See the published version of this preprint at BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Eric Hamrin Senorski
Sportrehab, Sports rehabilitation clinic
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9340-0147
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background There is growing interest in assessing psychological well-being in patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It is unknown whether an assessment of psychological outcome in addition to tests of muscle function can facilitate decisions on return to sport (RTS). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate passing rates in different physical RTS test batteries, with and without the inclusion of psychological outcome measures 1 year after ACL reconstruction.
Method In this cross-sectional cohort study a total of 320 patients (51% men) aged 18-65 years were included 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Passing rates on different muscle function (MF) test batteries (with results presented as Limb Symmetry Index (LSI)), consisting of knee extension and flexion strength tests, 3 hop tests, and 2 psychological patient-reported outcomes (PROs); Quality of Life subscale from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-QoL) and ACL Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI), were evaluated 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Muscle function test batteries comprised: 2 MF tests (vertical hop and hop for distance; pass=90% LSI); 2 MF tests and 2 PRO (pass=90% LSI, 62.5 on KOOS-QoL and 76.6 on ACL-RSI), 5 MF tests (2 strength and 3 hop tests, pass=90% LSI), and 5 MF tests and 2 PRO (pass=90% LSI, 62.5 on KOOS-QoL and 76.6 on ACL-RSI).
Results Passing rates in the different test batteries were 47% for 2 MF tests, 19% for 2 MF tests and 2 PROs, 29% for 5 MF tests and 13% for 5 MF tests and 2 PROs. The use of psychological PROs together with tests of muscle function gave the lowest passing rates (13%). There was a very strong correlation between passing 2 hop tests and 2 PROs and passing 5 MF tests (rφ=0.41) as well as passing 5 MF tests and 2 PROs (rφ=0.79).
Conclusion The use of hop tests together with psychological PROs provides a clinician-friendly RTS test battery for assessment 1 year after ACL reconstruction as the passing rate was 19% when using 2 hop-tests combined with 2 PROs, compared with 29% when using 5 tests of MF requiring advanced testing equipment.
Keywords
Knee, Evaluation, Test batteries, Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Version 3
Posted 13 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 05 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 14 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 26 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 16 Mar, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 16 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 11 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 11 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 14 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 13 Feb, 2020
First submitted
On 11 Feb, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Eric Hamrin Senorski
Sportrehab, Sports rehabilitation clinic
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9340-0147
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Version 3
Posted 13 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 05 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 28 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 16 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 16 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 14 Apr, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 26 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 25 Mar, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 17 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 16 Mar, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 16 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 11 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 11 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 09 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 14 Feb, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 13 Feb, 2020
Editor invited
On 13 Feb, 2020
First submitted
On 11 Feb, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Background There is growing interest in assessing psychological well-being in patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It is unknown whether an assessment of psychological outcome in addition to tests of muscle function can facilitate decisions on return to sport (RTS). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate passing rates in different physical RTS test batteries, with and without the inclusion of psychological outcome measures 1 year after ACL reconstruction.
Method In this cross-sectional cohort study a total of 320 patients (51% men) aged 18-65 years were included 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Passing rates on different muscle function (MF) test batteries (with results presented as Limb Symmetry Index (LSI)), consisting of knee extension and flexion strength tests, 3 hop tests, and 2 psychological patient-reported outcomes (PROs); Quality of Life subscale from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-QoL) and ACL Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI), were evaluated 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Muscle function test batteries comprised: 2 MF tests (vertical hop and hop for distance; pass=90% LSI); 2 MF tests and 2 PRO (pass=90% LSI, 62.5 on KOOS-QoL and 76.6 on ACL-RSI), 5 MF tests (2 strength and 3 hop tests, pass=90% LSI), and 5 MF tests and 2 PRO (pass=90% LSI, 62.5 on KOOS-QoL and 76.6 on ACL-RSI).
Results Passing rates in the different test batteries were 47% for 2 MF tests, 19% for 2 MF tests and 2 PROs, 29% for 5 MF tests and 13% for 5 MF tests and 2 PROs. The use of psychological PROs together with tests of muscle function gave the lowest passing rates (13%). There was a very strong correlation between passing 2 hop tests and 2 PROs and passing 5 MF tests (rφ=0.41) as well as passing 5 MF tests and 2 PROs (rφ=0.79).
Conclusion The use of hop tests together with psychological PROs provides a clinician-friendly RTS test battery for assessment 1 year after ACL reconstruction as the passing rate was 19% when using 2 hop-tests combined with 2 PROs, compared with 29% when using 5 tests of MF requiring advanced testing equipment.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...