Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This study aims to compare the effects of neuromuscular training (NMT) and visuo-motor training (VMT) on the biomechanics of the landing task, functional performance, and psychological factors in female athletes with a history of unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).</p> Materials and methods <p>A total of 45 competitive female athletes (age: 27.83 ± 4.44; height: 167.58 ± 7.52 ± ; BMI: 23.4 ± 1.93) with unilateral ACLR were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the NMT group (n = 15), the VMT group (n = 15), and a control group (n = 15). Using a video camera and a force plate system, Kinematic and kinetic data were evaluated during a landing task. Functional performance was assessed through the triple hop test and the Y-Balance Test (YBT). Additionally, kinesiophobia was measured using the Short Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI). Data analysis was conducted in SPSS 28.0, employing a repeated-measures ANOVA (3 groups × 2 time points).</p> Results <p>Both the NMT and VMT showed significant improvements in peak hip flexion (p = 0.02, Effect size (EF) = 1.13 for NMT, p = 0.02, EF = 1.22 for VMT), peak knee flexion (p = 0.02, EF = 1.21 for NMT, p = 0.02, EF = 1.23 for VMT), peak dorsiflexion (p = 0.001, EF = 1.56 for NMT, p = 0.001, EF = 1.53 for VMT), peak knee valgus (p = 0.03, EF = 0.98, for NMT, p = 0.04, EF = 1.01 for VMT), GRFv (p = 0.001, EF = 1.42 for NMT, p = 0.001, EF = 1.39 for VMT), YBT (p = 0.02, EF = 1.11 for NMT, p = 0.03, EF = 1.12 for VMT), triple hop test (p = 0.02, EF = 1.15 for NMT, p = 0.02, EF = 1.16 for VMT), and ACL-RSI scale (p = 0.001, EF = 1.62 for NMT, p = 0.001, EF = 1.63 for VMT). Also, there was no significant difference between the two NMT and VMT groups in all measured variables (p &gt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>Both interventions resulted in significant improvements in the lower limbs’ angle, GRF<sub>V</sub>, and psychological factors in female athletes with unilateral ACLR. While both NMT and VMT are effective rehabilitation approaches, providing clinicians with distinct options, it is important to acknowledge key methodological limitations, including the small sample size and short follow-up duration.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Impact of neuromuscular and visuo-motor training on landing biomechanics, functional performance, and psychological factors in female athletes with unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a simple parallel-group randomized controlled trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月31日

查看全文
  • Ahmad Kazemi Pakdel,
  • Fereshteh Kazemi Pakdel,
  • Nader Farahpour

摘要

Purpose

This study aims to compare the effects of neuromuscular training (NMT) and visuo-motor training (VMT) on the biomechanics of the landing task, functional performance, and psychological factors in female athletes with a history of unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Materials and methods

A total of 45 competitive female athletes (age: 27.83 ± 4.44; height: 167.58 ± 7.52 ± ; BMI: 23.4 ± 1.93) with unilateral ACLR were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the NMT group (n = 15), the VMT group (n = 15), and a control group (n = 15). Using a video camera and a force plate system, Kinematic and kinetic data were evaluated during a landing task. Functional performance was assessed through the triple hop test and the Y-Balance Test (YBT). Additionally, kinesiophobia was measured using the Short Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI). Data analysis was conducted in SPSS 28.0, employing a repeated-measures ANOVA (3 groups × 2 time points).

Results

Both the NMT and VMT showed significant improvements in peak hip flexion (p = 0.02, Effect size (EF) = 1.13 for NMT, p = 0.02, EF = 1.22 for VMT), peak knee flexion (p = 0.02, EF = 1.21 for NMT, p = 0.02, EF = 1.23 for VMT), peak dorsiflexion (p = 0.001, EF = 1.56 for NMT, p = 0.001, EF = 1.53 for VMT), peak knee valgus (p = 0.03, EF = 0.98, for NMT, p = 0.04, EF = 1.01 for VMT), GRFv (p = 0.001, EF = 1.42 for NMT, p = 0.001, EF = 1.39 for VMT), YBT (p = 0.02, EF = 1.11 for NMT, p = 0.03, EF = 1.12 for VMT), triple hop test (p = 0.02, EF = 1.15 for NMT, p = 0.02, EF = 1.16 for VMT), and ACL-RSI scale (p = 0.001, EF = 1.62 for NMT, p = 0.001, EF = 1.63 for VMT). Also, there was no significant difference between the two NMT and VMT groups in all measured variables (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Both interventions resulted in significant improvements in the lower limbs’ angle, GRFV, and psychological factors in female athletes with unilateral ACLR. While both NMT and VMT are effective rehabilitation approaches, providing clinicians with distinct options, it is important to acknowledge key methodological limitations, including the small sample size and short follow-up duration.