Dynamic and static tibial translation in XXXX with anterior cruciate @entity942 initially treated with a structured rehabilitation protocol.

@entity1 @entity397 @entity942 @entity130
PURPOSE: To compare dynamic and static tibial translation, in @entity1 with anterior cruciate @entity942 , at 2- to 5-year follow-up, with the tibial translation after 4  months of rehabilitation initiated early after the injury. Secondarily, to compare tibial translation in the injured knee and non-injured knee and explore correlations between dynamic and static tibial translation. METHODS: Twelve @entity1 with ACL @entity397 were assessed at 3-8  weeks after @entity130 , after 4  months of structured rehabilitation, and 2-5  years after @entity130 . Sagittal tibial translation was measured during the Lachman test (static translation) and during gait (dynamic translation) using a CA-4000 electrogoniometer. RESULTS: Static tibial translation was increased bilateral 2-5  years after @entity130 , whereas the dynamic tibial translation was unchanged. Tibial translation was greater in the injured knee compared with the non-injured knee (Lachman test 134  N 9.1      1.0 vs. 7.0      1.7  mm, P  =  0.001, gait 5.6      2.1 vs. 4.7      1.8  mm, P  =  0.011). There were no correlations between dynamic and static tibial translation. CONCLUSION: Dynamic tibial translation was unchanged in spite of increased static tibial translation in the ACL-deficient knee at 2- to 5-year follow-up compared to directly after rehabilitation. Dynamic tibial translation did not correlate with the static tibial translation. A more normal gait kinematics may be maintained from completion of a rehabilitation programme to mid-term follow-up in @entity1 with @entity942 treated with rehabilitation only. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
