy and anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed individuals. Bookbinder H., Slater L.V., Simpson A., Hertel J., Hart J.M. 2019J Sport Rehabil. 7:1–7. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nagai Takashi, Schilaty Nathan D., Laskowski Edward R., Hewett Timothy E. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 3. Vol. 28. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; Hop tests can result in higher limb symmetry index values than isokinetic strength and leg press tests in patients following ACL reconstruction; pp. 816–822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Effect of fatigue on landing performance assessed with the landing error scoring system (less) in patients after ACL reconstruction. A pilot study. Gokeler A., Eppinga P., Dijkstra P.U.., et al. 2014Int J Sports Phys Ther. 9(3):302–311. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Zwolski Christin, Schmitt Laura C., Thomas Staci, Hewett Timothy E., Paterno Mark V. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 8. Vol. 44. SAGE Publications; The utility of limb symmetry indices in return-to-sport assessment in patients with bilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; pp. 2030–2038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Yingling Vanessa R., Castro Dimitri A., Duong Justin T., Malpartida Fiorella J., Usher Justin R., O Jenny. PeerJ. Vol. 6. PeerJ; The reliability of vertical jump tests between the Vertec and My Jump phone application; p. e4669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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, Griffin J Robert. Mar 1;2007 Phys Ther. 87(3):337–349. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060143. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gignac Gilles E., Szodorai Eva T. Personality and individual differences. Vol. 102. Elsevier BV; Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers; pp. 74–78. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sawilowsky Shlomo S. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods. 2. Vol. 8. Wayne State University Library System; New effect size rules of thumb; pp. 597–599. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lambert BRADLEY S., CAIN MICHAEL T., HEIMDAL TYLER, HARRIS JOSHUA D., JOTWANI VIJAY, PETAK STEVEN, MCCULLOCH PATRICK C. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 8. Vol. 52. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health); Physiological Parameters of Bone Health in Elite Ballet Dancers; pp. 1668–1678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Impact of Valgus vs Varus Mechanical Axis Correction During Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty on Postoperative Periarticular Bone Mineral Density. Chapleau Julien, Lambert Bradley S., Sullivan Thomas C., Clyburn Terry A., Incavo Stephen J. 2020The Journal of Arthroplasty. 36(5):1792–1798. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.011. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Crouse Stephen F., Lytle Jason R., Boutros Sean, Benton William, Moreno Michael, McCulloch Patrick C., Lambert Brad S. Sports Medicine and Health Science. 3. Vol. 2. Elsevier BV; Wearable positive end-expiratory pressure valve improves exercise performance; pp. 159–165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Arundale Amelia J.H., Bizzini Mario, Giordano Airelle, Hewett Timothy E., Logerstedt David S., Mandelbaum Bert, Scalzitti David A., Silvers-Granelli Holly, Snyder-Mackler Lynn. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 9. Vol. 48. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT); Exercise-based knee and anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention; pp. A1–A42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Davies George J., McCarty Eric, Provencher Matthew, Manske Robert C. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 3. Vol. 10. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; ACL return to sport guidelines and criteria; pp. 307–314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. National athletic trainers’ association position statement: prevention of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Padua Darin A., DiStefano Lindsay J., Hewett Timothy E., Garrett William E., Marshall Stephen W., Golden Grace M., Shultz Sandra J., Sigward Susan M. Jan 1;2018 J Athl Train. 53(1):5–19. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-99-16. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-99-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lower extremity muscle strength after anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Thomas Abbey C., Villwock Mark, Wojtys Edward M., Palmieri-Smith Riann M. Oct 1;2013 J Athl Train. 48(5):610–620. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.3.23. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.3.23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Poor functional performance 1 year after ACL reconstruction increases the risk of early osteoarthritis progression. Patterson Brooke, Culvenor Adam Geoffrey, Barton Christian J, Guermazi Ali, Stefanik Joshua, Morris Hayden G, Whitehead Timothy S, Crossley Kay M. Apr 10;2020 British Journal of Sports Medicine. 54(9):546–553. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101503. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fatigue effects on knee joint stability during two jump tasks in women. Ortiz Alexis, Olson Sharon L, Etnyre Bruce, Trudelle-Jackson Elaine E, Bartlett William, Venegas-Rios Heidi L. Apr;2010 J Strength Cond Res. 24(4):1019–1027. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181c7c5d4. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181c7c5d4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fatigue increases dynamic knee valgus in youth athletes: results from a field-based drop-jump test. Fidai Mohsin S., Okoroha Kelechi R., Meldau Jason E., Meta Fabien, Lizzio Vincent A., Borowsky Peter, Redler Lauren H., Moutzouros Vasilios, Makhni Eric C. Jan;2020 Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 36(1):214–222.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.018. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.07.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Contralateral limb deficit after ACL-reconstruction: an analysis of early and late phase of rate of force development. Mirkov Dragan M., Knezevic Olivera M., Maffiuletti Nicola A., Kadija Marko, Nedeljkovic Aleksandar, Jaric Slobodan. 2017Journal of Sports Sciences. 35(5):435–440. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1168933. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1168933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Contralateral limb strength deficits after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a hamstring tendon graft. Hiemstra Laurie A., Webber Sandra, MacDonald Peter B., Kriellaars Dean J. Jun;2007 Clinical Biomechanics. 22(5):543–550. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.01.009. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES