Skip to main content
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Table 2 Participant information and functional performance in patients after ACL-IB, patients after ACL-R, and controls

From: Functional leg performance 2 years after ACL surgery: a comparison between InternalBrace™-augmented repair versus reconstruction versus healthy controls

Parameter

ACL-IB (n = 29)

ACL-R (n = 27)

Controls (n = 29)

P-value

Anthropometrics

 Sex (male/female)

13/16

13/14

13/16

 

 Age (years)

36.8 (10.6)

37.0 (10.7)

37.0 (10.7)

0.995

 Body mass (kg)

73.2 (10.9)

73.1 (14.5)

70.2 (16.6)

0.656

 Body height (cm)

172.2 (7.8)

170.5 (7.4)

172.6 (10.8)

0.643

 Body mass index (kg/m2)*

25.5 [21.2;26.5]*

24.5 [21.9;27.5]*

23.1 [20.4;24.9]*

0.134

Clinical parameters

 Time from injury to surgery (days)*

20 [15;25]*

28 [14;56]*

 

0.026f

 Follow-up (months)*

24.4 [23.6;27.2]*

24.2 [23.6;24.9]*

 

0.184f

 Operated leg

  Left

13 (45%)

12 (44%)

  

  Right

16 (55%)

15 (56%)

  

 Dominance of involved leg

  Dominant

14 (48%)

11 (41%)

  

  Non-dominant

15 (52%)

16 (59%)

  

Concomitant injuries and surgeriesa

(e.g., meniscus, MCL, or LCL lesions)

23 (79%)

24 (89%)

  

 IKDC questionnaire*

85.0 [75.9;92.5]*

82.0 [75.9;87.4]*

97.7 [96.6;100.0]*

 < 0.001d; < 0.001e; 0.324f

 TAS at follow-up*

4.0 [4.0;6.0]*

4.0 [4.0;5.0]*

4.0 [3.0;5.0]*

0.329

Functional parameters

Involved

Uninvolved

Involved

Uninvolved

Non-dominant

Dominant

 

 Hop performance

  SLH distance (% BH)

  (N = 28/26/29)b

64.0 (22.7)

68.1 (20.8)

62.8 (15.3)

68.6 (15.8)

68.7 (15.4)

70.0 (14.8)

 

  SH (n)c

  (N = 23/24/29)b

19 (11)

22 (13)

20 (14)

22 (12)

21 (12)

22 (13)

 

 Proprioception

  Joint position sense (N = 29/27/29)b

   Error 60° flexion (°)

3.0 (2.4)

2.4 (1.7)

2.9 (1.6)

2.8 (1.8)

3.2 (1.8)

2.8 (1.5)

 

   Error 30° flexion (°)

3.2 (2.3)

2.4 (1.4)

3.3 (1.5)

2.5 (1.7)

3.3 (1.9)

2.9 (2.2)

 

 Dynamic postural control

  Y Balance (N = 29/27/29)b

   Anterior (% LL)

63.3 (6.0)

64.6 (5.2)

62.7 (7.4)

63.4 (7.2)

65.8 (6.7)

66.0 (7.5)

 

   Posteromedial (% LL)

103.6 (11.6)

106.1 (10.2)

102.3 (9.3)

102.9 (8.1)

104.4 (10.0)

104.8 (9.6)

 

   Posterolateral (% LL)

98.3 (12.3)

98.8 (11.3)

97.1 (8.6)

98.3 (8.9)

96.3 (12.4)

98.3 (12.7)

 

   Composite score (% LL)

88.4 (9.1)

89.8 (8.3)

87.4 (7.6)

88.2 (6.9)

88.9 (8.5)

89.7 (8.5)

 
  1. ACL-IB anterior cruciate ligament repair and InternalBrace™ augmentation after proximal ruptures, ACL-R anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, MCL medial collateral ligament, LCL lateral collateral ligament, IKDC International Knee Documentation Committee, TAS Tegner activity score, SLH single-leg hop, SH side hop, BH body height, LL leg length, SSD side-to-side difference (patients: involved–uninvolved; controls: non-dominant–dominant), CI confidence interval
  2. Values other than number of participants (N) are given as mean (standard deviation) and P-values for one-way analysis of variance, if not specified otherwise; distributions are given as number of subjects and percentage of the respective group
  3. *Values are given as median [25;75] percentile and P-values for Kruskal–Wallis test with post hoc Mann–Whitney U test, as Q–Q plots revealed no normal distribution in at least one of the groups
  4. aInjury- and treatment-related data were obtained from surgical and consultation reports
  5. bNumber of participants (ACL-IB/ACL-R/controls) who completed a functional test with both legs
  6. cMean values of the number of side hops were rounded down to full jumps
  7. Bold printed results indicate significance (P < 0.05)
  8. d ACL-IB versus controls
  9. e ACL-R versus controls
  10. f ACL-IB versus ACL-R
Back to article page