Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy logoLink to International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
. 2021 Oct 1;16(5):1278–1285. doi: 10.26603/001c.28088

Kinetic Asymmetry During a Repetitive Tuck Jump Task in Athletes with a History of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Adam W VanZile 1, Matthew J Snyder 2, Emily A Watkins 3, Jithmie Jayawickrema 4, Tricia L Widenhoefer 5, Thomas G Almonroeder 6,✉
PMCID: PMC8486401  PMID: 34631248

Abstract

Background

Athletes who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction typically exhibit relatively high/rapid loading of their uninvolved limb during bilateral landing and jumping (vs. their limb that underwent reconstruction), which may place their uninvolved limb at risk for injury. However, previous studies have only examined forces and loading rates for tasks involving an isolated land-and-jump.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine bilateral landing and jumping kinetics during performance of a repetitive tuck jump task in athletes who had undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and completed rehabilitation.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study

Methods

Nine athletes (four males, five females) participated in this study. All participants had undergone successful unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, had completed post-operative rehabilitation, and were in the process of completing return-to-sport testing. Athletes performed a repetitive tuck jump task for 10 seconds, while ground reaction forces were recorded for their uninvolved and involved limbs via separate force platforms. Two-way analysis of variance, for within-subjects factors of limb and cycle, was performed for the impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces from the first five land-and-jump cycles completed.

Results

There was not a limb-by-cycle interaction effect or main effect of cycle for the impact forces, loading rates, or propulsive forces; however, there was a main effect of limb for the impact forces (F(1, 8) = 14.64; p=0.005), loading rates (F(1, 8) = 5.60; p=0.046), and propulsive forces (F(1, 8) = 10.38; p=0.012). Impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces were higher for the uninvolved limb, compared to the involved limb, over the five land-and-jump cycles analyzed.

Conclusion

The athletes in this study consistently applied higher and more rapid loads to their uninvolved limb over multiple land-and-jump cycles. This may help to explain the relatively high injury rates for the uninvolved limb in athletes who have returned to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Keywords: sports medicine, rehabilitation, plyometrics, force, biomechanics

Introduction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are common among young athletes who compete in sports that involved frequent landing and jumping, such as basketball.1 Surgical reconstruction of the ACL is commonly recommended for athletes who plan to resume sports participation.2 Unfortunately, athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction are at relatively high risk for sustaining another ACL injury after returning to sport (compared to athletes without a history of ACL injury).3 In most cases the second ACL injury occurs during the first year following return to sport and involves the athlete’s previously uninjured limb (i.e. contralateral to the limb that underwent ACL reconstruction).4 It appears there is an urgent need to identify factors that contribute to secondary risk of ACL injury (uninjured limb) in athletes who return to sport following ACL reconstruction.

Athletes often exhibit inter-limb asymmetries in limb loading during bilateral landing and jumping, even after they have completed rehabilitation and returned to sport.5–11 Typically, athletes apply higher and more rapid loads to their uninvolved limb during landing and jumping, compared to their ACL-reconstructed limb. For example, Paterno et al.7 examined vertical ground reaction forces during performance of a drop vertical jump task in a group of 14 athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction, completed rehabilitation, and been cleared to return to sport by their physician and physical therapist, and found that the athletes in their study demonstrated higher peak vertical ground reaction forces for their uninvolved limbs (vs. their involved limbs) during the initial landing phase of the drop vertical jump (impact forces) and immediately prior to takeoff (propulsive forces). In addition, they also demonstrated higher loading rates for their uninvolved limbs during landing. These inter-limb kinetic asymmetries may help to explain why ACL injuries are common for the uninvolved limb in athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction, as relatively high/rapid impact forces contribute to a movement pattern that strains the ACL12 and may increase ACL injury risk.13,14

While previous authors have found that athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction tend to exhibit higher and more rapid loading of their uninvolved limb during bilateral landing and jumping, these studies have only included tasks that involve a single land-and-jump. As a result, it is unclear whether inter-limb asymmetry in limb loading changes as athletes complete multiple land-and-jump cycles. This is important to examine since athletes must often perform a series of landing-and-jumping cycles in short succession during competition. For instance, a basketball player pursuing a rebound may need to land and quickly jump, repeatedly. Athletes also often complete multiple land-and-jump cycles during plyometric training (e.g. repeated tuck jumps).15,16 In addition, previous studies have not examined symmetry in foot initial contact timing during performance of a repetitive jump-landing task. Examining foot initial contact timing could provide additional insight, since the limbs are loaded very rapidly during landing, and therefore, even subtle asymmetries in initial contact timing could contribute to an overreliance on one limb for support.16

The purpose of this study was to examine bilateral landing and jumping kinetics during performance of a repetitive tuck jump task in athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction and completed rehabilitation. It was hypothesized that athletes would demonstrate higher impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces for their uninvolved limb, compared to their involved limb, for each land-and-jump cycle analyzed. No a priori hypotheses were proposed regarding how the degree of inter-limb asymmetry would change as athletes completed successive land-and-jump cycles, since previous studies have not examined changes in limb loading across multiple jump-landings. A secondary purpose of this study was to examine foot initial contact timing during performance of the repetitive tuck jump task, as this could provide additional insight into why athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction tend to exhibit greater loading of their uninjured limb during landing.

Methods

Nine athletes (four males, five females) participated in this cross-sectional study. All data were collected during the athlete’s return to sport testing session, which took place at the Academy of Sports and Health Centre (Fort Wayne, IN, USA). Athletes were eligible to participate if they were between 14-25 years of age, had undergone successful unilateral primary ACL reconstruction within the previous 18 months, intended to return to a sport that involved landing/jumping, had completed conventional post-operative rehabilitation, and had been cleared by their physician and physical therapist to resume landing and jumping activities. Athletes who were 14-25 years of age were selected for this study because this appears to be the age range where most ACL injuries occur17 and the risk of a second ACL injury appears to be particularly high in athletes 25 years of age or younger.3 Athletes were excluded from participating if they had a history of surgery or significant injury involving their uninvolved limb. All athletes had isolated ACL injuries, with no other concomitant injuries. The mean (± standard deviation) age, mass, and height of the athletes were 16.9 ± 1.8 years, 70.3 ± 12.4 kg, and 1.8 ± 0.1 m. The median (range) number of days since their ACL reconstruction surgery was 175 days (152-223 days). Six athletes had received bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts and three had received hamstrings tendon autografts. Five athletes reported that they had injured their dominant limb, while four athletes reported that they had injured their non-dominant limb. For the purpose of this study, the dominant limb was defined as the leg the athletes reported that they would have used to kick a ball for maximal distance prior to their injury. This study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Lutheran Hospital (Fort Wayne, IN, USA). All athletes provided informed consent/assent prior to enrollment and informed consent was obtained from a parent or guardian for athletes who were younger than 18 years of age.

Athletes completed the Sport and Recreation subscale of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire prior to testing.18 The Sport and Recreation subscale of the KOOS asks individuals to rate their perceived level of difficulty with squatting, running, jumping, twisting/pivoting, and kneeling on a Likert scale (none, mild, moderate, severe, extreme) and values are transformed into a percentage where 0% represents extreme difficulty and 100% represents no deficits in knee-related function. The Sport and Recreation subscale of the KOOS has been shown to demonstrate good test-retest reliability in individuals with a history of ACL injury (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81) and is responsive to changes in knee-related function following ACL reconstruction.18 This self-reported measure was recorded in order to describe the athletes’ perceived level of knee-related function.

Next, athletes completed a standardized warm-up that included various landing and jumping tasks. They then completed the repetitive tuck jump task described by Myer et al.16 Athletes started in a standing position with their feet on separate, adjacent force platforms (AccuPower, Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA) (Figure 1). They initiated the tuck jump task by performing a rapid countermovement, jumped vertically bringing their knees upward until their thighs were parallel to the ground (tuck jump), and then landed on both limbs. Upon landing, they immediately performed the next tuck jump as quickly as possible. The athletes continued to perform tuck jumps for 10 seconds. The force platforms simultaneously recorded three-dimensional ground reaction forces at a sampling rate of 600 Hz throughout performance of the repetitive tuck jump task. Athletes were encouraged to focus on jumping vertically during the task so that their feet continued to contact the same force platforms. An investigator monitored the locations of the athletes’ feet during the landings and noted when an athlete’s foot did not appear to land completely within the respective force platform. Each athlete was given a demonstration and performed a limited practice trial prior to testing.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Left panel - picture of the dual force platform setup. Right panel - example of one athlete’s vertical ground reaction force time series during performance of the repetitive tuck jump task (uninjured limb = black time series; injured limb = grey time series).

Ground reaction force data were filtered using a 4th order, zero lag, low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz and normalized to body weight (BW).7 The peak vertical ground reaction forces (impact forces) and loading rates during the initial 25% of stance and the peak vertical ground reaction forces during last 25% of stance (propulsive forces) were identified from the time series associated with each force platform during the first five land-and-jump cycles of the repetitive tuck jump task (Figure 1). All athletes successfully landed with their feet on separate force platforms for the first five land-and-jump cycles. Additional land-and-jump cycles beyond the first five were not examined since many athletes failed to continue to land with their feet on separate force platforms. The stance phase was defined as the total time when the vertical ground reaction force exceeded a threshold of 10 N (i.e. initial contact to takeoff). Loading rates were calculated by dividing the impact forces by the time from initial contact until the impact force (BW/s).7 Inter-limb symmetry indices were also calculated for the impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces for each land-and-jump cycle by dividing the values for the involved limb by those of the uninvolved limb, and multiplying by 100.8 As a result, inter-limb symmetry index values less than 100% reflect lower or less rapid loading of the involved limb.

In order to examine initial contact timing during the landings, the first frame where the vertical ground reaction force exceeded 10 N (initial contact) and remained greater than 10 N for at least 50 frames was identified. The difference between the initial contact frames for each limb (uninvolved, involved) was then converted to milliseconds (ms) based on the sampling rate of the force platforms.19,20 Calculations were performed so that positive values represented earlier initial contact for the uninvolved limb, negative values represented earlier initial contact for the involved limb, and zero values represented simultaneous initial contact. Unfiltered ground reaction force data were used for examining the initial contact timing,19 since filtering can result in inaccurate temporal events, especially when there is a rapid change in signal amplitude.21 All data processing was completed using custom MATLAB scripts (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).

Statistical Analysis

Two-way analysis of variance for within-subjects factors of ‘limb’ (uninvolved, involved) and ‘cycle’ (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th land-and-jump cycle) were performed for the impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces. Main effects of limb and cycle were examined when there was not a significant limb-by-cycle interaction effect. A repeated measures analysis of variance, for a within-subjects factor of cycle, was conducted to examine initial contact timing differences among the landings. An alpha of .05 was used for all statistical tests. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis (Version 27; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the initial contact timing differences.

Results

The mean (range) score on the Sport and Recreation subscale of the KOOS questionnaire was 90.0% (80-100%).

For the impact forces, there was not a limb-by-cycle interaction effect (F(4, 32) = 1.14; p=0.355) or main effect of cycle (F(4, 32) = 0.45; p=0.770); however, there was a main effect of limb (F(1, 8) = 14.64; p=0.005). Impact forces were higher for the uninvolved limb across all five landings analyzed (Tables 1 2).

Table 1. Impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces for the uninvolved limb (Uninv) and ACL-reconstructed (involved) limb (ACLR) for the first five land-and-jump cycles of the repetitive tuck jump task.

1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle 4th Cycle 5th Cycle
Uninv ACLR Uninv ACLR Uninv ACLR Uninv ACLR Uninv ACLR
Impact Forces (BW) 1.98 ±0.41 1.55 ±0.25 2.17 ±0.63 1.53 ±0.34 2.07 ±0.50 1.69 ±0.35 2.13 ±0.62 1.65 ±0.37 1.95 ±0.40 1.68 ±0.39
Loading Rates (BW/s) 29.61 ±9.17 22.98 ±7.40 33.74 ±12.92 23.91 ±7.45 31.47 ±11.86 26.25 ±7.44 32.00 ±12.38 28.76 ±12.17 28.89 ±10.34 27.34 ±14.44
Propulsive Forces (BW) 2.01 ±0.72 1.63 ±0.58 2.05 ±0.85 1.63 ±0.62 1.88 ±0.75 1.70 ±0.64 2.10 ±0.87 1.68 ±0.56 2.01 ±0.75 1.79 ±0.78
Open in a new tab

Mean ± standard deviation impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces for each landing. Uninv = uninvolved limb; ACLR = ACL-reconstructed (involved) limb; BW = bodyweight; BW/s = bodyweight/second

Table 2. Impact force, loading rate, and propulsive force inter-limb symmetry indices for the first five land-and-jump cycles of the repetitive tuck jump task.

1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle 4th Cycle 5th Cycle
Impact Force Inter-Limb Symmetry Index (%) 80.10 ±14.56 76.52 ±28.28 83.60 ±15.89 80.91 ±19.76 86.81 ±11.81
Loading Rate Inter-Limb Symmetry Index (%) 79.00 ±14.25 79.41 ±36.01 88.96 ±20.70 96.00 ±38.11 93.32 ±25.72
Propulsive Forces Inter-Limb Symmetry Index (%) 81.60 ±9.40 83.83 ±20.25 94.04 ±24.67 83.91 ±13.77 88.03 ±12.08
Open in a new tab

Mean ± standard deviation impact force, loading rate, and propulsive force inter-limb symmetry indices for each land-and-jump cycle analyzed. Symmetry index values less than 100% reflect higher or more rapid loading of the uninvolved limb, compared to the involved limb.

For the loading rates, there was not a limb-by-cycle interaction effect (F(4, 32) = 1.60; p=0.198) or main effect of cycle (F(4, 32) = 0.86; p=0.501); however, there was a main effect of limb (F(1, 8) = 5.60; p=0.046). Loading rates were higher for the uninvolved limb across all five landings analyzed (Tables 1 2).

For the propulsive forces, there was not a limb-by-cycle interaction effect (F(4, 32) = 1.02; p=0.412) or main effect of cycle (F(4, 32) = 0.35; p=0.839); however, there was a main effect of limb (F(1, 8)= 10.38; p=0.012). Propulsive forces were higher for the uninvolved limb across all five land-and-jump cycles analyzed (Tables 1 2).

The repeated measures analysis of variance indicated that there was no difference in initial contact timing among the five landings (F(4, 32) = 0.062; p=0.993) (Table 3).

Table 3. Initial contact timing differences for the first five landings of the repetitive tuck jump task.

1st Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle 4th Cycle 5th Cycle
Time (ms) 4.4 ± 7.5
(-1.4, 10.2)		 5.0 ± 12.1
(-4.3, 14.3)		 6.5 ± 14.2
(-4.4, 17.4)		 6.1 ± 16.0
(-6.2, 18.4)		 5.6 ± 14.7
(-5.7, 16.9)
Open in a new tab

Mean ± standard deviation and 95% confidence interval (lower bound, upper bound) for the initial contact timing differences for each landing analyzed. Positive values indicate that the uninvolved limb made contact prior to the involved limb. ms = milliseconds.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to examine bilateral landing and jumping kinetics during performance of a repetitive tuck jump task in athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction and completed rehabilitation. As hypothesized, athletes demonstrated higher impact forces, loading rates, and propulsive forces for their uninvolved limb, compared to their involved limb, for each land-and-jump cycle analyzed (main effects of limb). The degree of inter-limb kinetic asymmetry did not change significantly across the five land-and-jump cycles (no limb-by-cycle interaction effects). As a result, it appears that the athletes maintained a fairly consistent level of inter-limb kinetic asymmetry when performing the repetitive tuck jump task. The results of this study build on those of earlier studies5–11 that have identified persistent inter-limb kinetic asymmetry during performance of tasks involving a single land-and-jump in athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction and may help to explain why ACL injuries are common for the uninvolved limb in athletes who return to sport following ACL reconstruction.

The athletes in this study exhibited inter-limb impact force differences ranging from 14.6-34.7% for the five successive land-and-jump cycles analyzed. In each instance, impact forces were greater for the uninvolved limb. This finding that athletes tend to offload their involved limb is consistent with previous studies that have examined isolated, double-leg landings in athletes post-ACL reconstruction.5–11 Inter-limb symmetry in loading rates and propulsive forces have been less frequently examined in athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction. However, Paterno et al.7 reported that loading rates during the landing phase of a drop vertical jump were 45.4% higher for the uninvolved limb, compared to the involved limb, in a group of athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction and been cleared to return to sport. In addition, they also reported that propulsive forces were 16.7% higher for the uninvolved limb. In general, there appears to be agreement among studies that the uninvolved limb tends to experience higher and more rapid loading following ACL reconstruction, during both single (previous studies)5–11 and multiple jump land-and-jump cycles (the current study). This shift in loading toward the uninvolved limb likely places greater demands on the uninvolved knee, as asymmetries in ground reaction forces appear to correlate with asymmetries in knee loading.22,23 In addition, previous studies have also found that athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction demonstrate greater knee loading (e.g. increased knee extension moments) for their uninvolved limb during bilateral landing and jumping.6,10,11 These persistent kinetic asymmetries may increase risk of a secondary ACL injury24 and/or contribute to knee degenerative changes.11,25,26 As a result, there appears to be a need to explore novel rehabilitation approaches that could potentially more effectively target these persistent kinetic asymmetries. For instance, providing visual feedback related to side-to-side differences in limb loading during movement performance may be particularly effective for promoting inter-limb kinetic symmetry and minimizing maladaptive changes in an athlete’s movement pattern following ACL reconstruction.27 It is also important to continue to examine factors that contribute to inter-limb kinetic asymmetry following ACL reconstruction (e.g. fear of re-injury, strength deficits, motor pattern adaptations).10,28,29

Although not the primary purpose of this study, it is interesting that athletes tended to make earlier initial contact with their uninvolved limb during landing (based on the sign of the average initial contact timing differences). While it should be noted that the 95% CIs all included zero, on average, initial contact occurred 4.4-6.5 ms earlier for the uninvolved limb across the five landings analyzed. Ford et al.19 examined initial contact limb preference during the initial landing phase of a drop vertical jump in 101 athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction and found that 71.3% made initial contact first with their uninvolved limb. It appears that athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction have a tendency to make initial contact with their uninvolved limb, prior to their involved limb, upon landing. Perhaps this reflects a movement strategy to reduce loading of the involved limb during bilateral landings.

The repetitive tuck jump task is a common plyometric training exercise for athletes.15 The results of this study indicate that athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction may consistently offload their involved limb when performing repeated tuck jumps. Physical therapists, athletic trainers, and strength and conditioning coaches should consider this when prescribing the repetitive tuck jump task for athletes with a history of ACL reconstruction, as consistently offloading the involved limb and placing greater loads on the uninvolved limb may contribute to the development, or further development, of inter-limb neuromuscular asymmetries.

Although the findings from this study make a valuable contribution to an important body of literature, the study limitations need to be acknowledged. First, only the initial five land-and-jump cycles of the repetitive tuck jump task were examined; inter-limb symmetry could change as athletes complete additional cycles. In addition, the tuck jump task may not reflect the type of repetitive landing and jumping routinely performed in sports such as basketball. In-shoe kinetic sensors30 and inertial measurement units31 offer opportunities to examine inter-limb kinetic symmetry during landing and jumping under more game-like conditions. This study also did not include a comparison group of uninjured athletes. However, previous studies have already determined that athletes who have undergone ACL reconstruction demonstrate greater inter-limb kinetic asymmetry compared to athletes without a history of ACL reconstruction.

Conclusion

During performance of a repetitive tuck jump task, athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction applied higher and more rapid loads to their uninvolved limb, compared to their involved limb. They also exhibited a tendency to make initial foot contact first with their uninvolved limb during landing. These inter-limb asymmetries may help to explain why athletes often sustain ACL injuries involving their previously uninjured limb upon returning to sport following ACL reconstruction.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Disclosure

This study received no funding.

References

  1. Gornitzky Alex L., Lott Ariana, Yellin Joseph L., Fabricant Peter D., Lawrence J. Todd, Ganley Theodore J. Sport-specific yearly risk and incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears in high school athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 10. Vol. 44. SAGE Publications; pp. 2716–2723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries Evidence-Based Guideline. Carey James L., Shea Kevin G. May;2015 Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 23(5):e6–e8. doi: 10.5435/jaaos-d-15-00095. doi: 10.5435/jaaos-d-15-00095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Wiggins Amelia J., Grandhi Ravi K., Schneider Daniel K., Stanfield Denver, Webster Kate E., Myer Gregory D. Jan 15;2016 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 44(7):1861–1876. doi: 10.1177/0363546515621554. doi: 10.1177/0363546515621554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Incidence of second ACL injuries 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Paterno Mark V., Rauh Mitchell J., Schmitt Laura C., Ford Kevin R., Hewett Timothy E. Apr 21;2014 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 42(7):1567–1573. doi: 10.1177/0363546514530088. doi: 10.1177/0363546514530088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Do ground reaction forces during unilateral and bilateral movements exhibit compensation strategies following ACL reconstruction? Baumgart Christian, Schubert Markus, Hoppe Matthias W., Gokeler Alli, Freiwald Jürgen. 2017Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 25(5):1385–1394. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3623-7. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3623-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Change in drop-landing mechanics over 2 years in young athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Ithurburn Matthew P., Paterno Mark V., Thomas Staci, Pennell Michael L., Evans Kevin D., Magnussen Robert A., Schmitt Laura C. Aug 2;2019 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 47(11):2608–2616. doi: 10.1177/0363546519864688. doi: 10.1177/0363546519864688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Limb asymmetry in landing and jumping 2 years following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Paterno Mark V, Ford Kevin R, Myer Gregory D, Heyl Rachel, Hewett Timothy E. Jul;2007 Clin J Sport Med. 17(4):258–262. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0b013e31804c77ea. doi: 10.1097/jsm.0b013e31804c77ea. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Effects of sex on compensatory landing strategies upon return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Paterno Mark V., Schmitt Laura C., Ford Kevin R., Rauh Mitchell J., Myer Gregory D., Hewett Timothy E. Aug;2011 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 41(8):553–559. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3591. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lower limb kinetic asymmetries in professional soccer players with and without anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: nine months is not enough time to restore ‘functional’ symmetry or return to performance. Read Paul J., Auliffe Sean Michael, Wilson Mathew G., Graham-Smith Philip. Apr 15;2020 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 48(6):1365–1373. doi: 10.1177/0363546520912218. doi: 10.1177/0363546520912218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Strength asymmetry and landing mechanics at return to sport after ACL reconstruction. Schmitt LAURA C., Paterno MARK V., Ford KEVIN R., Myer GREGORY D., Hewett TIMOTHY E. Jul;2015 Med Sci Sports Exerc. 47(7):1426–1434. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000000560. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000000560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Abnormal biomechanics at 6 months are associated with cartilage degeneration at 3 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Shimizu Tomohiro, Samaan Michael A., Tanaka Matthew S., Pedoia Valentina, Souza Richard B., Li Xiaojuan, Ma C. Benjamin. Feb;2019 Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 35(2):511–520. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.07.033. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.07.033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Effect of sagittal plane mechanics on ACL strain during jump landing. Bakker Ryan, Tomescu Sebastian, Brenneman Elora, Hangalur Gajendra, Laing Andrew, Chandrashekar Naveen. Jan 27;2016 Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 34(9):1636–1644. doi: 10.1002/jor.23164. doi: 10.1002/jor.23164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: A prospective study. Hewett Timothy E., Myer Gregory D., Ford Kevin R., Heidt Robert S. Jr., Colosimo Angelo J., McLean Scott G., van den Bogert Antonie J., Paterno Mark V., Succop Paul. Apr;2005 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 33(4):492–501. doi: 10.1177/0363546504269591. doi: 10.1177/0363546504269591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stiff landings are associated with increased ACL injury risk in young female basketball and floorball players. Leppänen Mari, Pasanen Kati, Kujala Urho M., Vasankari Tommi, Kannus Pekka, Äyrämö Sami, Krosshaug Tron, Bahr Roald, Avela Janne, Perttunen Jarmo, Parkkari Jari. 2017The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 45(2):386–393. doi: 10.1177/0363546516665810. doi: 10.1177/0363546516665810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. The effects of plyometric vs. dynamic stabilization and balance training on power, balance, and landing force in female athletes. Myer G.D., Ford K.R., Jensen B.L.., et al. 2006J Strength Cond Res. 20(2):345–353. doi: 10.1519/R-17955.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tuck jump assessment for reducing anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Myer Gregory D., Ford Kevin R., Hewett Timothy E. Sep;2008 Athl Ther Today. 13(5):39–44. doi: 10.1123/att.13.5.39. doi: 10.1123/att.13.5.39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction: A 21-year population-based study. Sanders Thomas L., Kremers Hilal Maradit , Bryan Andrew J., Larson Dirk R., Dahm Diane L., Levy Bruce A., Stuart Michael J., Krych Aaron J. Feb 26;2016 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 44(6):1502–1507. doi: 10.1177/0363546516629944. doi: 10.1177/0363546516629944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. Roos Ewa M., Roos Harald P., Lohmander L. Stefan, Ekdahl Charlotte, Beynnon Bruce D. Aug;1998 Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 28(2):88–96. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Identification of preferred landing leg in athletes previously injured and uninjured: A brief report. Ford Kevin R., Schmitt Laura C., Hewett Timothy E., Paterno Mark V. Jan;2016 Clinical Biomechanics. 31:113–116. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.020. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.09.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Between-limb asymmetry in kinetic and temporal characteristics during bilateral plyometric drop jumps from different heights. Lim Yi Y., Sterzing Thorsten, Teo Crosby J.Y., Alonzo Rebecca, Pan Jing W., Teng Phillis S.P., Kong Pui W. Apr 14;2020 Journal of Sports Sciences. 38(14):1605–1614. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1752535. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1752535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Design and responses of Butterworth and critically damped digital filters. Robertson D.Gordon E., Dowling James J. Dec;2003 Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 13(6):569–573. doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00080-4. doi: 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00080-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Using ground reaction force to predict knee kinetic asymmetry following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Dai B., Butler R. J., Garrett W. E., Queen R. M. 2014Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 24(6):974–981. doi: 10.1111/sms.12118. doi: 10.1111/sms.12118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Assessment of knee kinetic symmetry using force plate technology. Nelson Aaron, Koslakiewicz Nathan, Almonroeder Thomas Gus. Nov;2018 Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 27(6):609–611. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2018-0002. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2018-0002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Biomechanical measures during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport. Paterno Mark V., Schmitt Laura C., Ford Kevin R., Rauh Mitchell J., Myer Gregory D., Huang Bin, Hewett Timothy E. Aug 11;2010 The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 38(10):1968–1978. doi: 10.1177/0363546510376053. doi: 10.1177/0363546510376053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Longitudinal changes in the total knee joint moment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction correlate with cartilage thickness changes. Erhart‐Hledik Jennifer C, Chu Constance R, Asay Jessica L, Favre Julien, Andriacchi Thomas P. Apr 25;2019 Journal of Orthopaedic Research. 37(7):1546–1554. doi: 10.1002/jor.24295. doi: 10.1002/jor.24295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Patients with abnormal limb kinetics at 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have an increased risk of persistent medial meniscal abnormality at 3 years. Shimizu Tomohiro, Markes Alexander R., Samaan Michael A., Tanaka Matthew S., Souza Richard B., Li Xiaojuan, Ma C. Benjamin. Jan 1;2020 Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 8(1):232596711989524. doi: 10.1177/2325967119895248. doi: 10.1177/2325967119895248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Loading behaviors do not matching loading abilities postanterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Chan MING-SHENG, Sigward SUSAN M. Feb 21;2019 Med Sci Sport Exerc. 51(8):1626–1634. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000001956. doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000001956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Immersive virtual reality improves movement patterns in patients after ACL reconstruction: Implications for enhanced criteria-based return-to-sport rehabilitation. Gokeler Alli, Bisschop Marsha, Myer Gregory D., Benjaminse Anne, Dijkstra Pieter U., van Keeken Helco G., van Raay Jos J. A. M., Burgerhof Johannes G. M., Otten Egbert. 2016Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 24(7):2280–2286. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3374-x. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3374-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Greater fear of reinjury is related to stiffened jump-landing biomechanics and muscle activation in women after ACL reconstruction. Trigsted Stephanie M., Cook Dane B., Pickett Kristen A., Cadmus-Bertram Lisa, Dunn Warren R., Bell David R. Apr 26;2018 Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 26(12):3682–3689. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-4950-2. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-4950-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Using force sensing insoles to predict kinetic knee symmetry during a stop jump. Peebles Alexander T., Ford Kevin R., Taylor Jeffrey B., Hart Joseph M., Sands Laura P., Queen Robin M. Oct;2019 Journal of Biomechanics. 95:109293. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.07.037. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.07.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Characterizing knee loading asymmetry in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using inertial sensors. Sigward Susan M., Chan Ming-Sheng M., Lin Paige E. Sep;2016 Gait & Posture. 49:114–119. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.06.021. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.06.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES