Upload
gordon-brooks
View
212
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dynamic Knee Stability and Perturbation Training
Dynamic Knee Stability
• Rudolph et al, KSSTA 2001• 31 active subjects
– 10 uninjured– 11 copers– 10 non-copers
• Screening evaluation• Quadriceps strength testing• Knee joint laxity testing
Testing
• EMG testing– Normalized to maximum EMG– Variables
• Muscle onset (threshold 2.5x ave rest EMG)• Termination of activity• Magnitude (Integration over weight acceptance
interval)• Co-contraction of VL-LH, VL-MG
Testing
• 3D motion analysis– Self-selected walking, jogging speeds– Joint motions, moments– Support moments
WalkingCoper Non-coper ControlInvolved Uninvolved Involved Uninvolved Involved Uninvolved
Vert GRF at loading (F=8.499, P=0.017)*
1.25%BW (±0.030)
1.23%BW (±0.022)
1.22%BW (±0.031)
1.26%BW (±0.033)
1.31%BW* (±0.031)
1.29%BW* (±0.033)
Peak knee flexion angle (negative=flexion) (F=8.499, P=0.017)**
-22.8° (±1.9)
-24.5° (±1.8)
-21.9°** (±1.9)
-25.9° (±1.9)
-26.5° (±1.9)
-26.5° (±1.9)
Knee moment at PKF (F=6.212, P=0.034)**
0.368 (±0.07)
0.437 (±0.68)
0.314** (±0.071)
0.542 (±0.071)
0.558 (±0.074)
0.601 (±0.071)
Soleus integral over wt acceptance (t=2.894, P=0.020)**
8.655 (±1.292)
7.489 (±0.679)
9.811** (±1.362)
6.626 (±0.716)
8.302 (±1.292)
7.612 (±0.679)
*Control group different from copers and non-copers (P<0.05)**Non-copers' involved side different from all others (P<0.05)
Walking
Distribution of support moments on the involved side during weight acceptance, walking. Non-copers* had lower knee moments (F=5.402, P=0.045) and higher hip moments (F=3.979, P=0.056) than copers or uninjured subjects
Walking
Knee flexion angle External knee flexion moment
Quadriceps index
Copers Copers
r=0.029, P=0.932 r=0.135, P=0.693
Non-copers Non-copers
r=0.933, P=0.000* r=0.716, P=0.030*
Lateral hamstrings Onset-to-peak EMG
Copers Copers
r=0.672, P=0.030* r=0.765, P=0.010*
Non-copers Non-copers
r=0.095, P=0.824 r=0.408, P=0.316
Non-coper Coper
Quadriceps strength (t=4.033, P=0.001)* 75.3% (±11%) 97.1% (±12.7%)
Walking
• Regression analyses – 79.5% of the variability in the knee moment at peak
knee flexion accounted for by the variability in the onset-to-peak of the hamstrings and quadriceps muscles (F=6.009, P=0.030) in the copers only.
Jogging
Copers Non-copers Controls
Involved Un-involved Involved Un-involved Involved Un-involved
Velocity m/s per LL (F=4.00, P=0.03)*
4.041 (±0.23) 4.00 (±0.19) 4.137
(±0.24)4.236 (±0.21)
4.745* (±0.23)
4.885* (±0.19)
Stride length m/LL (F=4.30, P=0.029)*
3.089 (±0.13)
3.034 (±0.11)
3.194 (±0.18)
3.297 (±0.15)
3.575* (±0.15)
3.592* (±0.13)
Vertical ground reaction force (F=2.849, P=0.075)
2.172 (±0.07)
2.204 (±0.07)
2.084 (±0.07)
2.156 (±0.07)
2.322 (±0.07)
2.357 (±0.07)
JoggingKnee flexion Knee moment
Jogging
Non-copers had significantly greater hip (F=3.3994, P=0.030) and less knee (F=4.727, P=0.017) extensor moments on the involved sides
Jogging
Non-copers had significantly greater co-contraction between vastus lateralis and medial gastrocnemius in the involved limb (*F=3.609, P=0.041)
Peak knee flexion angle
Knee moment at peak knee flexion
Passive laxity
CopersNS
r=0.203, P=1.000
Non-copersNS
r=-0.866, P=0.015*
Quadriceps index
CopersNS
r=-0.133, P=1.000
Non-copersNS
r=-0.798, P=0.060**
VL-LH co-contraction
CopersNS
r=-0.417, P=0.231
Non-copersNS
r=-0.670, P=0.048*
Jogging
• Regression analyses – 83.5% of the variability in the knee moment at peak
knee flexion accounted for by the variability in the amount of VL-LH and VL-MG co-contraction (F=15.231, P=0.004) in the non-copers only.
Conclusions
COPERS NON-COPERS
• Normal knee motions and moments
• Less co-activation• Muscle activation-
important factor in stability
• Compensation related to quadriceps strength, passive knee laxity
• Reduced knee flexor moment
• Reduced knee motion• Transfer control to hip• Possible delayed force
production?
Perturbation training
• Fitzgerald et al, PT 2000• 26 subjects completed training
– 14 subjects in standard group– 12 subjects in perturbation group
• Screening exam– Pass “rehab candidate” criteria
Training programs
STANDARD PROGRAMPERTURBATION
TRAINING
• Resistance training to quads and hams
• Cardiovascular endurance training
• Agility training• Sport-specific skill
training
• AP, ML on Balance Master
• AP, ML rotary on tiltboard
• Rollerboard/Platform• Multi-directional on
rollerboard
Treatment outcomes
• Unsuccessful rehab– Episode of knee giving way– Status reduction from rehab candidate to high risk for
reinjury on retesting• Outcome measures
– MVIC quadriceps– Single-limb hop tests– Knee joint laxity– KOS-ADLs– KOS-Sports– Global Rating Scale
Results
Greater number of subjects in the standard group had unsuccessful rehabilitation (χ2=5.27, critical value=3.84, P<.05)
Positive likelihood ratio was 4.88 ([11/18]/1–[7/8])
Results
KOS-ADLS interaction. P<.05
KOS-Sports interaction. P=.12
Results
GRS interaction. P<.05
X-over Hop interaction. P<.05
Hop TestingPerturbation (Immed after)
Perturbation (F/u)
Standard (Immed after)
Standard (F/u)
Single Hop 101%(±14%)* 68%(±48%)
X-over Hop 105%(±13%) 104%(±16%) 100%(±15%) 64%(±55%)
Triple Hop 99%(±12%)* 59%(±51%)
* P<.05 at follow-up
Conclusions
More subjects in standard group (50%) had unsuccessful rehab compared to pert group (92%)
~5x more likely to successfully return to high-level activities if receive perturbation training
Pre to post trainingADLs, GRS, X-over hop improved in both groups
Post training to follow-upMaintained in pert group, in standard group
Development of Dynamic Stability
• Chmielewski et al, J Electromyo & Kinesiology 2002• 9 subjects
– Passed screen and wanted to attempt to return to activity
• Quadriceps strength testing• Screening exam
EMG testing
• VL, LH, MG, SOL• Muscle timing onset• Termination of activity• Muscle activity duration• Time to peak amplitude• Peak amplitude• Integral of muscle activity during loading response
Training
• Perturbation training• Agility training• Resistance strength training for quads, hams, and gastrocs
Screening examination
Pre training Post training
Quadriceps index 90.9%(±12.5%) 91.3%(±5.8%)
Timed Hop 97.3%(±7.95%) 96.0%(±4.9%)
KOS-ADLs 91.8%(±6.6%) 97.3%(±2.3%)*
GRS 83.7%(±13.6%) 94.3%(±4.3%)*
P<.05
EMG testing
* VL integral of activity during walking is significantly increased after perturbation training (p<0.05)
VL activity integrated from 100 ms before initial contact to peak knee flexion is less before training (a) compared to after training (b).
EMG testing
Timing of muscle activity during walking before and after perturbation training
Conclusions
• Quadriceps activity integral after training• Relationship of quadriceps activity, peak magnitude, time-
to-peak activity with hamstrings and soleus activation– Influenced by training
• Self-reports sports , functional test