Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- ACL (1)
- Exercise (1)
- Function (1)
- Physiotherapy (1)
- Rehabilitation (1)
- Single-leg hop for distance (1)
- Validity (1)
- first-time shoulder dislocation (1)
- immobilization in external rotation and abduction (1)
- shoulder instability (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Objective: To investigate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Modified forward hop (MFH) test in participants after ACL reconstruction (ACLR).
Design: Reliability study.
Setting: Assessments were administered at different clinical locations in Germany and Switzerland by the same 2 investigators.
Participants: Forty-eight active individuals participated in this study (N=48).
Main Outcome Measures: The participants performed MFHs and Forward hops for distance in a predetermined order. The feasibility of the MFH was quantified with proportions of successfully executed attempts and Pearson's χ2 test. Its reliability was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Test validity was explored using Pearson's product moment correlation analyses.
Results: Fewer failed attempts were recorded among the participants (age: 30 [Standard deviation 11] years; 22 women, 26 (13) months post-surgery) when compared with the Forward hop for distance test (25/288 trials; 9% vs 72/288 trials; 25%). Within-session ICC values were excellent (>0.95) for both types of Forward hop tests, independent of the side examined. The SEM values were comparable between the Modified (injured: 5.6 cm, uninjured: 5.9 cm) and the classic Forward hop (injured: 4.3 cm, uninjured: 7.2 cm).
Conclusion: The MFH is a feasible, reliable, and valid tool for judging neuromuscular performance after ACLR. If the aim of a hop for distance incorporates enhanced perceived or real landing safety, landing on both feet should be used.
Background: Treatment of first-time shoulder dislocation (FSD) is a topic of debate. After high rates of recurrent instability after nonoperative management were reported in the literature, primary repair of FSD significantly increased. At the same time, new concepts were proposed that had promising results for immobilization in external rotation (ER) and abduction (ABD). Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the recurrence rates (primary outcome) and clinical outcomes (secondary outcome parameters) of immobilization in ER+ABD versus arthroscopic primary stabilization after FSD. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with FSD were randomized to either treatment with immobilization in 60° of ER plus 30° of ABD (group 1) or surgical treatment with arthroscopic Bankart repair (group 2). Clinical evaluation was performed 1, 3, and 6 weeks as well as 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively or after reduction, including range of motion, instability testing, subjective shoulder value, Constant-Murley score, Rowe score, and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index. Recurrent instability events were prospectively recorded. Results: Between 2011 and 2017, a total of 112 patients were included in this study. Of these, 60 patients were allocated to group 1 and 52 to group 2. At the 24-month follow-up, 91 patients (81.3%) were available for clinical examination. The recurrence rate was 19.1% in group 1 and 2.3% in group 2 (P = .016). No significant differences were found between groups regarding clinical shoulder scores (P > .05). Due to noncompliance with the immobilization treatment protocol, 4 patients (6.7%) were excluded. Conclusion: Immobilization in ER+ABD versus primary arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for the treatment of FSD showed no differences in clinical shoulder scores. However, recurrent instability was significantly higher after nonoperative treatment.