Gaze Accuracy Differences During Single-Leg Balance Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Sensorimotor Dysfunction Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction- an Afferent Perspective: A Scoping Review

Background

Sensorimotor dysfunction is thought to occur following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury which may have implications on future reinjury risk. Dysfunction has been demonstrated within the efferent component of the sensorimotor system. However, no reviews have examined the two main components of the afferent system: the visual and somatosensory systems.

Hypothesis/Purpose

This study aimed to report differences in function (central processing and local processing) within the (1) somatosensory and (2) visual systems between individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and healthy controls (between-subject). The study also aimed to report differences in function within the two systems between the two limbs of an individual following ACLR (within-subject).

Study Design

Scoping review.

Methods

A search was conducted in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Medline and Embase up until September 2021. Level I-IV studies assessing somatosensory and visual systems were included if they compared ACLR limbs to the uninjured contralateral limb (within-subject) or a healthy control limb (between-group). The function of somatosensory and visual systems was assessed across both central processing (processing of information in the central cortex) and local processing (all other assessments outside of central processing of information).

Results

Seventy studies were identified (52 somatosensory, 18 visual). Studies examining somatosensory central processing demonstrated significant differences; 66% of studies exhibited within-subject differences and 100% of the studies exhibited between-group differences. Studies examining local somatosensory processing had mixed findings; 40% of the 'joint position sense (JPS)' and 'threshold to detect motion (TTDM)' studies showed significant within-subject differences (JPS=0.8°-3.8° and TTDPM=0.2°-1.4°) and 42% demonstrated significant between-group differences (JPS=0.4°-5° and TTDPM=0.3°-2.8°). Eighty-three percent of visual central processing studies demonstrated significant dysfunction between-groups with no studies assessing within-subject differences. Fifty percent of the studies examining local visual processing demonstrated a significant between-group difference.

Conclusion

Significant differences in central processing exist within somatosensory and visual systems following ACLR. There is mixed evidence regarding local somatosensory and visual processing. Increased compensation by the visual system and local visual processing dysfunction may occur in conjunction with somatosensory dysfunction.

Development and Reliability of a Visual-Cognitive Reactive Triple Hop Test

CONTEXT

Current lower-extremity return to sport testing primarily considers the physical status of an athlete; however, sport participation requires continuous cognitive dual-task engagement. Therefore, the purpose was to develop and evaluate the reliability of a visual-cognitive reactive (VCR) triple hop test that simulates the typical sport demand of combined online visual-cognitive processing and neuromuscular control to improve return to sport testing after lower-extremity injury.

DESIGN

Test-retest reliability.

METHODS

Twenty-one healthy college students (11 females, 23.5 [3.7] y, 1.73 [0.12] m, 73.0 [16.8] kg, Tegner Activity Scale 5.5 [1.1] points) participated. Participants performed a single-leg triple hop with and without a VCR dual task. The VCR task incorporated the FitLight system to challenge peripheral response inhibition and central working memory. Maximum hop distance, reaction time, cognitive errors, and physical errors were measured. Two identical testing visits were separated by 12 to 17 days (14 [1] d).

RESULTS

Traditional triple hop (intraclass correlation coefficients: ICC(3,1) = .96 [.91-.99]; standard error of the measurement = 16.99 cm) and the VCR triple hop (intraclass correlation coefficients(3,1) = .92 [.82-.97]; standard error of the measurement = 24.10 cm) both demonstrated excellent reliability for the maximum hop distance, and moderate reliability for the VCR triple hop reaction time (intraclass correlation coefficients(3,1) = .62 [.09-.84]; standard error of the measurement = 0.09 s). On average, the VCR triple hop resulted in a hop distance deficit of 8.17% (36.4 [5.1] cm; P < .05, d = 0.55) relative to the traditional triple hop.

CONCLUSIONS

Hop distance on the VCR triple hop had excellent test-retest reliability and induced a significant physical performance deficit when compared with the traditional triple hop assessment. The VCR triple hop reaction time also demonstrated moderate reliability.