Compare and Contrast each rhetorical situations

Current Concepts for Injury Prevention in Athletes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Timothy E. Hewett,*yz§ PhD, FACSM, Stephanie L. Di Stasi,yz PhD, PT, and Gregory D. Myer,y§||{# PhD, FACSM, CSCS*D Investigation performed at The Sports Health and Performance Institute, The Ohio State University

Ligament reconstruction is the current standard of care for active patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Although the majority of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) surgeries successfully restore the mechanical stability of the injured knee, postsurgical outcomes remain widely varied. Less than half of athletes who undergo ACLR return to sport within the first year after surgery, and it is estimated that approximately 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 young, active athletes who undergo ACLR will go on to a sec- ond knee injury. The outcomes after a second knee injury and surgery are significantly less favorable than outcomes after primary injuries. As advances in graft reconstruction and fixation techniques have improved to consistently restore passive joint stability to the preinjury level, successful return to sport after ACLR appears to be predicated on numerous postsurgical factors. Importantly, a secondary ACL injury is most strongly related to modifiable postsurgical risk factors. Biomechanical abnormalities and move- ment asymmetries, which are more prevalent in this cohort than previously hypothesized, can persist despite high levels of func- tional performance, and also represent biomechanical and neuromuscular control deficits and imbalances that are strongly associated with secondary injury incidence. Decreased neuromuscular control and high-risk movement biomechanics, which appear to be heavily influenced by abnormal trunk and lower extremity movement patterns, not only predict first knee injury risk but also reinjury risk. These seminal findings indicate that abnormal movement biomechanics and neuromuscular control pro- files are likely both residual to, and exacerbated by, the initial injury. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) strategies should be used to develop effective, efficacious interventions targeted to these impairments to optimize the safe return to high-risk activity.

In this Current Concepts article, the authors present the latest evidence related to risk factors associated with ligament failure or a secondary (contralateral) injury in athletes who return to sport after ACLR. From these data, they propose an EBM paradigm shift in postoperative rehabilitation and return-to-sport training after ACLR that is focused on the resolution of neuromuscular def- icits that commonly persist after surgical reconstruction and standard rehabilitation of athletes.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; second injury; ACL risk factors; ACL injury prevention

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries affect more than 120,000 athletes in the United States every year28,49 and are 1 of the most common and devastating knee injuries sustained as a result of sports participation. Anterior cru- ciate ligament injuries often result in joint effusion, muscle weakness, altered movement, and reduced functional per- formance; few athletes are able to resume sports at the same level without surgery.14 Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) continues to be the standard of care for ACL-deficient athletes who aim to return to high-level sporting activities,50 but outcomes are widely varied10,20,31,35 and unexpectedly poorer than previously reported.3,20,35 Less than half of athletes who undergo reconstruction are able to return to sport within the first year after surgery.3 For those athletes who successfully

return to activity, it is estimated that approximately 1 in 4 will go on to a second knee injury.39,47,74,81 Expectedly, the outcomes after a second ACL injury and subsequent ligament reconstruction are notably less favorable.84

Deficits in neuromuscular control during dynamic move- ments are hypothesized to be the principal culprit in both primary37,78,94,95 and secondary ACL injury risk.74,86 Exces- sive out-of-plane knee loads, particularly increased external knee abduction moments, predict principal ACL injury inci- dence in young female athletes with high specificity and sensitivity.37 Frontal-plane displacement of the trunk94 as well as reduced core proprioception95 are both predictive of a primary ACL injury in female athletes.37 Five-year follow-up with this cohort indicated that 44% of ACL- injured patients went on to a secondary ACL injury. Injury risk in athletic populations appears not to be limited to frontal-plane mechanisms alone; athletes who went on to a primary ACL injury also demonstrated significant side- to-side differences in lower extremity biomechanics as well as reduced relative lower extremity flexor activation

M

The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 41, No. 1 DOI: 10.1177/0363546512459638 � 2013 The Author(s)

216

Clinical Sports Medicine Update

relative to uninjured controls during the drop vertical jump.37 Similar mechanisms of injury risk have been identi- fied in athletes medically cleared to return to sport after ACLR.74 Findings from a population of young athletes who underwent ACLR implicated contralateral limb com- pensations, including abnormal frontal-plane mechanics, combined for a most predictive model of secondary ACL injury risk.74 These seminal findings indicate that these abnormal and asymmetrical biomechanical and neuromus- cular control profiles are likely both residual to, and exacer- bated by, the initial injury. The most efficacious intervention strategies should target these modifiable impairments to optimize the safe return to high-risk activity.

Post-ACLR rehabilitation protocols have evolved greatly over the past few decades, shifting from conservative efforts of prolonged immobilization with delayed strengthening75 to current paradigms that advocate immediate weightbearing, early motion and progressive strengthening, and neuromus- cular training. Despite these efforts, muscle weak- ness,19,46,70,81 impaired movement,17,33,34,46,71,77 abnormal neuromuscular control,74,88,90 and difficulty returning to sports3,35 are common for many months after ACLR. Impor- tantly, secondary ACL injury risk appears to be strongly related to multiplanar movement asymmetries of the lower extremities.74 In this Current Concepts article, we present the latest evidence related to risk factors associated with graft failure or secondary (contralateral) injury and our recommen- dations for a new approach to return-to-sport training after ACLR that is focused on resolution of neuromuscular deficits that are known modifiable risk factors that persist following ACLR and rehabilitation of this highest risk population.

REDUCED FUNCTION AND NEUROMUSCULAR CONTROL AFTER ACLR

Muscle weakness, joint effusion, lack of normal joint range of motion, and impaired function are nearly ubiquitous in the days, weeks, and even months after ACLR. In combina- tion, these impairments can significantly alter neuromuscu- lar control of the reconstructed knee. Recovery of quadriceps function, in particular, has long been advocated as a means to optimize function in the athlete after ACLR.15,22,40,41,46,82

The persistence of knee extensor weakness is common for several months after surgery9,11,40,51,93 and is strongly related to the presence of abnormal movements during

activities of daily living.46,54,85 Athletes who underwent ACLR with at least a 20% deficit in quadriceps strength symmetry walk with truncated knee motion and a gait pat- tern characteristic of acutely injured athletes.46 However, normal quadriceps strength does not ensure normal neuro- muscular movement patterns, even during simple func- tional tasks. Six months after ACLR, athletes who demonstrate involved limb isometric quadriceps strength recovery (at least 90% of their uninvolved limb) continued to walk with reduced knee motion34 and altered knee joint moments.77 While enhancement of quadriceps strength is a necessary component for the optimization of knee function after an injury, restoration of normal neuromuscular control in athletes after ACLR, which can influence the safe return to sport, is clearly multifactorial in nature.

Reports of return-to-sport success after ACLR are highly varied and are likely attributable, in part, to the wide spectrum of criteria upon which ‘‘success’’ is defined. Medical clearance, self-reported return to sport, and achievement of minimum performance criteria to begin sport reintegration are all common barometers of return- to-sport success reported in the literature.3,35,44,53 How- ever, what is consistent between studies is the absence of ubiquitous functional success after ACLR.3,10,35 Ardern and colleagues3 reported that within 1 year after ACLR, two thirds of athletes had not attempted a full return to their previous level of activity. Of the athletes who had not returned to sport within the first postoperative year, less than 50% indicated an intention to return to sport.

Two-year functional outcomes data from the Multicen- ter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group indi- cate that less than 50% of athletes after ACLR return to sport.20 A steady functional decline appears common in the years after ACLR.2,84 Therefore, resumption of the pre- vious level of activity and continued participation in the desired sport after ACLR are far from guaranteed from ACLR and standardized rehabilitation.

Asymmetrical movement patterns of athletes early after ACLR are well described17,35,46,54 and understood to per- sist for several months, and even years, after sur- gery.12,16,33,71,74,77 Primarily, postsurgical biomechanical studies on athletes who underwent ACLR have been per- formed using activities of daily living.17,34,46,77,86 Trun- cated motions and reduced joint moments of the involved knee have been identified during level walking up to 2 years after ACLR.33,34,77,86 More dynamic tasks that repli- cate sport-specific movements only accentuate the

*Address correspondence to Timothy E. Hewett, PhD, The Sports Health and Performance Institute, The Ohio State University, 2050 Kenny Road, Suite 3100, Columbus, OH 43221 (e-mail: [email protected]).

yThe Sports Health and Performance Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. zDepartments of Physiology and Cell Biology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Family Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Colum-

bus, Ohio. §The Sports Medicine Biodynamics Center and Human Performance Laboratory, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. ||Departments of Pediatrics and Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Ohio. {Departments of Athletic Training, Sports Orthopaedics, and Pediatric Science, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, Utah. #Athletic Training Division, School of Allied Medical Professions, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: Funding support received from National Insti- tutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIH/NIAMS) grants R01-AR049735, R01-AR05563, and R01- AR056259. The authors also acknowledge funding support from National Football League (NFL) Charities and equipment from The Ohio State University and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

Vol. 41, No. 1, 2013 Injury Prevention After ACL Reconstruction 217

movement abnormalities of these athletes after ACLR.69

The drop vertical jump landing task has exposed signifi- cant asymmetries in multidimensional kinematics at the hip and knee as well as force generation and attenuation in athletes up to 4 years after ACLR.12,16,52,71,74

Abnormal movement patterns after an ACL rupture are not isolated to the injured knee alone. There is mounting evidence of a bilateral neuromuscular response to an ACL injury that persists and may even be exacerbated after reconstruction.23,33,87 Voluntary activation deficits have been noted in both limbs after an ACL injury, despite improvements after surgery.87 In a small group of active athletes who underwent ACLR, changes in knee kinematics and kinetics were noted in both limbs 3 months after sur- gery.23 Specifically, peak knee angles, moments, and joint powers were higher in the uninvolved limb of athletes after ACLR when compared with controls and to their own unin- jured limb. Interestingly, these behaviors are not unlike those in athletes with acute ACL deficiency.6,17,78,79,86

Neuromuscular adaptations of the hip on the unin- volved side also appear characteristic of athletes who underwent ACLR.74,77 A longitudinal gait analysis of 26 noncopers up to 2 years after ACLR revealed contralateral hip adaptations that manifested early after the injury and persisted 6 months after surgery.77 These athletes demon- strated hip power generation in the involved hip early in weight acceptance, while the uninvolved hip absorbed power.77 Compensatory strategies of the uninvolved hip were the primary predictor of risk in athletes who went on to a secondary ACL injury within 1 year of returning to sports activity.74 As 1 of 4 predictive factors in a highly specific and sensitive model for secondary ACL injury risk, the transverse-plane uninvolved hip net moment impulse early during landing independently predicted the risk of a secondary injury with 77% sensitivity and 81% specific- ity. These data highlight 2 major findings: (1) ACLR alone does not fully abate the neuromuscular deficits and asym- metries incurred as a result of injury, and (2) assessment and treatment of bilateral limb compensations during rehabilitation appear necessary to obtain a comprehensive clinical picture of postoperative movement deficiencies.

RISK FACTORS FOR SECONDARY ACL INJURY

Much like primary ACL injuries, the majority of secondary ACL injuries are caused by noncontact mechanisms,92 under- scoring altered intrinsic neuromuscular control as an impor- tant factor in injury risk. The risk of a secondary ACL rupture is, at a minimum, several times greater than that of primary ACL injury risk.73 As expected, higher levels of postreconstruction activity are associated with a higher inci- dence of a secondary ACL injury.81 Reports of the incidence of graft rupture and contralateral limb injury range from 6% to 32%,4,39,46,74,80,81 and risk level may be sex specific. In a longi- tudinal study of 180 athletes over a 15-year period, ACL graft rupture was reported to be more likely in men.47 A prospec- tive cohort study of over 1400 athletes after ACLR found that while graft rupture rates did not differ between sexes, the contralateral injury rate was higher in female than in male

athletes.81 Similarly, in a group of 63 athletes cleared to return to sport after ACLR, 14 of the 42 (33%) female athletes went on to a contralateral ACL rupture within 1 year. Female athletes represented 88% of the documented contra- lateral limb ACL injuries.73

Recent reports have indicated that neuromuscular impairments are also predictive of a secondary ACL injury in athletic youth.74 Fifty-six athletes after ACLR who were medically cleared for sports participation underwent 3-dimensional biomechanical analyses and postural stabil- ity testing and then were prospectively followed for 1 year to document the movement characteristics predictive of sec- ondary ACL injuries.74 Thirteen of the 56 young athletes sustained a second ACL injury within the year. Regression analyses indicated 4 predictive factors for secondary injury risk with excellent specificity (88%) and sensitivity (92%): uninvolved hip rotation net moment impulse during land- ing, frontal-plane knee motion during landing, sagittal- plane knee moment asymmetries at initial contact, and def- icits in postural stability on the reconstructed limb. The highly predictive model of second injury risk underscores the importance of targeted return-to-sport rehabilitation, as all predictors were modifiable in nature.

Other factors, like age and sex, also appear related to sec- ondary ACL injury risk. Younger athletes have demonstrated the highest reinjury rate81 and may have an increased risk of a contralateral injury39,47 when compared with older ath- letes. Female gender was associated with a lower postsurgi- cal activity level20,84 and was associated with a decreased likelihood of returning to sport within 1 year after ACLR3

when compared with their male counterparts. While these nonmodifiable factors may significantly contribute to second- ary injury risk and incidence, further research must investi- gate their influence on identified modifiable factors on the risk profile for athletes who underwent ACLR.

Impairments after ACLR can be profound; however, out- comes after revision ACLR in athletes are reportedly worse. Poor outcomes after ACL revision are documented by several groups on hundreds of athletes and range from poor func- tional abilities to an increased prevalence of degenerative changes.5,7,20,30,84,91 However, little data document the return-to-sport success in this population. Revision proce- dures are associated with a lower activity level20 and lower self-reported knee-specific outcomes scores.84 Similar to pri- mary ACLR outcomes, return-to-sport estimates range from 60% to 93% within 4 years of revision.5,30 Second revision rates are as high as 25% within 6 years of primary ACL revi- sion.5 While an ACL revision may mitigate significant phys- ical function deficits after graft failure, its effect on improving high-level function and mental health factors may be negligi- ble.91 In summary, revision ACLR may be viewed as a salvage procedure,5 and robust and effective strategies to prevent the need for such surgical intervention must be employed.

METHODS TO IDENTIFY POST-ACLR NEUROMUSCULAR IMPAIRMENTS

The importance of early and accurate identification of post- surgical impairments in athletes nearing medical discharge

218 Hewett et al The American Journal of Sports Medicine

has been extensively detailed. Performance on a battery of clinically administered tests has been advocated by many to capture and address residual impairments in strength and function after ACLR.25,27,48,53,85 The influence of quad- riceps strength on function after ACLR is well estab- lished.15,22,46 Therefore, testing quadriceps strength symmetry is an important component of the criteria for rehabilitation progression to sports-specific tasks and even- tually for discharge to unrestricted sports activity. While deficits in hamstring strength were unrelated to functional performance tasks in athletes 6 months after ACLR,41 the ratio of hamstring-to-quadriceps torque production appears to be a key variable in the primary ACL injury risk model.63

Strength symmetry of at least 85% is now advocated for ath- letes beginning reintegration into cutting, pivoting, and jumping sports.25,35,85

Dynamic single-limb task tests can capture important deficits in function of the reconstructed knee that may be otherwise obscured by double-limb performance tests.69

Performance on the single-limb hop test for distance on ACL-deficient patients predicted their self-reported func- tion 1 year after ACLR with 71% sensitivity and specific- ity.32 A combination of agility and plyometric testing was used to differentiate between the physical performance characteristics of athletes who underwent ACLR and con- trols.69 Side-to-side asymmetries in the single-limb hop tests, not the double-limb bilateral tasks, were required to discern between groups. In light of new evidence high- lighting the implications of asymmetrical movement pat- terns after ACLR, reducing limb asymmetries before returning to sport appears imperative for maximized per- formance and reduction of secondary ACL injury risk.74

LATE-PHASE POSTOPERATIVE REHABILITATION: EVIDENCE FOR SPORTS PERFORMANCE SYMMETRY TRAINING

Current postoperative rehabilitation guidelines for athletes after ACLR advocate criterion-based progression through knee range of motion, strengthening, and sport-specific activities.1,67,68,89 Achievement of symmetrical joint mobil- ity, strength, and functional performance are common crite- ria for medical discharge to return to sport.1,35,44,68

However, there is a lack of objective criteria by which ade- quate dynamic neuromuscular control is defined for athletes who will return to high-velocity, high-load maneuvers.67

Neuromuscular and movement asymmetries are known to predict primary ACL injury risk37,58,83 but have only recently been identified as risk factors for a second ACL injury,74 thus highlighting the potential positive effects of a targeted neuromuscular training program that empha- sizes movement symmetry before the return to sport.

Our proposed late postoperative rehabilitation and sports performance symmetry training is based on the find- ings of the prospective cohort study performed in our labora- tory that examined neuromuscular and biomechanical factors related to second injury risk.74 Four measures of neuromuscular asymmetry, representing all 3 planes of motion, were found to accurately predict second ACL injury

risk74 and are represented graphically in Figure 1. Over a dozen therapeutic exercises have been proposed as a novel method for primary ACL injury prevention, all based on data from several epidemiological and interventional stud- ies evaluating primary injury risk.** Based on the current state of the available evidence, we surmise that these exer- cises may adequately remediate the neuromuscular asym- metries implicated in secondary ACL injury risk.67,74

Persistent muscle weakness of the ACL-injured limb is known to influence postsurgical function.15,21,22,41,46 There appears to be a preferential loss of quadriceps strength,43

but not hamstring strength,42 after an ACL injury. Expect- edly, recovery of quadriceps strength is important in restoring normal knee function,46 as persistent weakness of the quadri- ceps may adversely affect sport-specific function because of their primary role as force attenuators and generators about the knee. While deficits in hamstring strength are character- istic of athletes who go on to their first ACL injury,58,83 its influence on function after ACLR is not well defined.41

The coordinated coactivation of the hamstrings and quadriceps may play a role in mitigating primary injury risk by way of reducing ligament strain29 and promoting normal landing mechanics.26 Balanced agonist and antago- nist coactivation may also protect the reconstructed knee against second ACL injury risk via similar protective mech- anisms. Deficits in the neuromuscular coordination of the hamstrings and quadriceps on the reconstructed limb may manifest as excessive landing contact noise during both double- and single-legged landing tasks.56 Impairments in hamstrings force steadiness, or the ability of the ham- string muscles to produce force without variation, were observed on isokinetic testing in athletes after ACLR with a semitendinosus-gracilis autograft. Decreased hamstring

Hip Rotational Control Deficits Excessive Frontal Plane Knee Mechanics

Knee Flexor Deficits Postural Control Deficits

Asymmetries

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the 4 measures of neuromuscular asymmetry highly predictive of second injury risk in athletes who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

**References 36, 38, 55, 57, 59-61, 64, 65, 72.

Vol. 41, No. 1, 2013 Injury Prevention After ACL Reconstruction 219

force steadiness was associated with poorer single-legged hop test performance an average of 14 months after sur- gery.8 Therefore, progressive single-limb landing activities, like anterior and lateral jumping progressions (Figure 2), may not only accentuate post-ACLR limb deficits69 but can also provide an excellent training tool to help athletes avoid quadriceps-dominant landing techniques56 and achieve the desired level of sports performance symmetry.

Importantly, neuromuscular and biomechanical abnor- malities and asymmetries can occur in spite of adequate muscle strength, muscle symmetry,36,77 and sports activity status71,74; these may be evident for years after ACLR.12,35

Based on current data detailing the increased rate of con- tralateral injuries in female athletes,73,81 the prevalence and persistence of asymmetrical movement strategies in the months and years after ACLR, and the accuracy with which limb asymmetries predict second injury risk,74 res- toration of sports performance symmetry may aid signifi- cantly in the reduction of second ACL injury risk.67,68

Neuromuscular training, in various forms, has been effectively used in the prevention of ACL injuries,36,38,60

enhancing function22,24,53 and movement behaviors13,18

early after the injury, and improving function76 and move- ment behaviors after ACLR.35 The tuck jump (Figure 3) is a dynamic, repeated double-limb jumping task that requires excellent trunk and lower extremity neuromuscular control to perform properly. It not only highlights sports perfor- mance asymmetry in all 3 planes of motion62 but may also be effective in the treatment of movement deficits before the return to sport.61,67 Force attenuation under high load

conditions is commonly impaired after ACLR12,71,74 and has meaningful implications for second injury risk.74 Post- operative and return-to-sport rehabilitation programs that challenge dynamic neuromuscular control, facilitate tech- nique perfection, and enhance limb symmetry may also suc- cessfully reduce the movement impairments associated with second injury risk; the effectiveness of these training pro- grams has not yet been evaluated.

While high frontal-plane loading at the knee alone is predictive of a primary ACL injury,37 it appears that a com- bination of multiplane neuromuscular patterns is predic- tive of secondary injury risk.74 This risk profile highlights the influence of post-ACLR adaptations in both limbs on secondary injury risk and underscores

Figure 2. Examples of single-leg anterior (A) and lateral (B) progression activities. These tasks can aid the sports medi- cine clinician both in identifying and treating clinically impor- tant, bilateral neuromuscular dysfunction after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Figure 3. Proper tuck jump technique. The athlete begins in deep hip and knee flexion and swings the arms backward in preparation for the jump. The goal is to minimize frontal- plane motion of the trunk and lower extremities while achiev- ing a thigh position that is parallel to the floor at the height of the jump. The sports medicine clinician should view the ath- lete during repeated jumps in both the sagittal and frontal planes to identify takeoff and landing asymmetries.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of how anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can drive postsurgical symmetries and neuromuscular deficits. These impairments are, in turn, minimized with sports symmetry training and preventative multiplane dynamic movement tasks.

220 Hewett et al The American Journal of Sports Medicine

evidence indicating the importance of sports performance symmetry before returning to unrestricted activity. Our proposed treatment paradigm (Figure 4) focuses on resto- ration of symmetrical function during the critically impor- tant period when common rehabilitation programs end but many neuromuscular deficits often persist.

RETURN TO SPORT AFTER ACLR: OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT VERSUS TIME AFTER SURGERY

Historically, return-to-sport clearance was based on time; sports medicine professionals often allowed the return to sport 6 months after surgery.4,44 In light of emerging evi- dence that indicates athletes are at increased risk for a sec- ond injury within the first 7 months after ACLR,45 we advocate serial function and strength testing throughout the late rehabilitation phase to identify the neuromuscular strategies that may further increase this risk.57,74

Current investigations indicated that young athletes assessed after medical release and return to sport demon- strate measurable functional deficits after ACLR that are independent of the time from surgery.66 These data further support the current approaches to target functional deficits related to a second injury before reintegration back to sport. In young female athletes, decreased hamstring strength was associated with an increased risk of an ACL injury, while young female athletes with similar hamstring-to-quadriceps ratios to that of male athletes had a reduced risk to go onto an ACL injury.58 The cumulative data indicate that reduced hamstring strength and recruitment is related to initial and likely secondary injury risk, which supports the use of isoki- netic testing in return-to-sport decision making and guidance of interventions to reduce the risk of a second injury.

Prior studies emphasize the need to utilize objective tools that are sensitive to limb-to-limb deficits and to develop rehabilitation protocols that are targeted to elimi- nate limb asymmetries.66,67,69,71,74 Use of functional assessments, as opposed to temporally guided or graft- specific decision making, can support a safer return to sport for competitive athletes.68

CONCLUSION

To optimize functional and clinical outcomes after ACLR and to prevent a second knee injury, an EBM approach is pro- posed in this review that directly addresses known, modifi- able neuromuscular and biomechanical risk factors for increased risk of second ACL tears.84 Optimal return to sport after ACLR appears to be predicated on numerous postsurgi- cal factors.74,92 Second ACL injury risk is most strongly related to modifiable postsurgical factors74 and is specific to the magnitude of multiplanar limb asymmetries. Inadequate neuromuscular control and biomechanical asymmetries of the trunk and lower extremities predict first knee injury risk.37,94

Addressing these impairments in athletes after ACLR using targeted rehabilitation may significantly reduce the second injury incidence and subsequent functional disability. The proposed EBM approach will target these highly impactful

impairments by way of focused sports symmetry training to optimize the safe return to high-risk activity and increase both the efficiency and efficacy of intervention strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors acknowledge the expert data collection machines and The Sports Medicine Biodynamics Center research teams at The Ohio State University and Cincin- nati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

An online CME course associated with this article is available for 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM at http:// ajsm-cme.sagepub.com. In accordance with the standards of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Edu- cation (ACCME), it is the policy of The American Ortho- paedic Society for Sports Medicine that authors, editors, and planners disclose to the learners all financial rela- tionships during the past 12 months with any commercial interest (A ‘commercial interest’ is any entity producing, marketing, re-selling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients). Any and all disclosures are provided in the online journal CME area which is provided to all participants before they actually take the CME activity. In accordance with AOSSM policy, authors, editors, and planners’ participa- tion in this educational activity will be predicated upon timely submission and review of AOSSM disclosure. Non- compliance will result in an author/editor or planner to be stricken from participating in this CME activity.

REFERENCES

1. Adams D, Logerstedt DS, Hunter-Giordano A, Axe MJ, Snyder-

Mackler L. Current concepts for anterior cruciate ligament recon-

struction: a criterion-based rehabilitation progression. J Orthop

Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(7):601-614.

2. Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA. Return to sport follow-

ing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic

review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med.

2011;45(7):596-606.

3. Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA. Return to the preinjury

level of competitive sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruc-

tion surgery: two-thirds of patients have not returned by 12 months

after surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(3):538-543.

4. Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR. Objective criteria for return to athletics

after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent rein-

jury rates: a systematic review. Phys Sportsmed. 2011;39(3):100-110.

5. Battaglia MJ 2nd, Cordasco FA, Hannafin JA, et al. Results of revi-

sion anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Am J Sports Med.

2007;35(12):2057-2066.

6. Berchuck M, Andriacchi TP, Bach BR, Reider B. Gait adaptations by

patients who have a deficient anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint

Surg Am. 1990;72(6):871-877.

7. Borchers JR, Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Huston LJ, Spindler KP,

Wright RW. Intra-articular findings in primary and revision anterior cru-

ciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a comparison of the MOON and

MARS study groups. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(9):1889-1893.

8. Bryant AL, Clark RA, Pua YH. Morphology of hamstring torque-time

curves following ACL injury and reconstruction: mechanisms and

implications. J Orthop Res. 2011;29(6):907-914.

Vol. 41, No. 1, 2013 Injury Prevention After ACL Reconstruction 221

9. Bryant AL, Kelly J, Hohmann E. Neuromuscular adaptations and cor-

relates of knee functionality following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop

Res. 2008;26(1):126-135.

10. Busfield BT, Kharrazi FD, Starkey C, Lombardo SJ, Seegmiller J. Per-

formance outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the

National Basketball Association. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(8):825-830.

11. Carter TR, Edinger S. Isokinetic evaluation of anterior cruciate liga-

ment reconstruction: hamstring versus patellar tendon. Arthroscopy.

1999;15(2):169-172.

12. Castanharo R, da Luz BS, Bitar AC, D’Elia CO, Castropil W, Duarte

M. Males still have limb asymmetries in multijoint movement tasks

more than 2 years following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

J Orthop Sci. 2011;16(5):531-535.

13. Chmielewski TL, Hurd WJ, Rudolph KS, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L.

Perturbation training improves knee kinematics and reduces muscle

co-contraction after complete unilateral anterior cruciate ligament

rupture. Phys Ther. 2005;85(8):740-749, discussion 750-754.

14. Daniel DM, Stone ML, Dobson BE, Fithian DC, Rossman DJ, Kauf-

man KR. Fate of the ACL-injured patient: a prospective outcome

study. Am J Sports Med. 1994;22(5):632-644.

15. de Jong SN, van Caspel DR, van Haeff MJ, Saris DB. Functional assess-

ment and muscle strength before and after reconstruction of chronic ante-

rior cruciate ligament lesions. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(1):21-28, 28.e1-28.e3.

16. Delahunt E, Sweeney L, Chawke M, et al. Lower limb kinematic alter-

ations during drop vertical jumps in female athletes who have under-

gone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Res.

2012;30(1):72-78.

17. DeVita P, Hortobagyi T, Barrier J. Gait biomechanics are not normal

after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and accelerated reha-

bilitation. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(10):1481-1488.

18. Di Stasi SL, Snyder-Mackler L. The effects of neuromuscular training

on the gait patterns of ACL-deficient men and women. Clin Biomech.

2012;27(4):360-365.

19. Drechsler WI, Cramp MC, Scott OM. Changes in muscle strength and

EMG median frequency after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruc-

tion. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;98(6):613-623.

20. Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Predictors of activity level 2 years after

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR): a Multicenter

Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) ACLR cohort study. Am J

Sports Med. 2010;38(10):2040-2050.

21. Eitzen I, Holm I, Risberg MA. Preoperative quadriceps strength is

a significant predictor of knee function two years after anterior cruci-

ate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(5):371-376.

22. Eitzen I, Moksnes H, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. A progressive

5-week exercise therapy program leads to significant improvement

in knee function early after anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Orthop

Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(11):705-721.

23. Ferber R, Osternig LR, Woollacott MH, Wasielewski NJ, Lee JH.

Bilateral accommodations to anterior cruciate ligament deficiency

and surgery. Clin Biomech. 2004;19(2):136-144.

24. Fitzgerald GK, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. A decision-making

scheme for returning patients to high-level activity with nonoperative

treatment after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Knee Surg Sports

Traumatol Arthrosc. 2000;8(2):76-82.

25. Ford KR, Manson NA, Evans B, et al. Comparison of in-shoe foot

loading patterns in football players on natural grass and synthetic

turf [abstract]. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2006;38(5 Suppl):S24-S25.

26. Ford KR, Myer GD, Schmitt LC, Uhl TL, Hewett TE. Preferential quad-

riceps activation in female athletes with incremental increases in

landing intensity. J Appl Biomech. 2011;27(3):215-222.

27. Ford KR, Myer GD, Schmitt LC, van den Bogert AJ, Hewett TE. Effect

of drop height on lower extremity biomechanical measures in female

athletes [abstract]. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2008;40(5 Suppl):S80.

28. Frank CB, Jackson DW. The science of reconstruction of the anterior

cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(10):1556-1576.

29. Fujiya H, Kousa P, Fleming BC, Churchill DL, Beynnon BD. Effect of

muscle loads and torque applied to the tibia on the strain behavior of

the anterior cruciate ligament: an in vitro investigation. Clin Biomech

(Bristol, Avon). 2011;26(10):1005-1011.

30. Garofalo R, Djahangiri A, Siegrist O. Revision anterior cruciate liga-

ment reconstruction with quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft.

Arthroscopy. 2006;22(2):205-214.

31. Gobbi A, Francisco R. Factors affecting return to sports after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring

graft: a prospective clinical investigation. Knee Surg Sports Trauma-

tol Arthrosc. 2006;14(10):1021-1028.

32. Grindem H, Logerstedt D, Eitzen I, et al. Single-legged hop tests as

predictors of self-reported knee function in nonoperatively treated

individuals with anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J Sports Med.

2011;39(11):2347-2354.

33. Hart JM, Ko JW, Konold T, Pietrosimone B. Sagittal plane knee joint

moments following anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruc-

tion: a systematic review. Clin Biomech. 2010;25(4):277-283.

34. Hartigan E, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Perturbation training prior to

ACL reconstruction improves gait asymmetries in non-copers. J

Orthop Res. 2009;27(6):724-729.

35. Hartigan EH, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Time line for noncopers to

pass return-to-sports criteria after anterior cruciate ligament recon-

struction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(3):141-154.

36. Hewett TE, Lindenfeld TN, Riccobene JV, Noyes FR. The effect of

neuromuscular training on the incidence of knee injury in female ath-

letes: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 1999;27(6):699-706.

37. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, et al. Biomechanical measures of

neuromuscular control and valgus loading of the knee predict ante-

rior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes: a prospective

study. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(4):492-501.

38. Hewett TE, Stroupe AL, Nance TA, Noyes FR. Plyometric training in

female athletes: decreased impact forces and increased hamstring

torques. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6):765-773.

39. Hui C, Salmon LJ, Kok A, Maeno S, Linklater J, Pinczewski LA.

Fifteen-year outcome of endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament

reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft for ‘‘isolated’’ anterior

cruciate ligament tear. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1):89-98.

40. Keays SL, Bullock-Saxton J, Keays AC, Newcombe P. Muscle strength

and function before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

using semitendonosus and gracilis. Knee. 2001;8(3):229-234.

41. Keays SL, Bullock-Saxton JE, Newcombe P, Keays AC. The relationship

between knee strength and functional stability before and after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Res. 2003;21(2):231-237.

42. Konishi Y, Kinugasa R, Oda T, Tsukazaki S, Fukubayashi T. Relationship

between muscle volume and muscle torque of the hamstrings after

anterior cruciate ligament lesion [published online January 19, 2012].

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1888-7.

43. Konishi Y, Oda T, Tsukazaki S, Kinugasa R, Hirose N, Fukubayashi T.

Relationship between quadriceps femoris muscle volume and mus-

cle torque after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Knee Surg Sports

Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(4):641-645.

44. Kvist J. Rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament injury: cur-

rent recommendations for sports participation. Sports Med.

2004;34(4):269-280.

45. Laboute E, Savalli L, Puig P, et al. Analysis of return to competition

and repeat rupture for 298 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

with patellar or hamstring tendon autograft in sportspeople. Ann Phys

Rehabil Med. 2010;53(10):598-614.

46. Lewek M, Rudolph K, Axe M, Snyder-Mackler L. The effect of insuf-

ficient quadriceps strength on gait after anterior cruciate ligament

reconstruction. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002;17(1):56-63.

47. Leys T, Salmon L, Waller A, Linklater J, Pinczewski L. Clinical results

and risk factors for reinjury 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament

reconstruction: a prospective study of hamstring and patellar tendon

grafts. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(3):595-605.

48. Logerstedt DS, Snyder-Mackler L, Ritter RC, Axe MJ, Godges JJ.

Knee stability and movement coordination impairments: knee liga-

ment sprain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(4):A1-A37.

49. Majewski M, Susanne H, Klaus S. Epidemiology of athletic knee inju-

ries: a 10-year study. Knee. 2006;13(3):184-188.

50. Marx RG, Jones EC, Angel M, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Beliefs and

attitudes of members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic

222 Hewett et al The American Journal of Sports Medicine

Surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Arthroscopy. 2003;19(7):762-770.

51. Mattacola CG, Perrin DH, Gansneder BM, Gieck JH, Saliba EN, McCue

FC 3rd. Strength, functional outcome, and postural stability after ante-

rior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Athl Train. 2002;37(3):262-268.

52. Mohammadi F, Salavati M, Akhbari B, Mazaheri M, Khorrami M, Neg-

ahban H. Static and dynamic postural control in competitive athletes

after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and controls. Knee

Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(8):1603-1610.

53. Moksnes H, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. Individuals with an ante-

rior cruciate ligament-deficient knee classified as noncopers may be

candidates for nonsurgical rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.

2008;38(10):586-595.

54. Morrissey MC, Hooper DM, Drechsler WI, Hill HJ. Relationship of leg

muscle strength and knee function in the early period after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction. Scand J Med Sci Sports.

2004;14(6):360-366.

55. Myer GD, Brent JL, Ford KR, Hewett TE. A pilot study to determine

the effect of trunk and hip focused neuromuscular training on hip

and knee isokinetic strength. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(7):614-619.

56. Myer GD, Brent JL, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Real-time assessment and

neuromuscular training feedback techniques to prevent ACL injury in

female athletes. Strength Cond J. 2011;33(3):21-35.

57. Myer GD, Chu DA, Brent JL, Hewett TE. Trunk and hip control neu-

romuscular training for the prevention of knee joint injury. Clin Sports

Med. 2008;27(3):425-448, ix.

58. Myer GD, Ford KR, Barber Foss KD, Liu C, Nick TG, Hewett TE. The

relationship of hamstrings and quadriceps strength to anterior cruciate

ligament injury in female athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19(1):3-8.

59. Myer GD, Ford KR, Brent JL, Hewett TE. The effects of plyometric

versus dynamic balance training on power, balance and landing

force in female athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(2):345-353.

60. Myer GD, Ford KR, Brent JL, Hewett TE. Differential neuromuscular

training effects on ACL injury risk factors in ‘‘high-risk’’ versus

‘‘low-risk’’ athletes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:39.

61. Myer GD, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Rationale and clinical techniques for

anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention among female athletes. J

Athl Train. 2004;39(4):352-364.

62. Myer GD, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Tuck jump assessment for reducing ante-

rior cruciate ligament injury risk. Athl Ther Today. 2008;13(5):39-44.

63. Myer GD, Ford KR, Khoury J, Succop P, Hewett TE. Development

and validation of a clinic-based prediction tool to identify female ath-

letes at high risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J Sports

Med. 2010;38(10):2025-2033.

64. Myer GD, Ford KR, McLean SG, Hewett TE. The effects of plyometric

versus dynamic stabilization and balance training on lower extremity

biomechanics. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(3):445-455.

65. Myer GD, Ford KR, Palumbo JP, Hewett TE. Neuromuscular training

improves performance and lower-extremity biomechanics in female

athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):51-60.

66. Myer GD, Martin L, Ford KR, et al. No association of time from sur-

gery with functional deficits in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament

reconstruction: evidence for objective return-to-sport criteria [pub-

lished online August 9, 2012]. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.1177/

0363546512454656.

67. Myer GD, Paterno MV, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Neuromuscular training

techniques to target deficits before return to sport after anterior cruciate

ligament reconstruction. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):987-1014.

68. Myer GD, Paterno MV, Ford KR, Quatman CE, Hewett TE. Rehabili-

tation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: criteria based

progression through the return to sport phase. J Orthop Sports

Phys Ther. 2006;36(6):385-402.

69. Myer GD, Schmitt LC, Brent JL, et al. Utilization of modified NFL

Combine testing to identify functional deficits in athletes following

ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(6):377-387.

70. Osteras H, Augestad LB, Tondel S. Isokinetic muscle strength after

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Scand J Med Sci Sports.

1998;8(5 Pt 1):279-282.

71. Paterno MV, Ford KR, Myer GD, Heyl R, Hewett TE. Limb asymme-

tries in landing and jumping 2 years following anterior cruciate liga-

ment reconstruction. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(4):258-262.

72. Paterno MV, Myer GD, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Neuromuscular training

improves single-limb stability in young female athletes. J Orthop

Sports Phys Ther. 2004;34(6):305-317.

73. Paterno MV, Rauh MJ, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Incidence of

contralateral and ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury

after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Clin J Sport

Med. 2012;22(2):116-121.

74. Paterno MV, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, et al. Biomechanical measures

during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate

ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and

return to sport. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):1968-1978.

75. Paulos L, Noyes FR, Grood E, Butler DL. Knee rehabilitation after

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and repair. J Orthop Sports

Phys Ther. 1991;13(2):60-70.

76. Risberg MA, Holm I, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L. Neuromuscular

training versus strength training during first 6 months after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized clinical trial. Phys

Ther. 2007;87(6):737-750.

77. Roewer BD, Di Stasi SL, Snyder-Mackler L. Quadriceps strength and

weight acceptance strategies continue to improve two years after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Biomech. 2011;44(10):1948-1953.

78. Rudolph KS, Axe MJ, Buchanan TS, Scholz JP, Snyder-Mackler L.

Dynamic stability in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee.

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2001;9(2):62-71.

79. Rudolph KS, Eastlack ME, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. 1998 Basma-

jian Student Award Paper. Movement patterns after anterior cruciate

ligament injury: a comparison of patients who compensate well for

the injury and those who require operative stabilization. J Electro-

myogr Kinesiol. 1998;8(6):349-362.

80. Salmon L, Russell V, Musgrove T, Pinczewski L, Refshauge K. Incidence

and risk factors for graft rupture and contralateral rupture after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):948-957.

81. Shelbourne KD, Gray T, Haro M. Incidence of subsequent injury to

either knee within 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

with patellar tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(2):246-251.

82. Shelbourne KD, Johnson BC. Effects of patellar tendon width and

preoperative quadriceps strength on strength return after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction with ipsilateral bone-patellar ten-

don-bone autograft. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(6):1474-1478.

83. Soderman K, Alfredson H, Pietila T, Werner S. Risk factors for leg injuries

in female soccer players: a prospective investigation during one out-door

season. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2001;9(5):313-321.

84. Spindler KP, Huston LJ, Wright RW, et al. The prognosis and predic-

tors of sports function and activity at minimum 6 years after anterior

cruciate ligament reconstruction: a population cohort study. Am J

Sports Med. 2011;39(2):348-359.

85. Thomee R, Kaplan Y, Kvist J, et al. Muscle strength and hop perfor-

mance criteria prior to return to sports after ACL reconstruction.

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(11):1798-1805.

86. Timoney JM, Inman WS, Quesada PM, et al. Return of normal gait

patterns after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports

Med. 1993;21(6):887-889.

87. Urbach D, Nebelung W, Becker R, Awiszus F. Effects of reconstruc-

tion of the anterior cruciate ligament on voluntary activation of quad-

riceps femoris: a prospective twitch interpolation study. J Bone Joint

Surg Br. 2001;83(8):1104-1110.

88. Vairo GL, Myers JB, Sell TC, Fu FH, Harner CD, Lephart SM. Neuro-

muscular and biomechanical landing performance subsequent to ipsi-

lateral semitendinosus and gracilis autograft anterior cruciate ligament

reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(1):2-14.

89. Wilk KE, Macrina LC, Cain EL, Dugas JR, Andrews JR. Recent

advances in the rehabilitation of anterior cruciate ligament injuries.

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(3):153-171.

90. Williams GN, Snyder-Mackler L, Barrance PJ, Axe MJ, Buchanan TS.

Neuromuscular function after anterior cruciate ligament

Vol. 41, No. 1, 2013 Injury Prevention After ACL Reconstruction 223

reconstruction with autologous semitendinosus-gracilis graft. J Elec-

tromyogr Kinesiol. 2005;15(2):170-180.

91. Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament

revision reconstruction: two-year results from the MOON cohort. J

Knee Surg. 2007;20(4):308-311.

92. Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, et al. Descriptive epidemiology

of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports

Med. 2010;38(10):1979-1986.

93. Xergia SA, McClelland JA, Kvist J, Vasiliadis HS, Georgoulis AD. The

influence of graft choice on isokinetic muscle strength 4-24 months

after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports

Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(5):768-780.

94. Zazulak BT, Hewett TE, Reeves NP, Goldberg B, Cholewicki J. Def-

icits in neuromuscular control of the trunk predict knee injury risk:

a prospective biomechanical-epidemiologic study. Am J Sports

Med. 2007;35(7):1123-1130.

95. Zazulak BT, Hewett TE, Reeves NP, Goldberg B, Cholewicki J. The

effects of core proprioception on knee injury: a prospective biome-

chanical-epidemiological study. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):368-

373.

For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

224 Hewett et al The American Journal of Sports Medicine