
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

36793556
67988
10.26603/001c.67988
Clinical Commentary/Current Concept Review
The Need To Change Return to Play Testing in Athletes Following ACL Injury: A Theoretical Model
Wilk Kevin E PT, DPT, FAPTA 1 2
Thomas Zachary M PT, DPT, OCS, CSCS 3
Arrigo Christopher A MS, PT, ATC 4
Davies George J PT, DPT, ATC, CSCS 5 6 7
1 Vice President National Director Clinical Education & Research Champion Sports Medicine, Select Medical
2 Director of Rehabilitative Research American Sports Medicine Institute https://ror.org/037mmnn19
3 Sports Physical Therapy Fellow Champion Sports Medicine
4 Advanced Rehabilitation
5 Physical Therapy Georgia Southern University https://ror.org/04agmb972
6 Coastal Therapy & Sports Rehab
7 Gundersen Health System https://ror.org/01p3c3c27
Address all correspondence to Dr. Kevin Wilk, 200 Montgomery Hwy, Suite 150, Birmingham, AL, 35216
1 2 2023
2023
18 1 272281
21 12 2022
16 1 2023
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The incidence of knee injuries in sport, particularly involving the ACL, appears to be increasing yearly, especially in younger age athletes. Even more concerning is the frequency of ACL reinjury also appears to be increasing year after year. Improving the objective criteria and testing methods used to determine return to play (RTP) readiness following ACL surgery is one aspect of the rehabilitation process that can significantly help in reducing reinjury rates. Currently, the majority of clinicians are still using post operative time frames as their number one criterion for clearance to RTP. This flawed method demonstrates an inadequate reflection of the true unpredictable, dynamic environment athletes are returning to participate in. In our clinical experience, objective testing to allow for clearance to sport participation following an ACL injury should incorporate neurocognitive and reactive testing due to the nature of the injury typically occurs because of failed control of unanticipated reactive movements. The purpose of this manuscript is to share a neurocognitive testing sequence we currently employ consisting of 8 tests in 3 categories: Blazepod tests, reactive shuttle run tests, and reactive hop tests. The use of a more dynamic reactive testing battery may decrease the reinjury rates when an athlete is cleared for participation by measuring readiness in chaotic circumstances that are more truly reflective of the sporting environment the athlete is working to return to and in the process give them a greater sense of confidence.

ACL injury
neurocognitive training
reactive testing
return to play
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

It is estimated there are between 200,000 to 250,000 anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) knee injuries sustained annually in the United States, resulting in approximately 150,000 to 165,000 ACL surgeries each year.1,2 The incidence of these serious knee injuries appears to be increasing yearly, especially in high school aged athletes. More troublesome than the frequency of ACL injuries, is the rate of reinjury also appears to be increasing year after year. Investigators have reported reinjury rates following ACL surgery to range as high as 30-39%.3,4 This rate of reinjury results in as many as 4 in every 10 surgeries being attributed to reinjury. This level of reinjury following ACL surgery is unacceptable. In these instances, the athlete has already suffered one significant knee injury, undergone surgery, and worked through the rehabilitation process afterwards only to suffer another ACL injury to either the opposite or the previously reconstructed knee. As health care providers we need to critically examine every available way to reduce ACL reinjury rates. One area that can significantly help in reducing these reinjury rates is improving the methodology used in return to play (RTP) testing following ACL surgery.

The cause of these unacceptably high reinjury rates has been attributed to a number of factors. First, there is a surprising overall lack of RTP testing generally utilized in making RTP decisions. Barber-Westin and Noyes3 reported in a large meta-analysis and systematic review of 716 articles that only 13% utilized objective criteria in determining readiness to return an athlete back to participation following ACL surgery. This lack of testing is extremely disappointing when you consider that a reduction in reinjury rates has been demonstrated by utilizing objective RTP testing in the decision-making process.5–7 Second, athletes are returning to participate in sport without completing the entire rehabilitation process, often due to insurance plan limitations, an inability to afford rehabilitation following the exhaustion of benefits, or self-discharge. Each of these factors results in incomplete rehabilitation, placing the athlete at risk of reinjury. Third, is the frequent lack of high-level activities and functional sport-specific challenges during the rehabilitation process. When an athlete is not challenged in a similar environment, with replicating demands matching those of the sport, they are often returning to the result inadequately prepared and therefore a higher risk of reinjury. Next, is the fact that most of the RTP tests currently in use are single task drills with anticipated movements. Sports are seldom single task activities and often involve unanticipated movements. Brophy et al8,9 and others10,11 have reported the majority of soccer injuries sustained to the female player occurred during defending and/or with unanticipated reactive movements. For example, a soccer player may be performing soccer drills with other players to create an environment of distraction, controlled chaos, and dual tasking. This combination of variables and the hierarchy of tasks inherent to sport makes single task drills insufficient to assess RTP readiness. Lastly, the athlete often goes back to their sport or activities unprepared and at risk of reinjury for a combination of the reasons listed above.

The present RTP testing methodology is underutilized and when employed not satisfactorily effective to appropriately determine RTP readiness of the athlete following ACL surgery. Most decisions are made in the Physician’s office, based solely on physical examination and subjective reporting. Typically, when RTP testing is performed, it is not done in the same environment or with sport specificity. Testing needs to be conducted with an emphasis on the performance of multiple tasks, neurocognitive challenges, and motor control. RTP decisions should be made by a team of health care providers looking at the athlete’s readiness from a variety of viewpoints to make an informed decision based on subjective, objective and functional data. RTP criteria should not be a single event to determine readiness to return athletes to all levels of sport.

RTP testing for the lower extremity following ACL surgery has been discussed extensively in the literature since the mid 1980’s. There are over 500 articles that present various testing procedures and protocols. These testing procedures include single leg hop testing, shuttle running, balance testing and functional movement screening, isokinetic testing, and limb symmetry index assessment to list just a few.12–19 While these tests are all good measures of what they are designed to assess, they all test a single task, and none involve reactive assessment. Even the tests used that replicate drills employed in sport training, are simply drills and not truly specific sport related activities. These tests are good, serve a vital purpose and we recommend them as tests to assist in determining rehabilitation progression.

Historically all these tests have been referred to as RTP tests. They are more appropriately tests suited to determine athlete readiness to begin progression through rehabilitation, running, jumping, agility drills, or other transitional programs. They are not true measures to assess readiness to return to competitive play. These tests are predictable, in that the athlete is asked to perform a specific movement or task and is evaluated based on their resultant performance of this movement. In sports, there are numerous unpredictable movements that the athlete must perform, most of these are reactive in nature and have multiple stimuli occurring simultaneously. Therefore, to effectively assess return to play readiness during the recovery after ACL surgery, the RTP tests must measure those types of sport activities, movements, and reactions. The problem is these tests do not assess reaction time, dynamic stabilization, dynamic reaction movements and do not tell us if the athlete is ready to initiate competitive practice or return to competitive play.

Although there are limitations in the previous metrics for clinical decision making for RTP, it is important to recognize some of the research of the tests which provide the criteria to progress to the neurocognitive testing. Refer to the list below for an example checklist or functional testing algorithm for a criterion-based approach for progression through rehabilitation and in preparation for using the advanced testing methods.20

VAS/NPRS

PROs

Kinesiophobia

Anthropometric measurement for effusion

Static balance/Dynamic balance

AROM/PROM – Knee/PF

Strength Testing – TLS: LSI, Unilateral ratios, Allometric scaling to BW

Special Tests for ligament stability: Lachman’s, Pivot Shift, KT1000/2000

Walking/running gait analysis

Functional movement patterns

Jump Test

Hop Tests

T-drill hop test

Change of Direction Test

LEFT (adds acceleration/deceleration [anterior/retro] and acute fatigue factor

Even though the “missing link” is the neurocognitive reactive testing, there must be preparatory testing that leads to criterion-based metrics that prepares the patients to perform the neurocognitive reactive testing. Therefore, criteria that can be used to determine the patient’s readiness for performing these advanced neuro-cognitive reactive tests are described in Table 1.

135343 Table 1. Measurements	Methods of Assessments	Objective Criteria	
Pain21	VAS/NPRS	<3 during & after therapeutic exercises	
PROs22			
Kinesiophobia23,24	ACL-RSI	> 55 points	
Posture	Posture Grid	LSI/WNL	
Gait/Running/Movement
Analysis	Qualitative Analysis	WNL	
Knee effusion	Anthropometric measurements
/Sweep Test	<1 cm. LSI	
Palpation		No c/o pain	
Balance/Proprioception25	Static
Dynamic	WNL-LSI
WNL/LSI	
AROM26,27	Goniometry
Digital gonios	<10% LSI	
PROM26,27	Goniometry,
Qualitative end feels	< 10 % LSI	
Special Tests	Lachman’s/
Pivot Shift	Negative
Negative	
Muscle Strength28
(Total Leg Strength-TAS)
Core, Hip, Knee, Ankle	HHD, Isokinetics	<10% LSI, %BW, Norms	
Muscle Power
(Total Leg Strength-TAS)
Core, Hip, Knee, Ankle	HHD, Isokinetics
Force Plates	<10% LSI, %BW, Norms;
RFD	
Muscle Endurance
(Total Leg Strength-TAS)
Core, Hip, Knee, Ankle	Isokinetics
Force Plates	<10% LSI, %BW, Norms	
Functional Tests29–35	Jump Tests
Hop Tests
T-Drill Hop Test
Change of Lateral Direction Test
LEFT	% - Height
<10% -LSI; % Height; Norms
<10 % - LSI
<10% - LSI
Norms	

The purpose of this manuscript is to present a proposed testing and RTP model we currently use clinically. This RTP testing includes neurocognitive testing, reactive motor control testing, dual tasking, and psychological readiness with the main focus on reactive unanticipated test movements.

Neurocognitive Testing

Appropriate testing of RTP readiness following ACL surgery, should not only assess if the athlete appears ready to resume play but also be directed toward minimizing the risk of reinjury. To accomplish this, testing must be more dynamic, sport oriented, and even unpredictable in nature. A neurocognitive testing battery must include measures of reactive response and incorporate sport-type reactions and movements. Testing must also be safe, easy to perform and measure, and require minimal equipment to complete. Neurocognitive testing is a way to measure various aspects of cognitive function non-invasively. These cognitive functions include things like reaction time, multi-tasking, attention, memory, and perception. Short tests designed to assess these functions produce objective measures that can be compared to standard scores or to an individual’s baseline scores when available. Readiness to return to sport involves more than just the readiness of the musculoskeletal system. The neurocognitive system is a vital aspect of sport due to the constant use of cognitive functions such as reaction time and multi-tasking. Reaction time testing has been shown to be highly reliable and can be used to assess an athlete’s cognitive and athletic ability.36 Musculoskeletal injuries affect the neurocognitive system as well, so assessing and training this system can lead to better outcomes when determining readiness to return to play. Simon et al37 demonstrated that the addition of a neurocognitive and anticipatory component to the traditional hop test series resulted in a statistical difference in performance and may improve functional return to sport testing. When comparing reactive versus preplanned agility testing, Serpell et al38 demonstrated a difference in mean reaction time between elite and subelite groups in the way in which they contributed to perceptual skills and/or reaction ability. All of these factors combine to make the incorporation of neurocognitive training and testing elements crucial to advancing the effectiveness of RTP testing following ACL surgery and help to minimize the risk of reinjury as the athlete returns to competition.

Proposed Testing Sequence

The neurocognitive testing sequence we currently employ consists of a total of 8 tests in 3 categories: Blazepod tests, reactive shuttle run tests, and reactive hop tests. Testing is performed sequentially using 3 Blazepod tests, 2 reactive shuttle runs and finally 3 reactive hop tests. Adequate rest and recovery are allowed between tests. Based on the duration of the tests, the patients are permitted a 1-3 minute rest between tests. The testing measures are:

Blazepod Tests

Blazepod Lateral Slide Test

The lateral slide test begins with four Blazepods positioned in a straight line five feet apart (60 inches). (Figure 1) The pods are configured in a randomized pattern using a single target color (blue) and five distracting colors (purple, green, orange, red, and yellow). One pod will light up the target color (blue) and the remaining three will be lit in distracting colors. Lights are set to transition on a hit and with zero-time delay between each transition. The athlete is instructed to begin in the center of the pods and will shuffle laterally targeting the blue light. Athletes are required to maintain a mini squat in an athletic position throughout the test and must avoid hopping or running between lights. Another individual will be tossing a soccer ball towards the target light. The athlete is instructed to catch the ball, tap the target light then toss the ball back while locating the next light and shuffling to it in a good athletic ready position. Once the test begins the goal is to tap as many lights as possible in 30 seconds. The total number of taps as well as average reaction time is calculated and scored following completion of the test.

135344 Figure 1. Lateral slide test with light targets (Blazepods Inc.)

Each target light is 60 inches apart.

Blazepod 4 Corners Test

The 4 corners reactive test begins with four Blazepods positioned in a square 21 feet (252 inches) apart. (Figure 2) As in the first test the pods are configured in a randomized pattern where one pod will light up the target color (blue) and the remaining three will be a distracting color (purple, green, orange, red, and yellow). Lights are set to transition on a hit and with zero-time delay between each transition. The athlete is instructed to begin in the center of the pods and locate the blue light. Another individual will be tossing a soccer ball towards the target light. The athlete is instructed to catch the ball, tap the light then toss the ball back while locating the next light. Once the test begins the goal is to tap as many lights as possible in 30 seconds. Total number of taps as well as average reaction time is calculated following completion of the test.

135345 Figure 2. Four corner target light test (Blazepods Inc.)

Each light target is 21 feet apart.

Blazepod Standing Right Versus. Left Reactive Test

The standing right versus left reactive test begins with four Blazepods positioned in a rectangle 36 inches in length and 12 inches wide. (Figure 3) The pods are configured in a randomized pattern so that any of the four can illuminate with only one at a single point in time. Lights are set to transition on a hit, with zero-time delay between each. In this test both blue and red are set as the target colors which represents the color in which the single pod will illuminate. The athlete begins in double limb stance with their feet shoulder width apart between the four pods performing fast feet. If the pod illuminates blue they are instructed to hit it with their left foot and if red, then hit it with their right foot. After each hit the pods will change color and the athlete must react to contact the next target color. Once the test begins the goal is to tap as many target lights as possible in 15 seconds. Total number of taps, number of errors, as well as average reaction time is calculated following completion of the test.

135346 Figure 3. Standing Right versus Left Reactive target light test.

Targets are placed 3 feet apart and the participant is instructed to tap the right foot to the red target & the left foot to the blue target.

Reactive Shuttle Run Testing

Reactive 10-yard T Shuttle Run Test

The reactive 10-yard T shuttle run test begins with 4 cones positioned in a “T”. (Figure 4) The individual cone is positioned 10 yards from the other three which are each 5 yards apart forming a “T”. The athlete begins at the individual cone and is instructed to sprint towards the cone directly in front of them. Once two thirds to the first cone, the tester will call out right or left, signifying the direction the athlete will begin to shuffle laterally towards. They are instructed to slide laterally 5 yards to the furthest cone, tap it, then reverse and slide laterally 10 yards to the furthest cone in the opposite direction and tap it. Once they tap the second cone, they reverse slide 5 yards back to the middle cone. Finally, after taping the middle cone the athlete will pivot and run 10 yards back to the starting position. The goal is to complete the test as quickly as possible. The time begins when they start their run and stops when they pass the final cone.

135347 Figure 4. Reactive 10-yard T Shuttle Run Test.

This test involves a 10-yard run then a side shuffle to one direction for 5 yards & then in opposite direction for 5 yards and then turn and run back to start line.

Reactive 10-Yard L Run Test

The reactive 10-yard L run test begins with 4 cones positioned in a “T”. (Figure 5) The individual cone is positioned 10 yards from the other three which are each 5 yards apart. The athlete is instructed to begin at the individual cone and sprint towards the cone directly in front of them. Once two thirds to the first cone, the tester will call out which direction the athlete will go. Once the direction is called, the athlete will turn in the direction named and sprint around the far cone. To finish the test the athlete will sprint back to the middle cone, pivot and then sprint back to the starting position, completing the “L”. The goal is to complete the test as quickly as possible. The time begins when they start their run and stops when they pass the finally cone.

135348 Figure 5. Reactive 10 Yard L Run Test.

This test is performed with a 10 yard straight run then a turn to instructed direction for 5 yards and then a turn back to start position.

Reactive Hop Testing

Reactive Single Limb Hop for Distance

The reactive single limb hop for distance test begins with the athlete standing on one limb. The athlete is instructed to hop forward from the starting position as far as possible. (Figure 6) While in the air the tester will call out right or left designating the foot in which the athlete is required to land on. The goal of the test is to hop as far as possible and land solidly on the designated leg. Athletes must stick the landing for 2-3 seconds for the test to count. Three consecutive repetitions are performed, and the distance is averaged. The distance is measure from the starting line to the back of the landing leg heel.

135349 Figure 6. Reactive Single Leg Hop for Distance Test.

The participant stands on one foot and hops outward – as the participant hops, they are instructed which foot to land on.

Reactive Single Limb Cross Over Hop for Distance

The reactive single limb cross over hop for distance test begins with the athlete standing on one limb. The test begins with the athlete hopping as far as possible off the single limb. While in the air the tester will call out the foot in which the athlete is required to land on, either left or right, crossing the center line of the testing field. (Figure 7) They will then complete the sequence by completing two more cross over hops on the same limb. The athlete is instructed to hop as far as possible with each hop and stick the final landing for 2-3 seconds. They will complete three consecutive repetitions and take the average distance between each test as the final score. The distance is measure from the starting line to the back of the athlete’s heel at the final hop.

135351 Figure 7. Reactive Single Limb Cross Over Hop for Distance Test.

The participant stands on one foot and hops outward – as the participant hops, they are instructed which foot to land on and they must cross over the center tape. They will then complete the sequence by completing two more cross over hops on the same limb.

Reactive Single Limb Alternating Cross Over Hop for Distance

The reactive single limb alternating cross over hop for distance test begins with the athlete standing on one limb (Figure 8). The athlete is instructed to hop forward as far as possible. While in the air the tester will call out a foot on which the athlete is required to land, either left or right. The athlete will then complete the sequence by performing two more cross over hops successively on alternating limbs. The athlete is instructed to hop as far as possible with each hop and stick the final landing holding for 2-3 seconds. They will complete three consecutive repetitions and take the average distance between each test. As with the other tests the distance is measure from the starting line to the back of the athlete’s heel.

135353 Figure 8. Reactive Single Limb Alternate Cross Over Hop for Distance Test.

The participant stands on one foot and hops outward – as the participant hops, they are instructed which foot to land on and they must cross over the center tape. The athlete will then complete the sequence by performing two more cross over hops successively on alternating limbs.

Videos of the drills and tests in this manuscript can be found here: VIDEO FOLDER.

Limitations

Although these are examples of some of the tests that are currently being used clinically because of ecological validity, nevertheless, we have to acknowledge the limitations of these tests. The tests have not been tested for reliability, validity or predicative validity regarding follow-up effectiveness for athletes to return to play, return to performance or prevention of reinjury.

Conclusion

The current state of RTP testing following ACL surgery is inadequate and does not reflect the true unpredictable, dynamic environment athletes are returning to. Not only is there a need for better utilization of RTP testing for predicting readiness, the significant incidence of reinjury must also be drastically reduced. These needs require both an improvement in the type of tests utilized and the overall use of subjective, objective and functional RTP testing in determining readiness to resume unrestricted activity. It is our hope that presenting this theoretical model for the use of neurocognitive testing in assessing athletic readiness that more critical thought will be placed on the type of testing needed to help determine when an athlete is capable of returning to sport. Also, the use of a more dynamic testing battery may decrease the reinjury rates when an athlete is cleared for participation.
==== Refs
Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Part 1: Biology and biomechanics of reconstruction The American Journal of Sports Medicine Fu Freddie H. Bennett Craig H. Lattermann Christian Ma C. Benjamin 11 1999
27 6 821 830 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465990270062501 10.1177/03635465990270062501
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation: Let's Get it Right Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Wilk Kevin E. 10 2015
45 10 729 730 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2015.0109 10.2519/jospt.2015.0109
Factors used to determine return to unrestricted sports activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery Barber-Westin Sue D. Noyes Frank R. 12 2011
27 12 1697 1705 0749-8063 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.09.009 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.09.009
Incidence of Second ACL Injuries 2 Years After Primary ACL Reconstruction and Return to Sport The American Journal of Sports Medicine Paterno Mark V. Rauh Mitchell J. Schmitt Laura C. Ford Kevin R. Hewett Timothy E. SAGE Publications 21 4 2014
42 7 1567 1573 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546514530088 10.1177/0363546514530088 24753238
Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study British Journal of Sports Medicine Grindem Hege Snyder-Mackler Lynn Moksnes Håvard Engebretsen Lars Risberg May Arna BMJ 9 5 2016
50 13 804 808 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031 27162233
Likelihood of ACL graft rupture: not meeting six clinical discharge criteria before return to sport is associated with a four times greater risk of rupture British Journal of Sports Medicine Kyritsis Polyvios Bahr Roald Landreau Philippe Miladi Riadh Witvrouw Erik BMJ 23 5 2016
50 15 946 951 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908
Return to play testing following anterior cruciate reconstruction – a systematic review & meta-analysis The Knee Hurley Eoghan T. Mojica Edward S. Haskel Jonathan D. Mannino Brian J. Alaia Michael Strauss Eric J. Jazrawi Laith M. Gonzlaez-Lomas Guillem 1 2022
34 134 140 0968-0160 10.1016/j.knee.2021.11.010 10.1016/j.knee.2021.11.010
Defending Puts the Anterior Cruciate Ligament at Risk During Soccer: A Gender-Based Analysis Sports Health Brophy R.H. Stepan J.G. Silvers H.J. Mandelbaum B.R. 2015
7 3 244 249 10.1177/1941738114535184 10.1177/1941738114535184 26131302
Gender influences: the role of leg dominance in ACL injury among soccer players British Journal of Sports Medicine Brophy R. Silvers H. J. Gonzales T. Mandelbaum B. R. 11 6 2010
44 10 694 697 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2008.051243 10.1136/bjsm.2008.051243
Three distinct mechanisms predominate in non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in male professional football players: a systematic video analysis of 39 cases Br J Sports Med Walden M Krosshaug T Bjorneboe J Andersen T E Faul O Hagglund M 2015
49 22 1452 1460 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094573 25907183
Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in elite women’s netball: a systematic video analysis Journal of Sports Sciences Stuelcken Max C. Mellifont Daniel B. Gorman Adam D. Sayers Mark G.L. 2016
34 16 1516 1522 0264-0414 10.1080/02640414.2015.1121285 10.1080/02640414.2015.1121285 26644060
Rehabilitation and return to sport testing after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Where are we in 2022? Rehabilitation and Return to Sport in Athletics Gokeler A. Dingenen B. Hewett T.E. 2022
4 1 E77 E82
Single-legged Hop Tests as Predictors of Self-reported Knee Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: The Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort Study The American Journal of Sports Medicine Logerstedt David Grindem Hege Lynch Andrew Eitzen Ingrid Engebretsen Lars Risberg May Arna Axe Michael J. Snyder-Mackler Lynn SAGE Publications 27 8 2012
40 10 2348 2356 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546512457551 10.1177/0363546512457551 22926749
Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Barber SUE D. Noyes FRANK R. Mangine ROBERT E. McCloskey JOHN W. Hartman WILLJAM 6 1990
255 204 214 0009-921X 10.1097/00003086-199006000-00028 10.1097/00003086-199006000-00028
Abnormal Lower Limb Symmetry Determined by Function Hop Tests after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture The American Journal of Sports Medicine Noyes Frank R. Barber Sue D. Mangine Robert E. SAGE Publications 9 1991
19 5 513 518 0363-5465 10.1177/036354659101900518 10.1177/036354659101900518 1962720
Reliability of lower extremity functional performance tests Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Bolgla Lori A. Keskula Douglas R. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 9 1997
26 3 138 142 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.1997.26.3.138 10.2519/jospt.1997.26.3.138 9276854
Utilization of modified NFL combine testing to identify functional deficits in athletes following ACL reconstruction Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Myer Gregory D. Schmitt Laura C. Brent Jensen L. Ford Kevin R. Barber Foss Kim D. Scherer Bradley J. Heidt Robert S. Jr. Divine Jon G. Hewett Timothy E. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 6 2011
41 6 377 387 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2011.3547 10.2519/jospt.2011.3547 21289456
The relationships among isometric, isotonic, and isokinetic concentric and eccentric quadriceps and hamstrings force and three components of athletic performance Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Anderson Mark A. Gieck Joe H. Perrin David Weltman Art Rutt Richard Denegar Craig 9 1991
14 3 114 120 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.1991.14.3.114 10.2519/jospt.1991.14.3.114 18796821
The relationship between subjective knee scores, isokinetic testing, and functional testing in the ACL-reconstructed knee Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Wilk Kevin E. Romaniello William T. Soscia Susan M. Arrigo Christopher A. Andrews James R. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) 8 1994
20 2 60 73 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.1994.20.2.60 10.2519/jospt.1994.20.2.60 7920603
Functional Progression of a Patient Through a Rehabilitation Program Orthopaedic Physical Therapy Clinics of North America Davies G.J. Zillmer D.A. 2000
9 103 118
Douleurs après ligamentoplastie du ligament croise antérieur: démembrement et prise en charge Annales de Réadaptation et de Médecine Physique Savalli L Hernandez-Sendin M.I Puig P.L Trouvé P 8 2004
47 6 299 308 0168-6054 10.1016/j.annrmp.2004.05.005 10.1016/j.annrmp.2004.05.005 15297120
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the short-term recovery using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Hill Gareth N. O’Leary Sean T. 30 9 2013
21 8 1889 1894 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-012-2225-x 10.1007/s00167-012-2225-x
Critical Criteria Recommendations: Return to Sport After ACL reconstruction requires evaluation of time after surgery of 8 months, >2 functional tests, psychological readiness, and quadriceps/hamstring strength Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery Turk Robby Shah Sarav Chilton Matthew Thomas Terence L. Anene Chibuzo Mousad Albert Le Breton Stephen Li Lambert Pettit Rob Ives Katharine Ramappa Arun 7 10 2022
0749-8063 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.038 10.1016/j.arthro.2022.08.038
Reproducibility, responsiveness and validation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in patients with ACL injuries Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Huang Hui Nagao Masashi Arita Hitoshi Shiozawa Jun Nishio Hirofumi Kobayashi Yohei Kaneko Haruka Nagayama Masataka Saita Yoshitomo Ishijima Muneaki Takazawa Yuji Ikeda Hiroshi Kaneko Kazuo Springer Science and Business Media LLC 11 9 2019
17 1 1477-7525 10.1186/s12955-019-1217-7 10.1186/s12955-019-1217-7 31506078
Knee joint position sense ability in elite athletes who have returned to international level play following ACL reconstruction: A cross-sectional study The Knee Relph Nicola Herrington Lee 12 2016
23 6 1029 1034 0968-0160 10.1016/j.knee.2016.09.005 10.1016/j.knee.2016.09.005
Range of Motion, Strength, and Function After ACL Reconstruction Using a Contralateral Patellar Tendon Graft Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Shelbourne K. Donald Benner Rodney Gray Tinker Bauman Scot 1 11 2022
10 11 232596712211381 2325-9671 10.1177/23259671221138103 10.1177/23259671221138103 36479460
Osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the importance of regaining and maintaining full range of motion Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Shelbourne K. Donald Freeman Heather Gray Tinker 2012
4 1 79 85 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738111430201 10.1177/1941738111430201 23016073
How limb dominance influences limb symmetry in ACL patients: effects on functional performance BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation Zumstein F. Centner C. Ritzmann R. 7 12 2022
14 1 206 2052-1847 10.1186/s13102-022-00579-y 10.1186/s13102-022-00579-y 36476618
Strength Asymmetry and Landing Mechanics at Return to Sport after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Schmitt LAURA C. Paterno MARK V. Ford KEVIN R. Myer GREGORY D. Hewett TIMOTHY E. 7 2015
47 7 1426 1434 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0000000000000560 10.1249/mss.0000000000000560 25373481
Acceleration and Orientation Jumping Performance Differences Among Elite Professional Male Handball Players With or Without Previous ACL Reconstruction: An Inertial Sensor Unit-Based Study PM&R Setuain Igor González-Izal Miriam Alfaro Jesús Gorostiaga Esteban Izquierdo Mikel 21 5 2015
7 12 1243 1253 1934-1482 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.05.011 10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.05.011
Knee extensor strength, hop performance, patient-reported outcome and inter-test correlation in patients 9–12 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction The Knee Ebert Jay R. Edwards Peter Preez Luke Du Furzer Bonnie Joss Brendan 6 2021
30 176 184 0968-0160 10.1016/j.knee.2021.04.012 10.1016/j.knee.2021.04.012 33940305
COMPARISON OF CLINICAL FATIGUE PROTOCOLS TO DECREASE SINGLE-LEG FORWARD HOP PERFORMANCE IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy White Allison K. Klemetson Chelsea J. Farmer Brooke Katsavelis Dimitrios Bagwell Jennifer J. Grindstaff Terry L. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy 4 2018
13 2 143 151 2159-2896 10.26603/ijspt20180143 10.26603/ijspt20180143 30090672
The Test Re-Test Reliability of A Novel Single Leg Hop Test (T-Drill Hop Test) International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Negrete Rodney Simms Samantha Gross Jacob Nunes Rabello Lucas Hixon Matt Zeini Ibrahim M. Jenkins Walter L. Davies George J. 1 6 2021
16 3 724 731, 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.23677 10.26603/001c.23677 34123525
A Novel Test to Assess Change of Direction: Development, Reliability, and Rehabilitation Considerations IJSPT Worst H. Henderson N. DeCarreau R. Davies G.J. 2019
14 2 228 236 30997275
A multi-center study of the test-retest reliability of the lower extremity functional test Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Tabor Michael A. Davies George J. Kernozek Thomas W. Negrete Rodney J. Hudson Vincent 8 2002
11 3 190 201 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.11.3.190 10.1123/jsr.11.3.190
The evaluation of a new lower-body reaction time test Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Spiteri Tania Cochrane Jodie L. Nimphius Sophia 1 2013
27 1 174 180 1064-8011 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318250381f 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318250381f
Neurocognitive challenged hops reduced functional performance relative to traditional hop testing Physical Therapy in Sport Simon Janet E. Millikan Nathan Yom Jae Grooms Dustin R. 1 2020
41 97 102 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.12.002 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.12.002
The development of a new test of agility for rugby league J Strength Cond Res Serpell B.G. Ford M. Young W.B.. 2010
24 12 3270 3277 19996775
