
==== 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

38179582
90862
10.26603/001c.90862
Scoping Review
Sensorimotor Dysfunction Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction- an Afferent Perspective: A Scoping Review
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4189-5181
Vitharana Thilina N 1 2
King Enda 3 4
Moran Kieran 2 5
1 Sports Medicine Sports Surgery Clinic https://ror.org/05cga6x45
2 School of Health and Human Performance Dublin City University https://ror.org/04a1a1e81
3 Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital https://ror.org/00x6vsv29
4 Department of Life Sciences University of Roehampton https://ror.org/043071f54
5 Insight Centre for Data Analytics Dublin City University https://ror.org/04a1a1e81
Corresponding author: Thilina N Vitharana PT UPMC Sports Surgery Clinic, Santry, Dublin 9, Ireland email: vitharanat@upmc.ie
1 1 2024
2024
19 1 14101437
30 1 2023
19 10 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.

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.

Anterior cruciate ligament
sensorimotor dysfunction
afferent dysfunction
visual reliance
No funding was received for the completion of the study.
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

The sensorimotor system is complex and a central element of the body’s motor control system.1–3 It assists with the planning and execution of movement and maintaining postural control (Figure 1).3 It encompasses afferent sensory pathways, efferent motor pathways and central cortex processing (Figure 2). Sensorimotor functioning is required for every movement; requiring integration of sensory information (in particular somatosensory and visual information) to detect deviations from desired orientations and to subsequently alter motor responses.4 Given that movement control requires sensorimotor function, as the complexity of movement increases, for example responding to more stimuli in the environment and/or utilising more multiplanar joint actions or muscles, the sensorimotor demands also increase.5 Therefore, sensorimotor dysfunction, which can occur following musculoskeletal injury (such as anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] injury), may negatively affect movement planning and execution.6,7

188763 Figure 1. Sensorimotor cortex influences an individual’s motor control

188764 Figure 2. Components of the sensorimotor system

The ACL provides: (1) structural stability through limiting excessive tibia anterior translation and internal rotation8,9 and (2) sensory information to the sensorimotor cortex.10,11 Therefore, ACL injury has negative consequences for knee structural stability12,13 and sensorimotor system functions (such as postural control, muscle coordination and supplying afferent information to the central cortex).14–16 Despite ACL reconstructive surgery (ACLR) restoring structural stability,17–21 there is growing debate to whether sensorimotor dysfunction remains. Sensorimotor dysfunction following ACLR occurs across afferent sensory, central processing and efferent motor pathways.22–24 Recent reviews have reported dysfunction of the efferent pathways24–26 and certain aspects of that somatosensory system (proprioception and kinaesthesia).27,28 Whilst there are six sensory systems within the afferent system (somatosensory, visual, auditory, vestibular, gustation and olfactory), the somatosensory and visual systems are the most important for motor control6,29 and will be reviewed here.

The somatosensory system has several important functions, including: (1) informing the central cortex about segment position (proprioception) and movement (kinesthesia), (2) sensing pain and pressure/vibration, and (3) sensing objects in the environment via touch.30 The ACL is highly innervated with mechanoreceptors that send proprioceptive afferent information for processing to the spinal cord, lower brain and cerebrum.10,11 A full-thickness ACL tear results in disruption of the mechanoreceptor mediated pathway,31 pain and swelling, thereby driving arthrogenic muscle inhibition.32,33 While two systematic reviews have investigated proprioception deficits (one domain of the somatosensory system), which highlighted significant but small functional reductions following ACLR,27,28 no study has reviewed the other somatosensory system domains (e.g. central processing and vibration).

The visual system encompasses the eyes, optical neural pathways and the occipital lobe (where processing of the visual information occurs). It has several key functions, including helping to identify objects and providing object spatial location and orientation within their environment.34 Following the loss of ACL proprioceptive information, postural control is reduced with increased demands placed on motor planning centres within the brain. In particular, an over-reliance on the visual system can occur following ACLR and may contribute to ACL reinjury.35 While early research into visual system dysfunction was based on functional brain MRI,35,36 there is a small but growing body of research examining how processing visual information affects motor control (dual-task loading) following ACLR.37,38

Given that efferent deficits have been reviewed comprehensively, a review examining afferent dysfunction following ACLR, and how it is measured, would help clinicians better assess and effectively target those deficits. Synthesising data from studies assessing ACLR somatosensory and visual system dysfunction is challenging due to the lack of studies and variety of outcome measures used, this paper therefore undertakes a scoping review to map key concepts and identify knowledge gaps.39,40

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed with appropriate modifications for a scoping review.41

Research Questions

The original research questions were:

What differences exist within the somatosensory system between both ACLR and healthy controls, and between limbs in the ACLR population?

What differences exist within the visual system between both ACLR and healthy controls, and between limbs in the ACLR population?

What tests are used to measure the somatosensory and visual systems differences between ACLR and healthy controls?

Eligibility

The inclusion criteria for studies in the scoping review were: (1) at least one outcome measure which assessed somatosensory or visual sensory performance, (2) included subjects post ACLR, (3) published in English, and (4) full-text access. The studies could be of any design.39,40

Participants

Studies needed to include participants with unilateral ACLR. Participants were not excluded if they had concomitant knee injuries that required repair (such as meniscal damage). No restrictions were placed on ACLR technique or time from surgery. Studies were excluded if they included participants who had undergone revision ACLR.

Search Strategy

An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Medline and Embase in September 2021. No restrictions were placed on the date of publication. Two independent reviewers (TV and EK) conducted. The search related to the somatosensory system was (“ACLR” OR “ACL reconstruction” OR “anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction”) AND (“somatosensory” OR “proprioception” OR “somatosensation”)). The search related to the visual system was (“ACLR” OR “ACL reconstruction” OR “anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction”) AND (“visual” OR “visual-motor”).

Study Identification

The two reviewers (TV and EK) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the identified studies. If a study matched the eligibility criteria, the full text manuscripts were subsequently reviewed independently. The full reference list of identified studies was searched to locate relevant studies. Studies were downloaded to EndNote reference manager (https://www.endnote.com) and imported into Covidence software (www.covidence.org) to identify potential differences between reviewers and to reach agreement regarding study eligibility. Disagreements were resolved via discussion or third-party mediation (KM).

Data Extraction

Data were extracted by each reviewer (TV and EK) for all eligible studies, entered into spreadsheets, and combined. Disagreements were resolved via discussion or third-party mediation (KM). The standardized data extraction forms included details on the study design, participant details (age, time after surgery, surgical technique and percentage of the cohort being males), outcome measures, and results. To help with clarity of interpreting the results, the studies were sub-grouped based on the outcome measures utilized. For the somatosensory system results, studies were separated into those which assessed for central processing differences and those which assessed local somatosensory functions. The central processing studies were those that assessed for brain activity during tasks, which allows for interpretation of how information is processed in the central cortex. Local somatosensory functions were separated into studies that examined: proprioception (joint position sense), kinesthesia (threshold to detect motion) and other somatosensory functions (such as light touch and vibration). With regard to the visual system results, the studies were grouped into three categories: central processing, local visual function, and visual contribution to motor control. Central processing are those studies assessing how information is processed within the central cortex. Local visual function encompasses studies which utilized outcome measures that assessed visual functions, such as gaze tracking, visual memory and visual attention. Finally, studies were grouped into ‘visual contribution to motor control’ if their outcome measures assessed motor control during varying degrees of vision (to determine visual contribution) or with dual-cognitive tasks.

RESULTS

Outcome Measures

Seventy studies were included in this scoping review (Figure 3 and 4).

188765 Figure 3. Flowchart of the search strategy and results of the somatosensory system

188766 Figure 4. Flowchart of the search strategy and results of the visual system

There was large heterogeneity of the outcome measures, so to assist readers the measures and their purpose are listed in Table 1 (somatosensory system) and Table 3 (visual system).

188767 Table 1. Outcome measures utilized to assess the somatosensory system

Outcome measure	What it measures	Purpose of assessment	
Electroencephalogram (EEG)	Measures electrical activity within the brain. Used to highlight brain areas responsible for processing specific information.	Used to identify central processing differences.	
Functional brain MRI	Measures changes in blood flow within the brain which occurs with brain activity. Used to highlight brain areas responsible for processing specific information.	Used to identify central processing differences.	
Vibration perception threshold testing	Used to identify the lowest vibrational intensity that the individual is able to perceive.	Differences between limbs at sites around the knee would suggest local functional deficiencies.
Differences between limbs at sites distal to the knee (e.g. around the foot) would suggest central processing deficiencies.	
Light touch perception threshold testing	Used to identify the lowest touch pressure intensity that the individual is able to perceive.	Differences between limbs at sites around the knee would suggest local functional deficiencies.
Differences between limbs at sites distal to the knee (e.g. around the foot) would suggest central processing deficiencies.	
Posturography	Used to measure an individual’s postural control during upright standing under varying conditions (static or dynamic)	Used to identify central processing differences.	
Joint position sense	Used to measure an individual’s ability to perceive the position of their joints without utilising their vision.	Identifies differences in local function related to proprioceptive information	
Threshold to detect passive motion	Used to measure an individual’s ability to detect motion of their joint without utilising their vision.	Identifies differences in local function related to kinaesthetic information	

Somatosensory System

Fifty-two studies (see Tables 2, 3 and 4) were identified which assessed somatosensory function following ACLR. Nine studies examined central processing within the somatosensory system, while 44 examined local somatosensory functions (e.g proprioception, kinaesthesia and vibration). Some studies examined differences between the uninjured limb and ACLR limb (within-subject differences) (Table S1 in Supplementary information) whilst others compared the ACLR limb to a healthy control’s limb (between-group differences) (Table S2 in Supplementary information). Several papers examined both between-group and within-subject differences.

Central processing of somatosensory information

Of the nine studies that examined cortical processing, there was heterogeneity in the assessment methods: three studies utilised electroencephalogram (EEG), one utilised functional brain MRI, two utilised vibration perception threshold testing, two utilised posturography and one utilised light touch threshold detection testing. Whilst these techniques assess central processing, there are slight differences in the information obtained. EEG and functional brain MRI assess brain activity during simple motor tasks, with increased activity reflecting somatosensory dysfunction due to greater processing requirements. Posturography assesses postural control under varying circumstances to determine afferent system efficacy (e.g. vestibular, visual, somatosensory). Finally, vibration and light touch perception threshold testing examine central processing changes by comparing thresholds at sites local and distal to an injury. Increased perception thresholds at sites distal to the injury indicate central processing changes.

Six studies examined ACLR within-subject differences with the majority (4/6) demonstrating significant differences in somatosensory central processing (reduction in function).42–47 Two studies found increased EEG activity,42,46 and two posturography studies demonstrated reduced somatosensory function in the ACLR limb.43,44 However, both studies examining vibration perception threshold demonstrated no significant difference between limbs.45,47 Overall, studies suggest there are differences in central processing within the somatosensory systems in the ACLR limb, and vibration perception threshold may not be an appropriate method when examining ACLR within-subject differences.

Five studies examined somatosensory system central processing between ACLR participants and healthy controls, with all demonstrating significant differences.21,42,45,48,49 One study demonstrated increased vibration perception threshold in the ACLR limb both locally (around the knee) and globally compared to healthy controls.45 This study also demonstrated the uninjured limb of ACLR participants had increased vibration perception thresholds compared to healthy control limbs, further highlighting differences in the central processing of somatosensory information following ACLR. This was also reflected in a case control study48 in which light touch sensation at sites distal to the ACLR knee (medial malleolus and first metatarsal) was reduced as compared to healthy controls. The other two studies (EEG42 and functional brain MRI21) demonstrated increased somatosensory central cortex activity during simple motor tasks (non-weightbearing knee flexion and extension) compared to healthy controls.

Overall, following an ACLR, there are consistent differences in somatosensory system central processing. Not only does the ACLR limb have altered central processing as compared to the uninjured limb, but also as compared to healthy controls.

188768 Table 2. Number and distribution of studies examining the somatosensory system. Listed underneath is the testing tool used in the identified studies

Domain	Within-subject studies	Between-group studies	
Central processing	6

EEG= 242,46

Posturography= 243,44

Vibration perception threshold= 245,47

	5

EEG= 242,49

Functional MRI= 121Light touch perception threshold= 148

Vibration perception threshold= 145

	
Joint position sense	27

Continuous passive motion device= 150

Custom built apparatus= 451–54

Electrogoniometer= 647,55–59

Image calculated angulation software= 560–64

Isokinetic dynamometer= 1152,65–74

	25

Continuous passive motion device= 150

Custom built apparatus= 452,54,75,76

Electrogoniometer= 557–59,77,78

Image calculated angulation software= 560–62,64,79

Isokinetic dynamometer= 1049,70,72,80–86

	
Threshold to detect passive motion	16

Continuous passive motion device= 150

Custom built apparatus= 745,46,52,54,87–89

Isokinetic dynamometer= 765,71,72,90–93

	13

Continuous passive motion device= 150

Custom built apparatus= 745,52,54,87–89,94

Isokinetic dynamometer= 465,72,85,91

	
Vibration	1

Vibration perception threshold= 145

	2

Vibration perception threshold= 245,47

	
Abbreviations: EEG= electroencephalogram and MRI= magnetic resonance imaging

Local somatosensory function

Fifty studies examined various afferent pathways of somatosensory function: proprioception (joint position sense [JPS]), kinaesthesia (threshold to detect passive motion [TTDPM]) and vibration. The two most common were JPS and TTDPM, with large heterogeneity in the methods (Table 2).

Joint position sense

Twenty-seven studies examined within-subject JPS function (Table 2 and 3). Across the 27 studies a total of 35 outcomes were measured due to JPS being measured at multiple angles in some studies. Overall, there was mixed evidence with 13 studies demonstrating reduced JPS function in the ACLR limb, 20 demonstrating no significant difference and two demonstrating improved JPS function (Table 2). Participant demographics and time from surgery did not differ between studies with and without a difference. Time from surgery was quite varied across studies, ranging from four to 52.2 months. Of the studies that demonstrated a significant reduction in JPS function within-subject, the difference between the two limbs ranged from 0.8° to 3.8°.53,54,60

Twenty-five studies examined JPS function between the ACLR limb and healthy controls (Table 2 and 4). Across the 25 studies a total of 30 outcomes were measured due to JPS being measured at multiple angles in some studies. Similar to the within-subject studies, there were mixed findings, with 13 studies demonstrating significantly reduced JPS function in the ACLR group, 16 studies finding no significant difference and only one reporting improved JPS function in ACLRs.79 Of the studies that demonstrated a significant reduction in JPS function between ACLR limbs and healthy controls, the JPS difference between limbs ranged from 0.4° to 5°.57,60,78

The small differences and the similar number of papers identifying JPS performance as being negatively affected as those reporting no difference for both between-group and within-subject differences, highlights the difficulty in measuring this variable. However, with almost 50% of the identified studies demonstrating reduction in proprioceptive function, JPS should be routinely assessed in ACLRs post-surgery. The small differences between-group and within-subject makes it difficult for clinicians to reliably monitor changes over time. Also, large heterogeneity in outcome measures and lack of reporting of the standard error of measurement makes it hard to draw firm conclusions. Future research should report the reliability and standard error of measurement values for the outcome measures utilised to help readers and clinicians interpret the findings better.

Threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM)

Seventeen studies examined within-subject TTDPM performance (Table 2 and 3), with mixed findings. Across the 17 studies a total of 20 outcomes were reported due to some studies having multiple outcome measures. Nine studies reported reduced ACLR limb TTDPM (from 0.2° to 1.4°),45,54 while eleven studies demonstrated no significant difference.

Thirteen studies examined TTDPM performance between the ACLR limb and healthy controls (Table 2 and 4), again with mixed findings. Five studies reported significantly reduced ACLR limb function, while seven studies reported no significant difference. One study reported significantly better ACLR function. Of the studies that demonstrated a significant reduction in TTDPM performance between ACLR limbs and healthy controls, the JPS difference between limbs ranged from 0.3° to 2.8°.45,91

Akin to JPS studies, a similar number of papers for both between-group and within-subject differences identified TTDPM performance as being negatively affected as those reporting no significant difference. In addition, the differences are also small. This may suggest that TTDPM is a function that should be routinely assessed in ACLRs as it may be negatively affected but that it is a variable that would be hard for clinicians to monitor for recovery due to the small magnitude in the differences. Also, there is large heterogeneity in testing methodology with limited reporting on standard error of measurement for each outcome measure which makes firm conclusions difficult.

Other afferent components of local somatosensory function

Other measures of somatosensory function can include vibration perception threshold testing (of local sites around the knee). However, only two studies examined this, with conflicting findings. Courtney et al45 found significantly greater perception thresholds in the ACLR limb compared with both the uninjured limb and healthy controls, while Blackburn et al47 reported no significant difference between the ACLR limb and the uninjured limb. Greater vibration perception thresholds around the knee can indicate local negative changes within the somatosensory system. The lack of research in this area makes it difficult to make firm conclusions regarding the potential effect of ACLR on this somatosensory function.

188769 Table 3. Studies examining within-subject differences (ACLR limb versus uninjured limb) in the somatosensory system.

Somatosensory level	Studies reporting significantly decreased function in ACLR group (p<0.05)	Studies reporting no significant difference	Studies reporting significantly increased function in the ACLR group (p<0.05)	
Proprioception (JPS)	Anders et al56
Angoules et al95
Bonfim et al50
Büyükafşar et al57
Fischer-Rasmussen et al54
Fremerey et al51
Fremerey et al53
Ghaderi et al66
Hoshiba et al59
Jurevičiené et al67
Relph et al27
Relph et al96
Silva et al61	An et al74
Anders et al56
Angoules et al95
Blackburn et al47
Büyükafşar et al57
Co et al52
Dvir et al55
Fischer-Rasmussen et al54
Fremerey et al51
Furlanetto et al64
Hopper et al63
Hoshiba et al59
Karasel et al73
Kaya et al68
Mir et al62
Nagai et al92
Ozenci et al72
Reider et al65
Suner Keklik et al58
Zult et al69	Dvir et al55
Reider et al65	
Kinaesthesia (TTDPM)	Angoules et al95
Bonfim et al50
Co et al52
Courtney et al45
Fischer-Rasmussen et al54
Laboute et al91
MacDonald et al89
Nagai et al92
Valeriani et al46	Angoules et al95
Laboute et al91
Muaidi et al87
Nagai et al92
Ordahan et al81
Ozenci et al72
Reider et al65
Relph et al27
Risberg et al88
Risberg et al93
Shidahara et al90		
Vibration	Courtney et al45	Blackburn et al47
Courtney et al45		

188770 Table 4. Studies examining between group differences (ACLR limb versus healthy controls

Somatosensory level	Studies reporting significantly decreased function in ACLR group (p<0.05)	Studies reporting no significant difference	Studies reporting significantly increased function in the ACLR group (p<0.05)	
Proprioception (JPS)	Barrett et al97
Baumeister et al49
Bonfim et al50
Büyükafşar et al57Fischer-Rasmussen et al54
Goetschius et al78
Guney-Deniz et al84
Relph et al27
Relph et al60
San Martin-Mohr et al77
Silva et al61
Suner Keklik et al58
Zhou et al86	Armitano-Lago et al76
Büyükafşar et al57
Chaput et al98
Co et al52
Fischer-Rasmussen et al54
Furlanetto et al64
Goetschius et al78
Guney-Deniz et al84
Hoshiba et al59
Littmann et al82
Mir et al62
Ordahan et al81
Ozenci et al72
San Martin-Mohr et al77
Strong et al79
Zandiyeh et al85	Reider et al65	
Kinaesthesia (TTDPM)	Courtney et al45
Laboute et al91
Relph et al27
Roberts et al94
Zandiyeh et al85	Bonfim et al50
Fischer-Rasmussen et al54
MacDonald et al89
Muaidi et al87
Reider et al65
Ozenci et al72
Risberg et al88	Co et al52	
Vibration	Courtney et al45			

Visual System Results

Eighteen studies (Table 6) assessed visual system differences following ACLR. Across the 18 studies a total of 20 outcomes were reported due to some studies having multiple outcomes measures. Fifteen studies examined differences between ACLR participants and healthy controls, whilst five studies examined differences between limbs in the ACLR participants. The studies identified assessed specific visual processes (both local and central) and/or the contribution of the visual system during motor control.

188771 Table 5. Outcome measures utilized to assess the visual system

Outcome measure	What it measures	Purpose of assessment	
EEG	Measures electrical activity within the brain. It is used to highlight areas of the brain responsible for processing specific information.	Used to identify central processing differences.	
Functional brain MRI	Measures changes in blood flow within the brain which occurs with brain activity. It is used to highlight areas of the brain responsible for processing specific information.	Used to identify central processing differences.	
Neurocognitive tests	Used to assess different aspects of brain function. A number of tests exist that can provide results regarding visual memory performance, visual processing performance and reaction times to visual stimuli	Used to identify local and central visual processing differences	
Trail making test	Used to assess an individual’s visual attention and ability to task switch.	Used to identify differences in local visual function.	
Gaze tracking	Assesses the motion of the eye relative to the head or where the individual’s gaze is focusing on.	Used to identify differences in local visual function.	
Posturography	Used to measure an individual’s postural control while upright under varying conditions (static or dynamic)	Used to identify central processing differences.	
Reaction to visual stimuli	Used to measure an individual’s ability to react to a visual stimuli. The task required of the individuals may vary between research papers (eg. pressing a button in response to the visual stimulus or making a postural adjustment)	Used to identify differences in local visual function.	

Central processing

Six studies21,35,83,99–101 assessed differences in visual system central processing between ACLR participants and healthy controls. No studies assessed within-subject differences in the ACLR population. Five of the six studies21,35,83,100,101 demonstrated increased activity in visual processing regions of the brain, via either functional brain MRI or EEG, in ACLR participants during simple movements (Z-max scores of greater than 4). Increased activity may be a sign of compensation with regards to altered somatosensory information or a sign of dysfunction within the visual system.24,36 These studies were completed over a large time range post-surgery (1.5 ± 0.2 months101 to 43.3 ± 33.3 months100). This may indicate that differences in visual processing activity are persistent and may develop quite early post-surgery. The remaining study demonstrated no significant difference.99 Various visual processing areas within the brain have been identified as areas of greater activity within the ACLR population. Grooms and colleagues21 demonstrated significantly greater activation of the lingual gyrus, which is responsible for visual processing and visual memory, suggesting a compensatory mechanism for reduced somatosensory information described earlier (somatosensory results). The results from Criss and colleagues100 further supports this. They found increased activation of regions responsible for visual processing and combined visuospatial perception and attention.

Overall, there are differences in ACLR visual system central processing. It is unknown if these differences are present prior to ACLR or if it is a result of ACLR. Future prospective studies (assessment pre-ACL injury and then post-ACLR) are required to determine this.

Local visual function

Six studies examined local visual function differences between ACLR participants and healthy controls with conflicting results.37,38,76,83,102 One study38 assessed local visual function with multiple outcome measures, so there is some overlapping of results. There are numerous methods to assessing local visual function including computer-based visual memory tasks,83 gaze tracking37 and measuring reaction times to visual stimuli38 (Table 3). Three studies37,76,102 demonstrated ACLR significantly reduced local visual function (related to gaze tracking of multiple objects, visual attention and reaction to visual stimulus) , three studies37,38,83 demonstrated no significant difference (related to visual memory, gaze tracking stationary object and reaction time to visual stimulus), and one study38 demonstrated ACLR improved function (related to visual attention) . The contrasting findings may be due, at least in part, to the large heterogeneity in outcome measures (table 5). Some studies utilised neurocognitive tests to assess visual attention (the ability to select specific objects in the environment and filter out the irrelevant information) and visual memory (the ability to store and recall visual information,83 whilst others utilised tests to assess the qualities of vision such as gaze tracking (ability to track objects in the environment)37 and reactions to visual stimulus.38,76,102 Bodkin and colleagues37 found that their ACLR group had large differences (Cohen d= 0.96) when tasked with tracking a moving object, resulting in a greater number of visual gaze errors, but no differences when focusing on a stationary object. This contrasting finding has significant relevance when playing sport. ACLR are also slower to react to visual information and adjust their posture accordingly.76 With the majority of ACL injuries being non-contact in nature and heavily influenced by movement strategy,103,104 the changes to visual information processing in ACLRs may influence their motor strategy with consequences for performance and re-injury susceptibility.

Only one study102 assessed within-subject differences in local visual function demonstrated reduced function. Roelofsen et al102 assessed the effect of visual feedback on leg amplitude movement during a visual tracking task. They demonstrated that ACLRs had significantly decreased leg amplitude in response to visual feedback in comparison to not only healthy controls but also to their limb prior to surgery. This result may indicate that there are changes in the way visual information is processed but they may also be the result of reduced proprioception.

Visual contribution to motor control

Nine studies44,83,102,105–110 examined the contribution of vision to motor control in ACLR population as compared to healthy controls, with six44,83,102,106,109,110 finding ACLR had increased contribution . During both postural and movement tasks, visual reliance was determined by a participants’ balance and movement control worsening, respectively, with the removal or alteration of visual input. Contrastingly, four studies105–108 reported no significant difference. This conflict may be due to large heterogeneity in testing methodologies and data analysis techniques. A systematic review with meta-analysis105 demonstrated no significant difference between ACLRs and healthy controls in their performance during a single leg postural control task which compared eyes open to eyes closed; both groups experienced similar declines in performance when their vision was blinded (ACLR= 42.9% decline versus controls= 44.4% decline). The studies included in this meta-analysis used traditional centre of pressure metrics (path, amplitude, and calculated stability indexes). However, posturography and frequency analysis during double leg standing utilised in three studies demonstrated increased reliance on the visual system (via assessment of ultra-low frequencies) in the ACLR population as compared to healthy controls.44,110,111 This was further support by Chaput et al83 who demonstrated higher performance on a visual motor subscale in a neurocognitive test was strongly associated with better time-to-stability performance during a jump-landing task (r= -0.61, p=0.03) in an ACLR population, whilst no such association was found in healthy controls.83

Four studies102,108,111,112 examined within-subject differences in the ACLR vision contribution to motor control with mixed findings. Two studies102,111 demonstrated significant reductions in posturography111 and leg positioning task102 performance whilst two studies108,112 demonstrated no significant difference during a change of direction112 and hopping108 task. The two studies102,111 demonstrating significant differences compared the ACLR limb post-surgery to the limb prior to surgery, while the two studies108,112 demonstrating no significant difference examined differences between the ACLR limb and uninjured limb, potentially indicating that individuals become more reliant on visual information following ACLR. The two studies108,112 which demonstrated no significant difference utilised functional tests such as hop for distance (blinded versus full vision)108 and a change of direction (full vision versus disrupted vision)112 while the two studies102,111 demonstrating a difference utilized tests requiring small adjustments in posture. This may suggest that whole-body functional tasks could allow for compensatory movements from other body segments which mask the altered motor control within the ACLR limb.

188772 Table 6. Studies examining changes to the visual system following ACLR

Level of visual system	Authors	Participant information	Time from surgery (months)	Outcome measure used	Task	Results	
Central visual processing	
Significant reduction in function (p<0.05)	Chaput et al98

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 16, 37.5% male)
21.5 ± 2.6 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 15, 40% male)
22.9 ± 3.0yrs	41.4 ± 33	ImPACT and functional brain MRI	ImPACT: computer based

Functional brain MRI: supine knee flexion and extension	↑ activity in visual sensory cortical area in ACLR group and significantly associated with visual memory and visual motor scores on ImPACT	
Criss et al100

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 15, 47% male)
20.9 ± 2.7 yrs

Healthy Controls (n=15, 47% male)
22.5 ± 2.5yrs	43.3 ± 33.1	Functional brain MRI	Supine heel slide	Greater activation in ipsilateral superior parietal lobule lateral occipital cortex and angular gyrus as compared to controls (z-max= 5.26)	
Greater activation in ipsilateral occipital fusiform gyrus and white matter optic radiation compared to controls (z-max= 4.12)	
Greater activation in bilateral intracalcarine cortex and lingual gyrus (z-max= 6.73)	
Grooms et al21

Comparative study	ACLR (n=15, 47% male)
21.7 ± 2.7

Healthy Controls (n=15, 47% male)
23.2 ± 3.5	38.1± 27.2	Functional brain MRI	Supine knee flexion/extension	↑activation of visual-motor region (mean signal change ACLR= 0.67%, controls= 0.28%)	
Grooms et al35

Case control case study	ACLR (n=1, 100% male)
25 yrs

Healthy Control (n= 1, 100% male)
26 yrs	10	Functional brain MRI	Supine knee flexion/extension	Greater activation in contralateral lingual gyrus as compared to healthy control (peak z value= 4.50)	
Lehmann et al113

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 12, 58% male)
25.1 ± 3.2 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 12m 58% male)
25.5 ± 3.8 yrs	1.5± 0.2	EEG	Single leg standing	↑ alpha-2 connectivity within or linking somatosensory and visual cortical areas when standing on the ACLR limb and not uninjured limb	
	
No significant difference	Giesche et al99

Comparative study	ACLR (n=10, 100% male)
28 ± 4 yrs

Healthy Controls (n=17, 100% male)
28 ± 4 yrs	63 ± 35	EEG	Jump landing	No significant difference. However, trend for greater activation in supplementary and primary motor cortex	
	
Local visual processing	
Significant reduction in function (p<0.05)	Armitano-Lago et al76

Comparative study	ACLR (n=16, 50% male)
29.3 ± 6.9 yrs

Healthy Controls (n=16, 50% male)
28.9 ± 6.2yrs	106.9 ± 71.6	Reaction time to visual stimulus	Stepping task in reaction to visual stimulus	Slower reaction time in ACLR group during simple task (ACLR= 484 ± 3.17ms, controls= 399 ± 1.95ms)	
Slower reaction time in ACLR group during choice basked reaction time task (ACLR= 550 ± 43ms, controls= 445 ± 43ms)	
Bodkin et al37

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 10, 40% male)
19.9 ± 1.7 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 10, 40% male)
21.1 ± 1.4 yrs	22.3± 15.4	Gaze tracking	Tracking moving target	↑visual gaze errors in ACLR group (ACLR= 0.52± 0.23m, controls= 0.35± 0.14m)	
Roelofsen et al102

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 14, 79% male)
23.2 ± 4.8 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 15, 67% male)
23.1 ± 3.4 yrs	4.5 to 5	Leg amplitude differentiation	Leg amplitude differentiation under various visual feedback conditions	↓Leg amplitude variability in ACLR limb as compared to healthy control limb in both visual enhanced and visual veridical conditions	
↓Leg amplitude variability in ACLR limb as compared to the limb pre-surgery in both visual enhanced and visual veridical conditions	
	
No significant difference	Bodkin et al37

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 10, 40% male)
19.9 ± 1.7 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 10, 40% male)
21.1 ± 1.4 yrs	22.3± 15.4	Gaze tracking	Tracking stationary target	No difference in visual gaze score or visual gaze velocity between groups	
Chaput et al98

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 16, 37.5% male)
21.5 ± 2.6 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 15, 40% male)
22.9 ± 3.0yrs	41.4 ± 33	ImPACT	ImPACT: computer based	No difference in visual motor composite score and visual memory composite score between groups	
Stone et al38

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 20, 40% male)
22 ± 3 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 20, 40% male)
22 ± 3 yrs	unclear	CogState neurocognitive test and	Reaction time to visual stimulus.	No difference in reaction time	
Purdue pegboard test	Manual dexterity and bimanual coordination	No difference in Purdue pegboard performance	
	
Significant increase in function (p<0.05)	Stone et al38

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 20, 40% male)
22 ± 3 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 20, 40% male)
22 ± 3 yrs	unclear	Trail making test	Visual attention and task switching	ACLR group completed Trail A faster than healthy controls (F(1,37)=5.61)	
ACLR group completed Trail B faster than healthy controls (F(1,37)=6.27)	
	
Visual contribution to motor control	
Significant reduction in function (p<0.05)	Bartels et al44

Longitudinal cohort study	ACLR (n=30, 47% male)
32 ± 12.2 yrs	24	Posturography	Double leg standing	↑activity in visual systems to maintain stability (ηp2= 0.179)	
Chaput et al98

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 16, 37.5% male)
21.5 ± 2.6 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 15, 40% male)
22.9 ± 3.0yrs	41.4 ± 33	ImPACT and time to stability test	ImPACT: computer based

Time to stability following single leg landing task	Higher performance on visual motor composite score strongly associated with better time to stability performance in ACLR group ((r= -0.61, p=0.03)

No association in control group	
ImPACT and joint position sense test	ImPACT: computer based

Joint position sense in isokinetic dynamometer	Higher performance on visual memory composite score was strongly associated with lower JPS error (r= -0.63).

No association in controls	
Clark et al110

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 45, 67% male)
26 ± 9.8 yrs

Healthy Control (n= 45, 67% male)
26.4± 9.8 yrs	10.7 ± 4.3	Frequency analysis	Single leg standing	↑ value on visual system frequency (ACLR= 0.04± 0.01 cm/s, Controls= 0.03± 0.01cm/s,	
Grooms et al106

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 15, 47% male)
21.4 ± 2.6 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 15, 47% male)
23.2 ± 3.5 yrs	36.2 ± 26.5	Stroboscopic vision	Drop jump with vision obscured	↑knee flexion excursion with stroboscopic vision (ACLR= 3.1 ± 3.8°, controls= -0.8 ± 4.5°)	
Miko et al109

Cohort study	ACLR (n=14, 33% male)
20.7 ± 1.9 yrs

Healthy Controls (n=14, 33% male)
21.2 ± 1.4 yrs	46.6 ± 28.1	Single leg balance	Single leg balance with dual-cognitive task	↓ postural control in ACLR group with greater ellipse area (Cohen’s d= 0.44) and Root mean square in medial to lateral plane (Cohen’s d= 0.49)	
Roelofsen et al102

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 14, 79% male)
23.2 ± 4.8 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 15, 67% male)
23.1 ± 3.4 yrs	4.5 to 5	Leg amplitude differentiation and temporal variability	Leg amplitude differentiation under various visual feedback conditions	↑Temporal variability in the ACLR limb and uninjured limb as compared to healthy control limb in both visual enhanced and visual veridical conditions	
Temporal variability during treadmill walking	↑ Temporal variability in the ACLR limb and uninjured limb post-operatively as compared to pre-operatively in both visual enhanced and visual veridical conditions.

Main effect for ACLR limb= F(1, 12)=11.00. p=0.006, uninjured limb F(1,12)=17.93	
Wein et al111

Cross-sectional study	ACLR (n=50, 76% male)
27 ± 6.2 yrs	At least 6 months	Posturography	Double leg standing	↓visual ratio and increased reliance on visual cues for balance post-operatively (post-op= 3.1± 2.0 vs pre-op 5.7 ± 4.1)	
	
No significant difference	Bjornaraa et al114

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 17, 0% male)
26.5 ± 6.3 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 17, 0% male)
25.3 ± 6 yrs	55.2	3D motion capture with shutter glasses	Change of direction task	No difference in biomechanics variables (such as absolute displacement, peak absolute velocity, average absolute velocity and percent of cut to reach peak ground reaction force) between full vision and disrupted vision	
Friden et al108

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 20, 50% male)
26 yrs

Healthy Controls (n=40, 48% male)
25 yrs	24	One leg hop	One leg hop for distance under varying visual conditions	No difference between groups in hop distance when vision from one or both eyes was obstructed	
No difference in hop distance between ACLR limb and uninjured limb when vision from one or both eyes was obstructed	
Grooms et al106

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 15, 47% male)
21.4 ± 2.6 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 15, 47% male)
23.2 ± 3.5 yrs	36.2 ± 26.5	Stroboscopic vision	Drop jump with vision obscured	No difference in knee adduction excursion, peak vertical ground reaction force, peak knee external knee flexor moment and peak external knee abductor moment	
Lion et al107

Comparative study	ACLR (n= 19, 74% male)
24.8 ± 6.4 yrs

Healthy Controls (n= 21, 52% male)
24.9 ± 3.7 yrs	9.2 ± 1.6	Double leg balance	Double leg balance under varying visual conditions	No difference in postural control performance between groups	
Wikstrom et al105

Systematic review with meta-analysis	ACLR (n=120-133)

Healthy Controls (n= 162-188)
Age and % male of participants unclear	unclear	Single leg balance	Single leg balance eyes open versus eyes closed	Similar decline in performance between ACLR and controls when eyes are closed (ACLR= 42.9% decline and controls= 44.7% decline). Hedges g effect size= -0.61	

DISCUSSION

The aim of this scoping review was to summarize any differences in somatosensory and visual systems following ACLR. The results identified both within-subject and between-group differences in central processing (somatosensory and visual systems) in the ACLR cohort which may represent sensorimotor dysfunction. However, when assessing somatosensory functions (such as JPS and TTDPM) and the visual system (processing central and local visual information, and the contribution of vision on motor control) there were mixed findings with a tendency for between-group (ACLR versus healthy controls) differences to be present.

Changes That Occur in the Somatosensory and Visual Systems Following ACLR

Previous reviews have focused on the negative efferent changes within the sensorimotor system following ACLR which have been hypothesized to occur in response to dysfunction within the afferent pathways.24 It has also been hypothesized that an over reliance on the visual system to maintain postural control and execute movements may develop in response to dysfunction within the somatosensory system.6 The results of this review confirm that there are significant differences between the afferent pathways, both somatosensory and visual, of ACLR participants and healthy controls, and also between limbs in the ACLR cohort with studies assessing central processing demonstrating alterations in somatosensory processing and increased activity in the visual system.21,100,115 However, it is not possible to determine if the differences are a reflection of dysfunction that occurs as a result of the ACLR surgery or is present prior to surgery due to the lack of prospective research available.

As previously mentioned, the ACL is highly innervated with mechanoreceptors with damage leading to a reduction in somatosensory functions such as proprioception and kinaesthesia.10,11 However, somatosensory functions are thought to improve once the afferent fibers regrow into the ACL graft over the following three to six months.31 This review supports the notion of a reduction in proprioception59,67,96 and kinaesthesia45,91,92 in the ACLR limb as compared to the participants’ uninjured limb. While some of these findings were reported for participants who were less than six months post-surgery, there was an almost equal number of studies which demonstrated persistent reduced function in participants whose ACLR graft should have been reinnervated (36 to 64 months post-surgery).52,53,56,57 The persistent reduced function could indicate that some individuals do not experience reinnervation of their graft.116 Another more likely explanation is that these participants have ongoing dysfunction in central processing of the somatosensory information, as evidenced by the functional brain MRI and EEG studies,21,42,44,46,49 despite having received rehabilitation.

Motor control requires the afferent systems to continuously obtain information regarding the body and its position within the environment so that appropriate motor responses can be made to account for any perturbations.117–119 Dysfunction within the somatosensory system may result in greater reliance being placed on the other afferent systems such as the visual system to obtain information from the environment. This has been previously shown in injuries, such as chronic ankle instability.120 The results of this review appear to support the notion that increased reliance on the visual system also occurs in the ACLR cohort. Four studies utilizing methods to assess central processing in the visual centers demonstrated greater activity in these centers as compared to healthy controls during simple motor tasks.21,35,98,100,113 It has previously been suggested that increased reliance on the visual system may increase the risk of sustaining a primary ACL injury, potentially as a result of the athlete either missing environmental cues or reacting slowly to a stimulus, thereby executing a movement with poorer technique.121 Therefore, increased reliance on the visual system identified in individuals following ACLR may have an implication for increased risk of second ACL injury.35 Bodkin et al37 reported that ACLR participants exhibited significantly greater visual gaze errors as compared to healthy controls when tracking a moving target. The findings may provide some support for the notion of ACLRs being more visually reliant as they found it harder to track a moving target, although it may also represent that this population has poorer visual function, which is pertinent for picking up cues in a chaotic environment which is encountered is most field-based sports. The findings were supported by Armitano-Lago et al76 who reported that ACLR participants responded more slowly to a visual stimulus than healthy controls when tasked with making a postural adjustment. Slower reaction times were seen in the ACLR group when performing a stepping task but not so when completing a task whilst seated, suggesting that as task complexity increases, then individuals with dysfunction within motor planning and execution cortical areas will begin to demonstrate differences.

A Reflection on Assessing Somatosensory and Visual Dysfunction

Although differences have been found to exist in the somatosensory and visual systems following ACLR, a common issue for clinicians is having the tools to identify this dysfunction in their athletes. Central processing changes are identifiable via methods such as functional brain MRI and EEG. However, both methods are not feasible for many clinicians due to the cost and lack of access to the technology. An alternative approach to identifying somatosensory dysfunction may be possible by identifying JPS or TTDPM deficits in athletes greater than six months post-surgery. The most appropriate method to measure JPS would be image-calculated angulation because most clinicians do not have access to isokinetic dynamometers. However, very few studies have published the reliability of the outcome measures they used which can make it difficult for clinicians to utilise in clinical practice. One study96 which utilized image-calculated angulation to measure JPS published the reliability (ICC= 0.86-0.92) and minimal detectable change (1.3° to 2.4°) for their testing methodology,122 therefore allowing it to easily be employed in clinical practice. With regards to TTDPM, there are a limited number of methods to assess TTDPM without using isokinetic dynamometers. Hence, more research is required to find reliable methods to assess TTDPM that are also easy for clinicians to employ within their clinics. So, the reality for clinicians is that deficits likely occur in some, if not all, individuals following ACLR. However, they are unlikely to be able to assess these deficits in the clinic, so clinicians should consider employing exercises which redevelop these qualities.

With regards to assessing the visual system, there was again large heterogeneity in the outcome measures used. This is especially evident in the variety of outcome measures used to assess local visual processing function (e.g. trail making test, gaze tracking and neurocognitive testing). Whilst there may be differences identified in gaze tracking37 or trail making tests,38 it is still not clear what impact this has on the ACLR cohort with regards to risk of reinjury or sporting performance. More prospective research is needed to identify the attributes of visual processing that are most pertinent for athletes following ACLR to minimise the risk of reinjury and to return to preinjury performance levels. Previous research has identified visual memory, processing speed and reaction times on a neurocognitive test as factors associated with greater risk sustaining a primary ACL injury.121 The greater availability of sensory stations123 (mobile tablet technologies with preloaded visual assessments) which assess these factors plus a number of other local visual processing attributes may make it easier for not only clinicians to assess athletes with a single tool but also for researchers to have a consistent outcome measure to measure athletes for prospective studies. When assessing the effect of vision on movement control, posturography with analysis of frequencies currently appears to be a consistent method to identify if there is an over-reliance on the visual system during static tasks110,111 but it may not be feasible for clinicians as there are only a few commercially available systems. In summary, visual reliance most likely exists along with some dysfunction of visual processing in the ACLR population but methods of measurement are limited for clinicians. Clinicians should look to include training modalities that improve visual processing.

Clinical Implications for Rehabilitation

Current ACLR rehabilitation programs follow a common path of: (1) regaining range of motion and control of the knee, (2) strength and hypertrophy training, (3) plyometric training, (4) running (linear and multi-directional) and (5) sports-specific drills.124–126 Alongside the structured rehabilitation program, athletes go through a process of gradual reintroduction to training in the sport itself prior to a reintroduction to competition. However, much of the literature which identified dysfunction within the central processing of somatosensory21,42,49 and visual information21,100 was conducted in patients who had already completed rehabilitation (although the specific makeup of their rehabilitation programs was not reported) and returned to sport (average time from surgery ranged between 12 and 48 months). If the participants had completed rehabilitation that would be expected as standard care, then this continued dysfunction could suggest that there is a missing element in either current rehabilitation programs or the long-term follow up care of athletes. Hence, future research is required to identify (1) methods applicable to a clinical setting to identify individuals with a deficit and then (2) methods to reduce the reliance on the visual system.

Along with identifying methods to reduce visual reliance, knowing when to implement these methods is important as well. Proprioception deficits have been identified within the first four weeks following ACLR,91 and Lehmann et al113 have also demonstrated that increased reliance on the visual system (at the central processing level) may begin within six weeks following ACLR. The results suggest that clinicians aiming to reduce reliance on the visual system need to implement interventions very soon post-operatively. Therefore, future research should aim to identify effective methods to reduce reliance on the visual system.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this scoping review. Firstly, much of the research identified was retrospective in nature meaning that it is not possible to determine if any of the identified somatosensory and visual dysfunction in the ACLR cohort was present prior to the injury or prior to the ACLR. Secondly, no critical appraisal of the studies was performed due to the small number of studies in area of somatosensory and visual dysfunction, so threats of bias were not identified within the selected studies, and this may affect the results obtained. However, because visual dysfunction is quite a new area of research in the ACLR literature, the decision was made to include all available studies so that trends could be observed. As this area of science matures, then future studies could be more selective in the quality of studies that they use for review. Furthermore, the review predominantly examines somatosensory and visual variables but not how it relates to patient outcomes. Future research should assess how these variables are associated to patient outcomes. Another limitation was that there were several studies utilizing participants who were greater than two years post-ACLR. This may potentially introduce confounders to the results as the participants had been discharged from rehabilitation and returned to general activity. Therefore, it is unknown what influence returning to general activity may have on afferent function. Lastly, the reliability of a number of the outcome measures used in the selected studies were not reported, making it difficult to confidently trust the statistical and clinical significance of the differences observed.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review highlights the within-subject (ACLR limb vs uninjured limb) and between-group (ACLR versus healthy controls) differences within the somatosensory and visual systems. The evidence highlighting differences in central processing of the somatosensory and visual systems demonstrates the potential impact that ACL injury and/or ACLR has on individuals. Within the somatosensory system, reduced proprioceptive and kinesthetic function has been demonstrated in the ACLR limb as compared to the contralateral uninjured limb. Similarly, the ACLR limb has reduced proprioceptive and kinesthetic function as compared to healthy controls. Increased reliance on the visual system occurs in response to somatosensory dysfunction as evidenced by altered central processing, potentially resulting in errors in visual processing and adversely affecting motor control.

Future large-scale studies are required to examine if there are differences in visual processing between athletes following ACLR and healthy controls. Similarly, more research is required to examine the effect of visual reliance on biomechanics and the effectiveness of interventions in treating these dysfunctions as well.

Conflicts of interest

No conflicts of interest exist for the authors.

Supplementary Material

Appendix- somatosensory results table

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to Luis Arias for producing the illustrations for the study.
==== Refs
Maintaining internal representations: the role of the human superior parietal lobe Nature Neuroscience Wolpert Daniel M. Goodbody Susan J. Husain Masud 10 1998
1 6 529 533 1097-6256 10.1038/2245 10.1038/2245
The sensorimotor system, part II: the role of proprioception in motor control and functional joint stability J Athl Train Riemann B.L. Lephart S.M. 2002
37 1 80 4 16558671
The sensorimotor system, part I: the physiologic basis of functional joint stability J Athl Train Riemann B.L. Lephart S.M. 2002
37 1 71 79 16558670
From motor planning to execution: a sensorimotor loop perspective Journal of Neurophysiology Bizzi Emilio Ajemian Robert 1 12 2020
124 6 1815 1823 0022-3077 10.1152/jn.00715.2019 10.1152/jn.00715.2019
Response inhibition as a function of movement complexity and movement type selection Frontiers in Psychology Gálvez-García Germán Albayay Javier Rehbein Lucio Bascour-Sandoval Claudio Michael George A. 26 11 2018
9 2290 1664-1078 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02290 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02290 30534099
Neuroplasticity following anterior cruciate ligament injury: a framework for visual-motor training approaches in rehabilitation Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Grooms Dustin Appelbaum Gregory Onate James 5 2015
45 5 381 393 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2015.5549 10.2519/jospt.2015.5549 25579692
Effect of neurocognition and concussion on musculoskeletal injury risk Current Sports Medicine Reports Herman Daniel C. Zaremski Jason L. Vincent Heather K. Vincent Kevin R. 2015
14 3 194 199 1537-890X 10.1249/jsr.0000000000000157 10.1249/jsr.0000000000000157 25968852
Biomechanics of the anterior cruciate ligament and implications for surgical reconstruction Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction Dargel J. Gotter M. Mader K. Pennig D. Koebke J. Schmidt-Wiethoff R. 2007
2 1 1 12 1828-8936 10.1007/s11751-007-0016-6 10.1007/s11751-007-0016-6 18427909
The effect of isolated valgus moments on acl strain during single-leg landing: A simulation study Journal of Biomechanics Shin Choongsoo S. Chaudhari Ajit M. Andriacchi Thomas P. 2 2009
42 3 280 285 0021-9290 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.031 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.10.031 19100550
Segmental sensory innervation of the anterior cruciate ligament and the patellar tendon of the cat's knee Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica Gomez-Barrena Enrique Martinez-Moreno Enrique Munuera Luis 1 1996
67 6 545 552 0001-6470 10.3109/17453679608997753 10.3109/17453679608997753
Mapping the rat somatosensory pathway from the anterior cruciate ligament nerve endings to the cerebrum Journal of Orthopaedic Research Park Hyung Bin Koh Mihee Cho Se Hyun Hutchinson Brian Lee Bonghee 11 2005
23 6 1419 1424 0736-0266 10.1016/j.orthres.2005.03.017.1100230626 10.1016/j.orthres.2005.03.017.1100230626
Kinematics and arthrokinematics in the chronic acl-deficient knee are altered even in the absence of instability symptoms Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Yang Chen Tashiro Yasutaka Lynch Andrew Fu Freddie Anderst William 2018
26 5 1406 1413 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-017-4780-7 10.1007/s00167-017-4780-7 29124285
Long-term follow-up of isolated acl tears treated without ligament reconstruction Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Sanders Thomas L. Pareek Ayoosh Kremers Hilal Maradit Bryan Andrew J. Levy Bruce A. Stuart Michael J. Dahm Diane L. Krych Aaron J. 2017
25 2 493 500 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-016-4172-4 10.1007/s00167-016-4172-4
Altered quadriceps control in people with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Williams GLENN N. Barrance PETER J. Snyder-Mackler LYNN Buchanan THOMAS S. 7 2004
36 7 1089 1097 0195-9131 10.1249/01.mss.0000131959.20666.11 10.1249/01.mss.0000131959.20666.11 15235310
Postural control — a comparison between patients with chronic anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency and healthy individuals Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Lysholm M. Ledin T. Ödkvist L. M. Good L. 12 1998
8 6 432 438 0905-7188 10.1111/j.1600-0838.1998.tb00464.x 10.1111/j.1600-0838.1998.tb00464.x
Central somatosensory changes and altered muscle synergies in subjects with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency Gait & Posture Courtney Carol Rine Rose Marie Kroll Penny 8 2005
22 1 69 74 0966-6362 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.07.002 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.07.002 15996595
Conservatively treated tears of the anterior cruciate ligament. Long-term results. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Kannus P Järvinen M 9 1987
69 7 1007 1012 0021-9355 10.2106/00004623-198769070-00008 10.2106/00004623-198769070-00008 3654691
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: principles of treatment EFORT Open Reviews Paschos Nikolaos K. Howell Stephen M. 2017
1 11 398 408 2396-7544 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160032 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160032 28461919
Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee The American Journal of Sports Medicine Fithian Donald C. Paxton Elizabeth W. Stone Mary Lou Luetzow William F. Csintalan Rick P. Phelan Daniel Daniel Dale M. 3 2005
33 3 335 346 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546504269590 10.1177/0363546504269590 15716249
Brains and Sprains: The brain's role in noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries Journal of Athletic Training Swanik Charles Buz 1 10 2015
50 10 1100 1102 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-50.10.08 10.4085/1062-6050-50.10.08 26340611
Neuroplasticity associated with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Grooms Dustin R. Page Stephen J. Nichols-Larsen Deborah S. Chaudhari Ajit M. White Susan E. Onate James A. 3 2017
47 3 180 189 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2017.7003 10.2519/jospt.2017.7003 27817301
A theoretical framework for understanding neuromuscular response to lower extremity joint injury Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Pietrosimone Brian G. McLeod Michelle M. Lepley Adam S. 2012
4 1 31 35 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738111428251 10.1177/1941738111428251 23016066
Neural excitability alterations after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Athletic Training Pietrosimone Brian G. Lepley Adam S. Ericksen Hayley M. Clements Amy Sohn David H. Gribble Phillip A. 1 6 2015
50 6 665 674 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-50.1.11 10.4085/1062-6050-50.1.11 25844855
Functional brain plasticity associated with acl injury: a scoping review of current evidence Neural Plasticity Neto T. Sayer T. Theisen D. Mierau A. 27 12 2019
2019 3480512 1 17 2090-5904 10.1155/2019/3480512 10.1155/2019/3480512 31949428
Quadriceps strength and volitional activation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Lisee Caroline Lepley Adam S. Birchmeier Thomas O’Hagan Kaitlin Kuenze Christopher 14 1 2019
11 2 163 179 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738118822739 10.1177/1941738118822739 30638441
Quadriceps activation following knee injuries: a systematic review Journal of Athletic Training Hart Joseph M. Pietrosimone Brian Hertel Jay Ingersoll Christopher D. 1 1 2010
45 1 87 97 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-45.1.87 10.4085/1062-6050-45.1.87 20064053
The effects of acl injury on knee proprioception: a meta-analysis Physiotherapy Relph N. Herrington L. Tyson S. 9 2014
100 3 187 195 0031-9406 10.1016/j.physio.2013.11.002 10.1016/j.physio.2013.11.002 24690442
Proprioceptive deficits after acl injury: are they clinically relevant? British Journal of Sports Medicine Gokeler Alli Benjaminse Anne Hewett Timothy E Lephart Scott M Engebretsen Lars Ageberg Eva Engelhardt Martin Arnold Markus P Postema Klaas Otten Egbert Dijkstra Pieter U 2012
46 3 180 192 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2010.082578 10.1136/bjsm.2010.082578 21511738
Locomotor coordination, visual perception and head stability during running Brain Sciences Hamill Joseph Lim Jongil van Emmerik Richard 18 3 2020
10 3 174 2076-3425 10.3390/brainsci10030174 10.3390/brainsci10030174 32197422
Somatosensory function The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology Puce Aina Carey Leeanne 30 1 2010
2010 1 3 10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0929 10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0929
Differences among mechanoreceptors in healthy and injured anterior cruciate ligaments and their clinical importance Muscles Ligaments Tendons J Dhillon M.S. Bali K. Prabhakar S. 2012
2 1 38 43 23738272
Arthrogenic muscle inhibition: a limiting factor in joint rehabilitation Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Hopkins J. Ty Ingersoll Christopher D. 5 2000
9 2 135 159 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.9.2.135 10.1123/jsr.9.2.135
Arthrogenic muscle response induced by an experimental knee joint effusion is mediated by pre- and post-synaptic spinal mechanisms Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Palmieri Riann M. Tom James A. Edwards Jeffery E. Weltman Arthur Saliba Ethan N. Mistry Danny J. Ingersoll Christopher D. 12 2004
14 6 631 640 1050-6411 10.1016/j.jelekin.2004.06.002 10.1016/j.jelekin.2004.06.002
The role of vision and spatial orientation in the maintenance of posture Physical Therapy Wade Michael G Jones Graeme 1 6 1997
77 6 619 628 0031-9023 10.1093/ptj/77.6.619 10.1093/ptj/77.6.619
Brain activation for knee movement measured days before second anterior cruciate ligament injury: neuroimaging in musculoskeletal medicine Journal of Athletic Training Grooms Dustin R. Page Stephen J. Onate James A. 1 10 2015
50 10 1005 1010 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-50.10.02 10.4085/1062-6050-50.10.02 26509775
Anterior cruciate ligament deficiency causes brain plasticity: a functional mri study The American Journal of Sports Medicine Kapreli Eleni Athanasopoulos Spyros Gliatis John Papathanasiou Matilda Peeters Ronald Strimpakos Nikolaos Van Hecke Paul Gouliamos Athanasios Sunaert Stefan 25 11 2009
37 12 2419 2426 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546509343201 10.1177/0363546509343201
Gaze accuracy differences during single-leg balance following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Bodkin Stephan G. Hertel Jay Hart Joseph M. 1 7 2021
30 5 737 743 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.2020-0287 10.1123/jsr.2020-0287
Cognitive performance and locomotor adaptation in persons with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair Stone Amanda E. Roper Jaimie A. Herman Daniel C. Hass Chris J. 21 5 2018
32 6-7 568 577 1545-9683 10.1177/1545968318776372 10.1177/1545968318776372
Methodology for JBI scoping reviews JBI Evidence Implementation Peters Micah Godfrey C McInerney P Soares C Khalil H Parker D 2015
1 24
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews JBI Evidence Implementation Peters Micah Marnie Casey Tricco Andrea Pollock Danielle Munn Zachary Alexander Lyndsay McInerney Patricia Godfrey Christina M. Khalil Hanan 3 2021
19 3 10 2691-3321 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000277 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000277 33570328
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ Page Matthew J McKenzie Joanne E Bossuyt Patrick M Boutron Isabelle Hoffmann Tammy C Mulrow Cynthia D Shamseer Larissa Tetzlaff Jennifer M Akl Elie A Brennan Sue E Chou Roger Glanville Julie Grimshaw Jeremy M Hróbjartsson Asbjørn Lalu Manoj M Li Tianjing Loder Elizabeth W Mayo-Wilson Evan McDonald Steve McGuinness Luke A Stewart Lesley A Thomas James Tricco Andrea C Welch Vivian A Whiting Penny Moher David 29 3 2021
372 n71 1756-1833 10.1136/bmj.n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
Neuroplastic changes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients from neuromechanical decoupling Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports An Yong Woo DiTrani Lobacz Andrea Lehmann Tim Baumeister Jochen Rose William C. Higginson Jill S. Rosen Jeffrey Swanik Charles Buz 2019
29 2 251 258 0905-7188 10.1111/sms.13322 10.1111/sms.13322 30326547
Pre- and postoperative postural regulation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation Bartels Thomas Brehme Kay Pyschik Martin Schulze Stephan Delank Karl-Stefan Fieseler Georg Laudner Kevin G. Hermassi Souhail Schwesig René 26 2 2018
14 1 143 151 2288-176X 10.12965/jer.1835204.602 10.12965/jer.1835204.602 29511666
Postural stability and regulation before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction – A two years longitudinal study Physical Therapy in Sport Bartels Thomas Brehme Kay Pyschik Martin Pollak Ruben Schaffrath Nicola Schulze Stephan Delank Karl-Stefan Laudner Kevin Schwesig René 7 2019
38 49 58 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.04.009 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.04.009 31051428
Hypoesthesia after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the relationship between proprioception and vibration perception deficits in individuals greater than one year post-surgery The Knee Courtney Carol A. Atre Pranoti Foucher Kharma C. Alsouhibani Ali M. 1 2019
26 1 194 200 0968-0160 10.1016/j.knee.2018.10.014 10.1016/j.knee.2018.10.014
Clinical and neurophysiological abnormalities before and after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee Acta Neurologica Scandinavica Valeriani M. Restuccia D. Di Lazzaro V. Franceschi F. Fabbriciani C. Tonali P. 5 1999
99 5 303 307 0001-6314 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1999.tb00680.x 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1999.tb00680.x 10348160
Somatosensory function influences aberrant gait biomechanics following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Orthopaedic Research Blackburn Jonathan T. Pietrosimone Brian Spang Jeffrey T. Goodwin Jonathan S. Johnston Chris D. 2020
38 3 620 628 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.24495 10.1002/jor.24495 31608488
Somatosensory deficits in post-ACL reconstruction patients: A case–control study Muscle & Nerve Hoch Johanna M. Perkins William O. Hartman Jonathan R. Hoch Matthew C. 2017
55 1 5 8 0148-639X 10.1002/mus.25167 10.1002/mus.25167 27145326
Changed cortical activity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a joint position paradigm: an eeg study Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Baumeister J. Reinecke K. Weiss M. 29 7 2008
18 4 473 484 0905-7188 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2007.00702.x 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2007.00702.x
Proprioceptive and behavior impairments in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed knees Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Bonfim Thátia R Jansen Paccola Cleber Antonio Barela José A 8 2003
84 8 1217 1223 0003-9993 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00147-3 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00147-3 12917863
Proprioception in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Endoscopic versus open two-tunnel technique. A prospective study International Journal of Sports Medicine Fremerey R. Lobenhoffer P Skutek M Gerich T Bosch U 31 12 2001
22 2 144 148 0172-4622 10.1055/s-2001-11341 10.1055/s-2001-11341
Effect of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament on proprioception of the knee and the heel strike transient Journal of Orthopaedic Research Co Fred H. Skinner Harry B. Cannon W. Dilworth 9 1993
11 5 696 704 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.1100110512 10.1002/jor.1100110512 8410470
Proprioception after rehabilitation and reconstruction in knees with deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament: a prospective, longitudinal study The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume Fremerey R. W. Lobenhoffer P. Zeichen J. Skutek M. Bosch U. Tscherne H. 8 2000
82 6 801 806 0301-620X 10.1302/0301-620x.82b6.0820801 10.1302/0301-620x.82b6.0820801 10990300
Proprioceptive sensitivity and performance in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee joints Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Fischer-Rasmussen T. Jensen P. E. 4 2000
10 2 85 89 0905-7188 10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010002085.x 10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010002085.x 10755278
Knee joint position sense following reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Dvir Zeevi Koren Elisha Halperin Nahum 10 1988
10 4 117 120 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.1988.10.4.117 10.2519/jospt.1988.10.4.117
Proprioceptive skills and functional outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a bone–tendon–bone graft International Orthopaedics Anders J. O. Venbrocks R. A. Weinberg M. 2008
32 5 627 633 0341-2695 10.1007/s00264-007-0381-2 10.1007/s00264-007-0381-2 17551725
Proprioception following the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with tibialis anterior tendon allograft The Journal of Knee Surgery Büyükafşar Enes Başar Selda Kanatli Ulunay 2020
33 7 722 727 1538-8506 10.1055/s-0039-1684010 10.1055/s-0039-1684010 30959535
Evaluation of proprioception in patients who underwent acl reconstruction: measurement in functional position TURKISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Suner Keklik Sinem Güzel Nevin A Çobanoğlu Gamze Kafa Nihan Ataoğlu Muhammet Baybars Öztemür Zekeriya 30 8 2021
51 4 2036 2042 1303-6165 10.3906/sag-2004-110 10.3906/sag-2004-110 33957722
Comparison of the position-matching and position-reproducing tasks to detect deficits in knee position sense after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Hoshiba Takuma Nakata Hiroki Saho Yasuaki Kanosue Kazuyuki Fukubayashi Toru 1 1 2020
29 1 87 92 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.2017-0275 10.1123/jsr.2017-0275
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
Effect of an accelerated acl rehabilitation protocol on knee proprioception and muscle strength after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Archives of Exercise in Health and Disease Silva Francisco Ribeiro Fernando Oliveira José 2012
3 1/2 139 144 1647-1652 10.5628/aehd.v3i1-2.113 10.5628/aehd.v3i1-2.113
Functional assessment of knee joint position sense following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction British Journal of Sports Medicine Mir S M Hadian M-R Talebian S Nasseri N 4 2008
42 4 300 303 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2007.044875 10.1136/bjsm.2007.044875 18390774
Functional measurement of knee joint position sense after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Hopper Diana M Creagh Mia J Formby Patricia A Goh Suet C Boyle Jeffrey J Strauss Geoffrey R 6 2003
84 6 868 872 0003-9993 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00007-8 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00007-8 12808540
Proprioception, body balance and functionality in individuals with acl reconstruction Acta Ortopédica Brasileira Furlanetto Tássia Silveira Peyré-Tartaruga Leonardo Alexandre do Pinho Alexandre Severo Bernardes Emanuele da Silva Zaro Milton Antonio 4 2016
24 2 67 72 1413-7852 10.1590/1413-785220162402108949 10.1590/1413-785220162402108949 26981038
Proprioception of the knee before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery Reider Bruce Arcand Michel A. Diehl Lee H. Mroczek Kenneth Abulencia Armand Stroud C.Christopher Palm Melanie Gilbertson Jennifer Staszak Patricia 1 2003
19 1 2 12 0749-8063 10.1053/jars.2003.50006 10.1053/jars.2003.50006
Neuromuscular training improves knee proprioception in athletes with a history of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial Clinical Biomechanics Ghaderi Mohammad Letafatkar Amir Almonroeder Thomas Gus Keyhani Sohrab 12 2020
80 105157 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105157 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105157
The analysis of proprioception alteration during first five months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Educ Phys Train Sport Jurevičienė V. Skurvydas A. Belickas J. Bušmanienė G. Kielė D. Česnaitis T. 2012
84 1 8 14
Effects on lower extremity neuromuscular control exercises on knee proprioception, muscle strength, and functional level in patients with acl reconstruction BioMed Research International Kaya Defne Guney-Deniz Hande Sayaca Cetin Calik Mahmut Doral Mahmut Nedim 15 11 2019
2019 1694695 2314-6133 10.1155/2019/1694695 10.1155/2019/1694695 31828089
Cross-education does not accelerate the rehabilitation of neuromuscular functions after acl reconstruction: a randomized controlled clinical trial European Journal of Applied Physiology Zult Tjerk Gokeler Alli van Raay Jos J. A. M. Brouwer Reinoud W. Zijdewind Inge Farthing Jonathan P. Hortobágyi Tibor 23 5 2018
118 8 1609 1623 1439-6319 10.1007/s00421-018-3892-1 10.1007/s00421-018-3892-1 29796857
Effects of localized vibration on knee joint position sense in individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Clinical Biomechanics Nagai Takashi Bates Nathaniel A. Hewett Timothy E. Schilaty Nathan D. 6 2018
55 40 44 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.04.011 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.04.011 29680779
Knee proprioception following ACL reconstruction; a prospective trial comparing hamstrings with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft The Knee Angoules A.G. Mavrogenis A.F. Dimitriou R. Karzis K. Drakoulakis E. Michos J. Papagelopoulos P.J. 3 2011
18 2 76 82 0968-0160 10.1016/j.knee.2010.01.009 10.1016/j.knee.2010.01.009 20149662
Proprioceptive comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Ozenci A. Merter Inanmaz Erkan Ozcanli Haluk Soyuncu Yetkin Samanci Nehir Dagseven Tufan Balci Nilüfer Gur Semih 9 9 2007
15 12 1432 1437 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-007-0404-y 10.1007/s00167-007-0404-y
Clinical and functional outcomes and proprioception after a modified accelerated rehabilitation program following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica Karasel Seide Akpinar B Gülbahar S 2010
44 3 220 228 1017-995X 10.3944/aott.2010.2293 10.3944/aott.2010.2293 21088463
Effects of acceleration training 24 weeks after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on proprioceptive and dynamic balancing functions Journal of Physical Therapy Science An Keun Ok Park Gi Duck Lee Joong-Chul 2015
27 9 2825 2828 0915-5287 10.1589/jpts.27.2825 10.1589/jpts.27.2825 26504302
Proprioception and function after anterior cruciate reconstruction The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume Barrett D S 9 1991
73 5 833 837 0301-620X 10.1302/0301-620x.73b5.1894677 10.1302/0301-620x.73b5.1894677 1894677
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed individuals demonstrate slower reactions during a dynamic postural task Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Armitano-Lago Cortney N. Morrison Steven Hoch Johanna M. Bennett Hunter J. Russell Daniel M. 21 5 2020
30 8 1518 1528 0905-7188 10.1111/sms.13698 10.1111/sms.13698
Knee sensorimotor control following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison between reconstruction techniques PLoS One San Martín-Mohr Cristóbal Cristi-Sánchez Iver Pincheira Patricio A. Reyes Alvaro Berral Francisco José Oyarzo Claudio 15 11 2018
13 11 e0205658 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0205658 10.1371/journal.pone.0205658 30439952
Reposition acuity and postural control after exercise in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed knees Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Goetschius John Kuenze Christopher M. Saliba Susan Hart Joseph M. 12 2013
45 12 2314 2321 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0b013e31829bc6ae 10.1249/mss.0b013e31829bc6ae
Development of supine and standing knee joint position sense tests Physical Therapy in Sport Strong Andrew Srinivasan Divya Häger Charlotte K. 5 2021
49 112 121 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.02.010 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.02.010 33667776
A comparative study of whole body vibration training and conventional training on knee proprioception and postural stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction British Journal of Sports Medicine Moezy A Olyaei G Hadian M Razi M Faghihzadeh S 1 4 2008
42 5 373 385 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2007.038554 10.1136/bjsm.2007.038554
The effect of proprioception exercises on functional status in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Ordahan Banu Küçükşen Sami Tuncay İbrahim Sallı Ali Uǧurlu Hatice 17 6 2015
28 3 531 537 1053-8127 10.3233/bmr-140553 10.3233/bmr-140553
Dynamic-position-sense impairment's independence of perceived knee function in women with ACL reconstruction Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Littmann Andrew E. Iguchi Masaki Madhavan Sangeetha Kolarik Jamie L. Shields Richard K. 2 2012
21 1 44 53 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.21.1.44 10.1123/jsr.21.1.44 22100530
Visual cognition associated with knee proprioception, time to stability, and sensory integration neural activity after acl reconstruction Journal of Orthopaedic Research Chaput Meredith Onate James A. Simon Janet E. Criss Cody R. Jamison Steve McNally Michael Grooms Dustin R. 8 3 2021
40 1 95 104 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.25014 10.1002/jor.25014 33620108
Quadriceps tendon autograft acl reconstructed subjects overshoot target knee extension angle during active proprioception testing Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Guney-Deniz Hande Harput Gulcan Kaya Defne Nyland John Doral Mahmut Nedim 2020
28 2 645 652 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-019-05795-7 10.1007/s00167-019-05795-7
Effect of stochastic resonance on proprioception and kinesthesia in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed patients Journal of Biomechanics Zandiyeh Payam Küpper Jessica C. Mohtadi Nicholas George H. Goldsmith Peter Ronsky Janet L. 2 2019
84 52 57 0021-9290 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.12.018 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.12.018
Factors affecting proprioceptive recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Chinese Medical Journal Zhou Mou-Wang Gu Li Chen Ya-Ping YU Chang-long AO Ying-fang HUANG Hong-shi YANG Yan-yan 11 2008
121 22 2224 2228 0366-6999 10.1097/00029330-200811020-00003 10.1097/00029330-200811020-00003
Effect of anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction on proprioceptive acuity of knee rotation in the transverse plane The American Journal of Sports Medicine Muaidi Qassim Ibrahim Nicholson Leslie Lorenda Refshauge Kathryn Margaret Adams Roger David Roe Justin Phillip 13 5 2009
37 8 1618 1626 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546509332429 10.1177/0363546509332429
Proprioception after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without bracing Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Risberg M. A. Beynnon B. D. Peura G. D. Uh B. S. 27 9 1999
7 5 303 309 0942-2056 10.1007/s001670050168 10.1007/s001670050168
Proprioception in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient and reconstructed knees The American Journal of Sports Medicine MacDonald Peter B. Hedden David Pacin Ondrej Sutherland Kelly 11 1996
24 6 774 778 0363-5465 10.1177/036354659602400612 10.1177/036354659602400612
Prospective study of kinesthesia after acl reconstruction International Journal of Sports Medicine Shidahara H. Deie M. Niimoto T. Shimada N. Toriyama M. Adachi N. Hirata K. Urabe Y. Ochi M. 4 3 2011
32 05 386 392 0172-4622 10.1055/s-0031-1271675 10.1055/s-0031-1271675 21380975
Evaluation kinaesthetic proprioceptive deficit after knee anterior cruciate ligament (acl) reconstruction in athletes Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Laboute E. Verhaeghe E. Ucay O. Minden A. 7 2 2019
6 1 6 2197-1153 10.1186/s40634-019-0174-8 10.1186/s40634-019-0174-8 30729340
Restoration of sagittal and transverse plane proprioception following anatomic double-bundle acl reconstruction Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Nagai Takashi Heebner Nicholas R. Sell Timothy C. Nakagawa Takumi Fu Freddie H. Lephart Scott M. 2013
21 9 2048 2056 0942-2056 10.1007/s00167-012-2188-y 10.1007/s00167-012-2188-y
Neuromuscular training versus strength training during first 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized clinical trial Physical Therapy Risberg May Arna Holm Inger Myklebust Grethe Engebretsen Lars 1 6 2007
87 6 737 750 0031-9023 10.2522/ptj.20060041 10.2522/ptj.20060041
Bilateral proprioceptive defects in patients with a unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison between patients and healthy individuals Journal of Orthopaedic Research Roberts David Fridén Thomas Stomberg Anders Lindstrand Anders Moritz Ulrich 7 2000
18 4 565 571 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.1100180408 10.1002/jor.1100180408 11052492
Knee proprioception following acl reconstruction; a prospective trial comparing hamstrings with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft The Knee Angoules A.G. Mavrogenis A.F. Dimitriou R. Karzis K. Drakoulakis E. Michos J. Papagelopoulos P.J. 3 2011
18 2 76 82 0968-0160 10.1016/j.knee.2010.01.009 10.1016/j.knee.2010.01.009 20149662
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
Proprioception and function after anterior cruciate reconstruction The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume Barrett D S 9 1991
73-B 5 833 837 0301-620X 10.1302/0301-620x.73b5.1894677 10.1302/0301-620x.73b5.1894677
Visual cognition associated with knee proprioception, time to stability, and sensory integration neural activity after ACL reconstruction Journal of Orthopaedic Research Chaput Meredith Onate James A. Simon Janet E. Criss Cody R. Jamison Steve McNally Michael Grooms Dustin R. 8 3 2021
40 1 95 104 0736-0266 10.1002/jor.25014 10.1002/jor.25014 33620108
Cortical Motor Planning and biomechanical stability during unplanned jump-landings in males with acl-reconstruction Journal of Athletic Training Giesche Florian Vieluf Solveig Wilke Jan Engeroff Tobias Niederer Daniel Banzer Winfried 30 7 2021
57 6 547 556 1938-162X 10.4085/1062-6050-0544.20 10.4085/1062-6050-0544.20 35969662
Neural activity for hip-knee control in those with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a task-based functional connectivity analysis Neuroscience Letters Criss Cody R. Onate James A. Grooms Dustin R. 6 2020
730 134985 0304-3940 10.1016/j.neulet.2020.134985 10.1016/j.neulet.2020.134985 32380143
Functional cortical connectivity related to postural control in patients six weeks after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Lehmann Tim Büchel Daniel Mouton Caroline Gokeler Alli Seil Romain Baumeister Jochen 15 7 2021
15 655116 1662-5161 10.3389/fnhum.2021.655116 10.3389/fnhum.2021.655116 34335206
Changes in motor-flexibility following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as measured by means of a leg-amplitude differentiation task with haptic and visual feedback Clinical Biomechanics Roelofsen Eefje G.J. van Cingel Robert Staal J. Bart Nijhuis-van der Sanden Maria W.G. Meulenbroek Ruud G.J. 12 2020
80 105186 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105186 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105186
Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury Orthopedics Boden Barry P Dean G Scott Feagin John A, Jr. Garrett William E., Jr. 6 2000
23 6 573 578 0147-7447 10.3928/0147-7447-20000601-15 10.3928/0147-7447-20000601-15 10875418
A framework for the etiology of running-related injuries Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Bertelsen M. L. Hulme A. Petersen J. Brund R. K. Sørensen H. Finch C. F. Parner E. T. Nielsen R. O. 20 4 2017
27 11 1170 1180 0905-7188 10.1111/sms.12883 10.1111/sms.12883
Visual utilization during postural control in anterior cruciate ligament- deficient and -reconstructed patients: systematic reviews and meta-analyses Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Wikstrom Erik A. Song Kyeongtak Pietrosimone Brian G. Blackburn J. Troy Padua Darin A. 10 2017
98 10 2052 2065 0003-9993 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.04.010 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.04.010
Visual-motor control of drop landing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Journal of Athletic Training Grooms Dustin R. Chaudhari Ajit Page Stephen J. Nichols-Larsen Deborah S. Onate James A. 1 5 2018
53 5 486 496 1062-6050 10.4085/1062-6050-178-16 10.4085/1062-6050-178-16 29749751
Effect of cognitive challenge on the postural control of patients with acl reconstruction under visual and surface perturbations Gait & Posture Lion Alexis Gette Paul Meyer Christophe Seil Romain Theisen Daniel 2 2018
60 251 257 0966-6362 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.12.013 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.12.013
Function after anterior cruciate ligament injuries: influence of visual control and proprioception Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica Friden Thomas Roberts David Movin Tomas Wredmark Torsten 1 1998
69 6 590 594 0001-6470 10.3109/17453679808999261 10.3109/17453679808999261
Postural stability during visual-based cognitive and motor dual-tasks after aclr Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Miko Sarah C. Simon Janet E. Monfort Scott M. Yom Jae P. Ulloa Sergio Grooms Dustin R. 2 2021
24 2 146 151 1440-2440 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.07.008 10.1016/j.jsams.2020.07.008
Assessment of standing balance deficits in people who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using traditional and modern analysis methods Journal of Biomechanics Clark Ross A. Howells Brooke Pua Yong-Hao Feller Julian Whitehead Tim Webster Kate E. 3 2014
47 5 1134 1137 0021-9290 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.12.015 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.12.015 24433669
No significant improvement in neuromuscular proprioception and increased reliance on visual compensation 6 months after ACL reconstruction Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Wein Frank Peultier-Celli Laetitia van Rooij Floris Saffarini Mo Perrin Philippe 6 3 2021
8 1 19 19 2197-1153 10.1186/s40634-021-00338-x 10.1186/s40634-021-00338-x 33677631
Knee kinematics following acl reconstruction in females; the effect of vision on performance during a cutting task Int J Sports Phys Ther Bjornaraa J. Di Fabio R.P. 2011
6 4 271 84 22163089
Functional cortical connectivity related to postural control in patients six weeks after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Lehmann Tim Büchel Daniel Mouton Caroline Gokeler Alli Seil Romain Baumeister Jochen 15 7 2021
15 405 1662-5161 10.3389/fnhum.2021.655116 10.3389/fnhum.2021.655116 34335206
Knee kinematics following acl reconstruction in females; the effect of vision on performance during a cutting task Int J Sports Phys Ther Bjornaraa J. Di Fabio R.P. 2011
6 4 271 284 22163089
Neuroscience application to noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach Grooms Dustin R. Onate James A. 25 11 2015
8 2 149 152 1941-7381 10.1177/1941738115619164 10.1177/1941738115619164 26608453
Mechanoreceptor reinnervation of autografts versus allografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Young Simon W. Valladares Roberto D. Loi Florence Dragoo Jason L. 1 10 2016
4 10 2325967116668782 2325-9671 10.1177/2325967116668782 10.1177/2325967116668782 27803939
The development of movement control and coordination Current Issues in Developmental Psychology: Biopsychological Perspectives Savelsbergh Geert Wimmers Raymond Van Der Kamp John Davids Keith Kalverboer A F Genta M L Hopkins J B Springer Netherlands 1999
107 136 10.1007/978-94-011-4507-7_5 10.1007/978-94-011-4507-7_5
The Ecological approach to visual perception Gibson J.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1986

Chapter 3 - Sensory nervous systems Sensory Systems Møller Aage R. Møller A.R. Academic Press 2003
75 183 10.1016/b978-012504257-4/50005-4 10.1016/b978-012504257-4/50005-4
Increased visual use in chronic ankle instability: a meta-analysis Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise Song KYEONGTAK Burcal CHRISTOPHER J. Hertel JAY Wikstrom ERIK A. 10 2016
48 10 2046 2056 0195-9131 10.1249/mss.0000000000000992 10.1249/mss.0000000000000992
The relationship between neurocognitive function and noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries The American Journal of Sports Medicine Swanik Charles Buz Covassin Tracey Stearne David J. Schatz Philip 6 2007
35 6 943 948 0363-5465 10.1177/0363546507299532 10.1177/0363546507299532 17369562
Interexaminer, intraexaminer and test-retest reliability of clinical knee joint-position-sense measurements using an image-capture technique Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Relph Nicola Herrington Lee 1 5 2015
24 2 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.2013-0134 10.1123/jsr.2013-0134
Visual-motor expertise in athletes: insights from semiparametric modelling of 2317 athletes tested on the Nike SPARQ sensory station Journal of Sports Sciences Burris Kyle Liu Sicong Appelbaum Lawrence 2020
38 3 320 329 0264-0414 10.1080/02640414.2019.1698090 10.1080/02640414.2019.1698090
Current concepts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a criterion-based rehabilitation progression Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Adams Douglas Logerstedt David Hunter-Giordano Airelle Axe Michael J. Snyder-Mackler Lynn 7 2012
42 7 601 614 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2012.3871 10.2519/jospt.2012.3871 22402434
A review of systematic reviews on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction rehabilitation Physical Therapy in Sport Lobb Ryan Tumilty Steve Claydon Leica S. 11 2012
13 4 270 278 1466-853X 10.1016/j.ptsp.2012.05.001 10.1016/j.ptsp.2012.05.001
Evidence-based clinical practice update: practice guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation based on a systematic review and multidisciplinary consensus Br J Sports Med van Melick N van Cingel R E Brooijmans F.. 2016
50 24 1506 1515 10.1136/bjsports-2015-09589 10.1136/bjsports-2015-09589 27539507
