The Effectiveness of Joint Position Sense Test in Evaluating the Proprioceptive Function after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Soo Jin Oh; Sang Jin Yang; Jeong Ku Ha; Jeong Gook Seo; Jeong Yoon Choi; Jin Goo Kim

doi:10.5763/kjsm.2011.29.2.83

Journal List > Korean J Sports Med > v.29(2) > 1054472

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Oh, Yang, Ha, Seo, Choi, and Kim: The Effectiveness of Joint Position Sense Test in Evaluating the Proprioceptive Function after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Clinical Article

Korean J Sports Med 2011;29(2):83-88.

Published online: 20 January 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5763/kjsm.2011.29.2.83

The Effectiveness of Joint Position Sense Test in Evaluating the Proprioceptive Function after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Soo Jin Oh, MS¹, Sang Jin Yang, MS¹, Jeong Ku Ha, MD², Jeong Gook Seo, MD², Jeong Yoon Choi, MD², Jin Goo Kim, MD²

¹Sports Medical Center, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Received 17 August 2011 Revised 10 October 2011 Accepted 25 November 2011

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

We designed a study to evaluate the change of the proprioceptive function with joint position sense (JPS) during 1 year follow-up period after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring autograft. Thirty-eight men who underwent ACL reconstruction were tested for International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee score, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, KT-2000 arthrometer, isokinetic strength test, functional performance test (carioca, co-contraction, shuttle run test, one-hop test) and JPS at preoperation, 6 months, and 12 months postoperation. The contralateral healthy knee was used as control. There were no significant differences of JPS between the involved knee and healthy knee at any time period. Repeated measures analysis of variance of the active JPS revealed that there was no significant difference during the follow up periods. The change patterns of passive JPS of extension and flexion were out of accordance with the improving clinical status following ACL reconstruction. Most of the clinical parameters did not show the significant correlation with active and passive JPS at any time period. In conclusion, JPS does not reflect the change of proprioceptive function following ACL reconstruction.

Keywords: Joint position sense, Proprioception, Anterior cruciate ligament, Reconstruction

References

1. Angoules AG, Mavrogenis AF, Dimitriou R, et al. Knee proprioception following ACL reconstruction; a prospective trial comparing hamstrings with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. Knee. 2011; 18:76–82.

2. Reider B, Arcand MA, Diehl LH, et al. Proprioception of the knee before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2003; 19:2–12.

3. Carter ND, Jenkinson TR, Wilson D, Jones DW, Torode AS. Joint position sense and rehabilitation in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Br J Sports Med. 1997; 31:209–12.

4. Solomonow M, Baratta R, Zhou BH, et al. The synergistic action of the anterior cruciate ligament and thigh muscles in maintaining joint stability. Am J Sports Med. 1987; 15:207–13.

5. Wojtys EM, Huston LJ. Neuromuscular performance in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient lower extremities. Am J Sports Med. 1994; 22:89–104.

6. Mir SM, Hadian MR, Talebian S, Nasseri N. Functional assessment of knee joint position sense following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med. 2008; 42:300–3.

7. Ozenci AM, Inanmaz E, Ozcanli H, et al. Proprioceptive comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15:1432–7.

8. Ochi M, Iwasa J, Uchio Y, Adachi N, Sumen Y. The regeneration of sensory neurones in the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999; 81:902–6.

9. Miura K, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Okamura Y, Otsuka H, Toh S. The effect of local and general fatigue on knee proprioception. Arthroscopy. 2004; 20:414–8.

10. Corrigan JP, Cashman WF, Brady MP. Proprioception in the cruciate deficient knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992; 74:247–50.

11. Boerboom AL, Huizinga MR, Kaan WA, et al. Validation of a method to measure the proprioception of the knee. Gait Posture. 2008; 28:610–4.

12. Fridén T, Roberts D, Zätterström R, Lindstrand A, Moritz U. Proprioception after an acute knee ligament injury: a longitudinal study on 16 consecutive patients. J Orthop Res. 1997; 15:637–44.

13. Roberts D, Fridén T, Stomberg A, Lindstrand A, Moritz U. Bilateral proprioceptive defects in patients with a unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison between patients and healthy individuals. J Orthop Res. 2000; 18:565–71.

14. Lee MY, Yang SJ, Ha JK, Kim JG. The evaluation of proprioceptive function and effectiveness of joint position sense test after meniscal allograft transplantation. Korean J Sports Med. 2011; 29:58–63.

Fig. 1.

The evaluation of joint position sense was per-formed at 45 ^o in a sitting position. The subject has ear-plugs and blindfold covering his eyes¹⁴⁾.

Fig. 2.

Results of JPS in ACL reconstructed knee. JPS: joint position sense, AJPS: active joint position sense, PJPS: passive joint position sense.

Table 1.

Demographic data of the subjects

Subjects	Age (y)	Height (cm)	Weight (kg)
n=38	28.5±8.3	174.5±5.4	78.5±9.9

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 2.

Clinical results of the subjects

Variable	Preoperative	6 mo	12 mo
International Knee Documentation Committee	65.33±12.43	87.55±10.8	92±7.18
Lysholm	69.44±14.86	91.81±7.65	94.78±5.86
Tegner	5.73±1.44	5.34±1.27	5.76±1.14
KT-2000 (mm)	2.61±1.44	1.52±1.35	1.33±1.25
Isokinetic streng test 60 ^o/s extension (Nm)	133.29±43.87	157.11±50	172.46±44.17
Isokinetic streng test 60 ^o/s flexion (Nm)	75.38±25.33	91.56±21.58	113.63±23.66
Co-contraction (s)	18.64±6.21	16.20±2.79	14.95±1.99
Shuttle run (s)	9.58±1.63	8.24±0.90	7.83±0.94
Carioca (s)	11.56±2.61	9.90±2.07	9.24±1.91
One hop (cm)	112.15±37.81	134.47±32.21	142.1±26.48

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 3.

The results of joint position sense test by follow-up period

Variable	Preoperative	6 mo	12 mo	p-value∗
AJPS	3.00±3.64	4.15±3.63	4.78±4.34	0.12
Extension PJPS	7.23±5.84	4.23±4.33	5.76±5.28
Flexion PJPS	8.02±5.51	3.78±2.53	5.31±3.72

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. AJPS: active joint position sense, PJPS: passive joint position sense.∗Repeated measure analysis of variance.

Table 4.

The difference of joint position sense between involved and uninvolved knee

	Preoperative	6 mo	12 mo
AJPS involved knee	3.00±3.64	4.15±3.63	4.78±4.34
Uninvolved knee	3.39±3.36	4.89±4.28	4.60±5.47
p-value	0.568	0.352	0.835
Extension PJPS in involved knee	7.23±5.84	4.23±4.33	5.76±5.28
Extension PJPS in uninvolved knee	7.18±5.79	3.81±4.10	4.36±4.81
p-value	0.957	0.608	0.068
Flexion PJPS in involved knee	8.02±5.51	3.78±2.53	5.31±3.72
Flexion PJPS in uninvolved knee	7.42±5.49	4.42±3.49	5.78±4.16
p-value	0.515	0.394	0.507

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. AJPS: active joint position sense, PJPS: passive joint position sense.

TOOLS

Similar articles