DUAL-TASK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS FOR ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT INJURY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Objective Clinical Measurement Tools for Functional Evaluation of the Surgical Patient

Following knee surgery, clinicians have traditionally used visually rated or time-based assessments of lower extremity movement quality to measure surgical outcomes, plan rehabilitation interventions, and measure success. These methods of assessment are prone to error and do not fully capture a patient's inefficient movement patterns post surgery. Further, currently available systems which objectively measure kinematics during these tasks are expensive and unidimensional. For these reasons, recent research has called for the development of objective and low-cost precision rehabilitation tools to improve clinical measurement of movement tasks. The purpose of this article is to highlight two such tools and their applications to knee surgery. The systems highlighted within this article are the Mizzou Point-of-Care Assessment System (MPASS) and the Mizzou Knee Arthrometer Testing System (MKATS). MPASS has demonstrated high levels of agreement with the gold-standard Vicon system in measuring kinematics during sit-to-stand (R > 0.71), lateral step-down (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.55, apart from ankle flexion), and drop vertical jump tasks (ICC > 0.62), as well as gait (R > 0.87). MKATS has been used to quantify differences in tibiofemoral motion between groups during lateral step-down, step-up-and-over, and step-up/step-down tasks. Objective measurement of clinical tasks using portable and inexpensive instruments, such as the MPASS and MKATS, can help clinicians identify inefficient movement patterns and asymmetries which may damage and wear down supporting structures within the knee and throughout the kinetic chain causing pain and discomfort. Identifying these issues can help clinicians to plan interventions and measure their progress at a lower cost than currently available systems. The MPASS and MKATS are useful tools which have many applications to knee surgery.

How does a motor or cognitive dual-task affect our sense of upper limb proprioception?

BACKGROUND

Daily upper limb activities require multitasking and our division of attention. How we allocate our attention can be studied using dual-task interference (DTi). Given the vital role proprioception plays in movement planning and motor control, it is important to investigate how conscious upper limb proprioception is impacted by DTi through cognitive and motor interference.

PURPOSE

To examine how dual-task interference impacts conscious upper limb proprioception during active joint repositioning tasks (AJRT).

METHODS

Forty-two healthy participants, aged between 18 and 35, took part in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed two AJRT during three conditions: baseline (single task), dual-cognitive task (serial subtractions), and dual-motor task (non-dominant hand movements). The proprioceptive error (PE; difference between their estimation and targeted position) was measured using an AJRT of 75% and 90% of maximum internal rotation using the Biodex System IIITM and the Upper Limb Proprioception Reaching Test (PRO-Reach). To determine if PEs differed during dual-task interference, interference change scores from baseline were used with one sample t-tests and analyses of variance.

RESULTS

The overall mean PE with the Biodex was 4.1° ± 1.9 at baseline. Mean change scores from baseline reflect a mean improvement of 1.5° ± 1.0 (p < .001) during dual-cognitive task and of 1.5° ± 1.2 (p < .001) during dual-motor task. The overall mean PE with the PRO-Reach was 4.4cm ± 1.1 at baseline. Mean change scores from baseline reflect a mean worsening of 1.0cm ± 1.1 (p < .001) during dual-cognitive task and improvement of 0.8cm ± 0.6 (p < .001) during dual-motor task. Analysis of variance with the Biodex PEs revealed an interference effect (p < .001), with the cognitive condition causing greater PEs compared to the motor condition and a criterion position effect (p = .006), where 75% of maximum IR produced larger PEs during both interference conditions. An interference effect (p = .022) with the PRO-Reach PEs was found highlighting a difference between the cognitive and motor conditions, with decreased PEs during the contralateral motor task.

CONCLUSION

Interference tasks did impact proprioception. Cognitive interference produced mixed results, whereas improved proprioception was seen during motor interference. Individual task prioritization strategies are possible, where each person may choose their own attention strategy when faced with dual-task interference.

Associations Between Cognitive Function and ACL Injury-Related Biomechanics: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Does lower baseline cognitive function predispose athletes to ACL injury risk, especially when performing unplanned or dual-task movements?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between cognitive function and biomechanics related to ACL injuries during cognitively challenging sports movements.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Scopus, and SciELO databases were searched; additional hand searching was also conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

The following inclusion criteria had to be met: participants completed (1) a neurocognitive test, (2) a cognitively challenging sport-related task involving lower limbs, and (3) a biomechanical analysis. The following criteria determined exclusion from the review: studies involving participants with (1) recent or current musculoskeletal injuries; (2) recent or current concussion; (3) ACL surgical reconstruction, reviews of the literature, commentary or opinion articles, and case studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement and registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two of authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the articles with the Downs and Black and ROBINS-I checklists, to assess methodological quality and risk of bias, respectively.

RESULTS

Six studies with different methodologies and confounding factors were included in this review. Of these 6 studies, 3 were ranked as high-quality, 3 demonstrated a low risk of bias, 2 a moderate risk, and 1 a severe risk. Five studies found a cognitive-motor relationship, with worse cognitive performance associated with increased injury risk, with 1 study reporting the opposite directionality for 1 variable. One study did not identify any interaction between cognitive function and biomechanical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Worse cognitive performance is associated with an increased injury risk profile during cognitively challenging movements.

The effect of dual-task on jump landing kinematics and kinetics in female athletes with or without dynamic knee valgus

It has been indicated that dual tasks may multiply the possibility of injuries due to divided attention. This study aimed to investigate the effect of dual-task on kinematics and kinetics of jump landing in female athletes with and without dynamic knee valgus. In this study, 32 recreational athletes between 18 and 30 years old were recruited and divided into with (n = 17) and without (n = 15) dynamic knee valgus groups. The 3-D positions of retroreflective markers were recorded at 200 Hz using a 8-camera Kestrel system (Motion Analysis Corporation, Santa Rosa, CA), while ground reaction forces were synchronously recorded at 1000 Hz using 2 adjacent force plates (FP4060-NC; Bertec Corporation, Columbus, OH). Kinematics and kinetics of jump landing were recorded while counting backward digits as a dual task, and also without counting backward digits as a single task. One-way repeated measures of variance were used to analyse data at the significant level of 95% (α < 0.05). The study found that the dual-task affected the angles and moments of hip, knee, and ankle joints (P < 0.05) in both groups. Additionally, the effect of the dual-task differed significantly between the two groups in the angles hip flexion (P < 0.001), knee abduction (P < 0.001), and ankle internal rotation (P = 0.001), as well as the moments hip flexion (P < 0.001), hip abduction (P = 0.011), knee flexion (P = 0.017), knee internal rotation (P < 0.001), ankle dorsiflexion (P = 0.046), ankle eversion (P < 0.001), and ankle internal rotation (P = 0.046). Athletes with dynamic knee valgus may have been less able to protect themselves during the landing and are more prone to lower extremities injuries. As a result, using kinematics and kinetics in athletes with dynamic knee valgus during landing may help identify potential mechanisms associated with risk factors of lower extremity injuries and ACL injuries as well.

Inhibition of Motor Planning and Response Selection after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare cortical motor planning activity during response selection and motor execution processes between individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and uninjured controls during a reaction time and response selection task.

METHODS

Individuals with ACLR ( n = 20) and controls ( n = 20) performed a lateralized choice reaction time (e.g., Go/NoGo) task. Electrocortical activity and reaction time were recorded concurrently using electroencephalography and inertial measurement units. Separate stimulus locked and response-locked event-related potentials were computed for each limb. The lateralized readiness potential (LRP) was computed as the interhemispheric differences between waveforms and the mean LRP area and onset latency were recorded. Active motor threshold was determined using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Differences between groups (ACLR vs control) and limbs (involved vs uninvolved) and the associations between LRP characteristics and response performance (number of errors) were assessed.

RESULTS

Participants with ACLR have had smaller LRP area during periods of response selection ( P = 0.043, d = 0.4) and motor execution ( P = 0.015, d = 0.5) and committed more errors in both Go ( P < 0.001, d = 0.8) and NoGo ( P = 0.032, d = 0.5) response conditions. There were no differences in latency of response selection or motor execution. Participants with ACLR had higher active motor thresholds ( P < 0.001, d = 1.3) than controls, which was weakly associated with smaller LRP areas ( r = 0.32-0.42, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACLR group demonstrated greater motor planning and response inhibition during a choice reaction time task. More errant performance also suggests poorer decision making in the presence of a "speed-accuracy" trade-off. Key features of the sample, including lower corticospinal excitability, lend support to an interpretation of widespread cortical inhibition contributing to impairments in response selection and motor execution.

Dual-Task Interference Slows Down Proprioception

It is well-known that multitasking impairs the performance of one or both of the concomitant ongoing tasks. Previous studies have mainly focused on how a secondary task can compromise visual or auditory information processing. However, despite dual tasking being critical to motor performance, the effects of dual-task performance on proprioceptive information processing have not been studied yet. The purpose of the present study was, therefore, to investigate whether sensorimotor task performance would be affected by the dual task and if so, in which phase of the sensorimotor task performance would this negative effect occur. The kinematic variables of passive and active knee movements elicited by the leg drop test were analyzed. Thirteen young adults participated in the study. The dual task consisted of performing serial subtractions. The results showed that the dual task increased both the reaction time to counteract passive knee-joint movements in the leg drop test and the threshold to detect those movements. The dual task did not affect the speed and time during the active knee movement and the absolute angle error between the final and the target knee angles. Furthermore, the results showed that the time to complete the sensorimotor task was prolonged in dual tasking. Our findings suggest that dual tasking reduces motor performance due to slowing down proprioceptive information processing without affecting movement execution.

Whole-Body Reactive Agility Metrics to Identify Football Players With a Core and Lower Extremity Injury Risk

Clinical prediction models are useful in addressing several orthopedic conditions with various cohorts. American football provides a good population for attempting to predict injuries due to their relatively high injury rate. Physical performance can be assessed a variety of ways using an assortment of different tests to assess a diverse set of metrics, which may include reaction time, speed, acceleration, and deceleration. Asymmetry, the difference between right and left performance has been identified as a possible risk factor for injury. The purpose of this study was to determine the whole-body reactive agility metrics that would identify Division I football players who were at elevated risk for core, and lower extremity injuries (CLEI). This cohort study utilized 177 Division I football players with a total of 57 CLEI suffered who were baseline tested prior to the season. Single-task and dual-task whole-body reactive agility movements in lateral and diagonal direction reacting to virtual reality targets were analyzed separately. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses narrowed the 34 original predictor variables to five variables. Logistic regression analysis determined the three strongest predictors of CLEI for this cohort to be: lateral agility acceleration asymmetry, lateral flanker deceleration asymmetry, and diagonal agility reaction time average. Univariable analysis found odds ratios to range from 1.98 to 2.75 for these predictors of CLEI. ROC analysis had an area under the curve of 0.702 for any combination of two or more risk factors produced an odds ratio of 5.5 for risk of CLEI. These results suggest an asymmetry of 8-15% on two of the identified metrics or a slowed reaction time of ≥0.787 s places someone at increased risk of injury. Sixty-three percent (36/57) of the players who sustained an injury had ≥2 positive predictors In spite of the recognized limitation, these finding support the belief that whole-body reactive agility performance can identify Division I football players who are at elevated risk for CLEI.