Importance Several studies have shown a statistically significant decrease in proprioceptive function in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knees. The effects of ACL reconstruction on knee proprioception have continued to be a matter of debate.
Objective The main aim of this review was to verify whether there is impaired proprioceptive function of the lower extremity in subjects with ACL reconstruction when compared with uninjured external controls.
Evidence review A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed and Scopus to search for relevant studies on knee proprioception after ACL reconstruction on 10 September 2016. The studies that used only a patient’s contralateral leg as a control were excluded. A modified Cochrane Methods Group on Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methodology was used to grade the quality of the studies.
Findings A total of 11 studies involving 213 patients and 204 controls were included. In the threshold to detect passive motion measurement, five of the six studies showed no significant differences between the ACL-reconstructed knees and the uninjured external control knees. In the joint position sense measurement, only one of six studies showed that ACL-reconstructed knees had significantly lower proprioceptive function than those of uninjured external control knees.
Conclusions and relevance This review demonstrated that there was no evidence of impaired proprioceptive function in subjects with ACL reconstruction when compared with the uninjured external controls. Higher quality studies and homogenisation on clinical assessment are needed to perform a more definitive analysis in the future.
Level of evidence III, systematic review of level II and III studies
- anterior cruciate ligament
- ACL reconstruction
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors AN was involved in article collection and selection, manuscript writing and table editing. NA was involved in article collection and selection. MI and TN were involved in table editing and manuscript revision. MO was involved in planning, editing and design of the review.
Funding This work was supported byJSPS KAKENHI, Grant No. 26350568.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.