The role of the intact limb in the adaptation of transtibial amputee obstacle crossing following rehabilitation

Abstract

paring injured to non-injured leg for the ACL-injured, or dominant to non-dominant leg for the controls. However, significant differences seem to exist between the two ACL-groups in knee and hip anglesbothbefore jump-off (p=0.002, p=0.036, linearmixedmodel) and after landing (p=0.004, p=0.003, linear mixed model), where ACL-R have larger angles than ACL-PT. Nor were there any differences when comparing angles for the non-injured leg for the ACL-injured and the angles for the legs of the controls. Discussion & Conclusions: Subjects with ACL-injury still show reduced jump capacity in terms of distance in their injured leg about 20 years after injury. In contrast, for the non-injured leg the jump capacity is in parity with that of healthy controls. However, this was not reflected by differences in the kinematic maximum angles of the hip, knee and ankle between injured and non-injured leg for the ACL-groups, which indicates that other parameters than maximal angles taken before jump-off and after landing may be more important to investigatewhen describing themovement pattern after ACL-injury. Significant differences in knee and hip angles between the two ACL-groups, may indicate different movement pattern depending on treatment approach. Further kinematic analyses are under way to explore the kinematic details of the jump which is needed to quantify the movement patterns after ACLinjury in the long term perspective.