Evaluating Gait with Force Sensing Insoles 6 Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Autograft Comparison

Overview

Journal Med Sci Sports Exerc

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Sep 16

PMID 39283230

Authors

Rachel E Cherelstein

Christopher Kuenze

Matthew S Harkey

Michelle C Walaszek

Corey Grozier

Emily R Brumfield

Jennifer N Lewis

Garrison A Hughes

Edward S Chang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Aberrant knee mechanics during gait 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are associated with markers of knee cartilage degeneration. The purpose of this study was to compare loading during walking gait in quadriceps tendon, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), and hamstring tendon autograft patients 6 months post-ACLR using loadsol single sensor insoles, and to evaluate associations between loading and patient-reported outcomes.

Methods: Seventy-two patients (13 to 40 yr) who underwent unilateral, primary ACLR with BPTB, quadriceps tendon, or hamstring tendon autograft completed treadmill gait assessment, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey, and the ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) survey 6 ± 1 months post-ACLR. Ground reaction forces were collected using loadsols. Limb symmetry indices (LSI) for peak impact force (PIF), loading response instantaneous loading rate (ILR), and loading response average loading rate (ALR) were compared between groups using separate analyses of covariance. Survey scores were compared between groups using one-way ANOVAs. The relationships between IKDC, ACL-RSI, and LSI were compared using Pearson's product moment correlation coefficients.

Results: There were no significant differences between graft sources for LSI in PIF, ILR, ALR, or impulse. Patient-reported knee function was significantly different between graft source groups with the BPTB group reporting the highest IKDC scores; however, there was no significant difference between groups for ACL-RSI score. There were no significant associations between IKDC score, ACL-RSI score, and biomechanical symmetry among any of the graft source groups.

Conclusions: Autograft type does not influence PIF, ILR, ALR, or impulse during walking 6 months post-ACLR. Limb symmetry during gait is not strongly associated with patient-reported outcomes regardless of graft source. Loadsols appear to be a suitable tool for use in the clinical rehabilitation setting.

References

Di Stasi S, Logerstedt D, Gardinier E, Snyder-Mackler L . Gait patterns differ between ACL-reconstructed athletes who pass return-to-sport criteria and those who fail. Am J Sports Med. 2013; 41(6):1310-8. PMC: 3732407. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513482718. View

Anderson A, Irrgang J, Kocher M, Mann B, Harrast J . The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data. Am J Sports Med. 2005; 34(1):128-35. DOI: 10.1177/0363546505280214. View

Pietrosimone B, Troy Blackburn J, Padua D, Pfeiffer S, Davis H, Luc-Harkey B . Walking gait asymmetries 6 months following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction predict 12-month patient-reported outcomes. J Orthop Res. 2018; 36(11):2932-2940. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24056. View

Diermeier T, Rothrauff B, Engebretsen L, Lynch A, Svantesson E, Hamrin Senorski E . Treatment after ACL injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. Br J Sports Med. 2020; 55(1):14-22. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102200. View

Friel N, Chu C . The role of ACL injury in the development of posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis. Clin Sports Med. 2012; 32(1):1-12. PMC: 6548436. DOI: 10.1016/j.csm.2012.08.017. View

Welling W, Benjaminse A, Seil R, Lemmink K, Zaffagnini S, Gokeler A . Low rates of patients meeting return to sport criteria 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective longitudinal study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018; 26(12):3636-3644. PMC: 6267144. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-4916-4. View

Runer A, Keeling L, Wagala N, Nugraha H, Ozbek E, Hughes J . Current trends in graft choice for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - part II: In-vivo kinematics, patient reported outcomes, re-rupture rates, strength recovery, return to sports and complications. J Exp Orthop. 2023; 10(1):40. PMC: 10073382. DOI: 10.1186/s40634-023-00601-3. View

Han P, Wei L, Duan Z, Zhang Z, Chen T, Lu J . Contribution of IL-1β, 6 and TNF-α to the form of post-traumatic osteoarthritis induced by "idealized" anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a porcine model. Int Immunopharmacol. 2018; 65:212-220. DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2018.10.007. View

Kaur M, Ribeiro D, Theis J, Webster K, Sole G . Movement Patterns of the Knee During Gait Following ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2016; 46(12):1869-1895. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-016-0510-4. View

10.

Pietrosimone B, Seeley M, Johnston C, Pfeiffer S, Spang J, Troy Blackburn J . Walking Ground Reaction Force Post-ACL Reconstruction: Analysis of Time and Symptoms. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018; 51(2):246-254. PMC: 6335151. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001776. View

11.

Arnold M, Calcei J, Vogel N, Magnussen R, Clatworthy M, Spalding T . ACL Study Group survey reveals the evolution of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft choice over the past three decades. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 29(11):3871-3876. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06443-9. View

12.

Webster K, Feller J, Lambros C . Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport. 2008; 9(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2007.09.003. View

13.

Langford J, Webster K, Feller J . A prospective longitudinal study to assess psychological changes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Br J Sports Med. 2008; 43(5):377-81. DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.2007.044818. View

14.

Collins K, Fajardo R, Harkey M, Knake J, Lisee C, Wilcox L . Knee symptoms do not affect walking biomechanics among women 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Res. 2022; 40(10):2240-2247. DOI: 10.1002/jor.25265. View

15.

Miles J, McGuigan P, King E, Daniels K . Biomechanical asymmetries differ between autograft types during unplanned change of direction after ACL reconstruction. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2022; 32(8):1236-1248. DOI: 10.1111/sms.14166. View

16.

Irrgang J, Anderson A, Boland A, Harner C, Kurosaka M, Neyret P . Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med. 2001; 29(5):600-13. DOI: 10.1177/03635465010290051301. View

17.

Bjornsen E, Schwartz T, Lisee C, Blackburn T, Lalush D, Nissman D . Loading during Midstance of Gait Is Associated with Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Cartilage Composition Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Cartilage. 2022; 13(1):19476035211072220. PMC: 9137315. DOI: 10.1177/19476035211072220. View

18.

Pfeiffer S, Spang J, Nissman D, Lalush D, Wallace K, Harkey M . Gait Mechanics and T1ρ MRI of Tibiofemoral Cartilage 6 Months after ACL Reconstruction. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018; 51(4):630-639. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001834. View

19.

Seiberl W, Jensen E, Merker J, Leitel M, Schwirtz A . Accuracy and precision of loadsol insole force-sensors for the quantification of ground reaction force-based biomechanical running parameters. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018; 18(8):1100-1109. DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1477993. View

20.

Slater L, Hart J, Kelly A, Kuenze C . Progressive Changes in Walking Kinematics and Kinetics After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and Reconstruction: A Review and Meta-Analysis. J Athl Train. 2017; 52(9):847-860. PMC: 5634233. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-52.6.06. View