Knee bracing after ACL reconstruction: effects on postural control and proprioception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) brace has on various measures of knee proprioception and postural control. METHODS: Thirty subjects (mean age 27 +/- 11 yr) having undergone unilateral ACL reconstruction were tested with and without wearing their own custom-fit brace on their involved limb. Proprioception was assessed using joint angle replication tests completed on an isokinetic dynamometer. Postural control was assessed using a series of single-limb standing balance tests completed on a force platform. The balance tests included: 1) standing on the stable platform with eyes open, 2) standing on a foam mat placed over the platform with eyes open, 3) standing on the platform with eyes closed, and 4) standing on the platform after landing from a maximal single-limb forward hop. RESULTS: The brace provided a small but statistically significant improvement in proprioception (mean reduction in error scores between target and reproduced angles = 0.64 +/- 1.4 degrees, P = 0.02). For the postural control tests, there was a significant brace condition by test situation interaction (P = 0.02), with the brace providing a small but statistically significant improvement during the test completed on the stable platform with eyes open (mean reduction in center of pressure path length = 4.2 +/- 8.4 cm, P = 0.02) but not during the other more challenging test situations. Additional post hoc analyses indicated that the relationship between knee proprioception and postural control measures were low and not significant (r = 0.003 to 0.19, P > 0.32), consistent with the suggestion that changes in knee proprioception can occur in the absence of substantial changes in postural control. Also, standing balance tests that challenged the somatosensory contribution to postural control (i.e., those completed on foam, or with eyes closed) were significantly related to single-limb forward hop distances (r = -0.4, P < 0.05), whereas performance during the proprioception test was not (r = 0.1, P > 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: In general, bracing appears to improve performance during tasks characterized by relatively limited somatosensory input but not during tasks characterized by increased somatosenory input. The small magnitude of the improvements, coupled with their apparent lack of carry over to more difficult and functionally relevant tasks, questions the clinical benefit of the present effects of bracing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".