Volume 12, Issue 1 (6-2026)
J Sport Biomech 2026, 12(1): 52-69 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Piri E, Jafarnezhadgero A, Dehghani M, Rezazadeh F, Enteshari-Moghaddam A. Running Mechanics in Individuals with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction 6–12 Months After Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Sport Biomech 2026; 12 (1) :52-69
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-428-en.html
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-428-en.html
Ebrahim Piri1 
, AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero *1 , Mahrokh Dehghani1 , Farhad Rezazadeh1 , Afsaneh Enteshari-Moghaddam2
, AmirAli Jafarnezhadgero *1 , Mahrokh Dehghani1 , Farhad Rezazadeh1 , Afsaneh Enteshari-Moghaddam2
1- Department of Sports Biomechanics, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.
2- Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.
2- Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.
Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, Running, Biomechanics, Asymmetry, Meta-analysis
Full-Text [PDF 1949 kb]
(175 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (613 Views)
Full-Text: (128 Views)
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Running is a fundamental component of rehabilitation following knee injuries, particularly after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)—a common procedure among athletes that often results in long-term biomechanical alterations (1,2). Although many individuals return to running, persistent biomechanical deficits frequently remain, including asymmetrical limb loading, reduced knee extension moments, greater knee flexion at initial contact, and altered muscle activation patterns after ACLR (3,4). These compensatory adaptations may contribute to an increased risk of re-injury or early onset of osteoarthritis, even in the absence of pain or joint instability (7,8).
Emerging evidence suggests that only a small proportion of patients fully restore pre-injury biomechanical function, with the magnitude and nature of deficits varying across recovery stages (e.g., <6, 6–12, and >12 months post-surgery), indicating incomplete functional recovery (5). Previous meta-analyses have largely focused on isolated time points or on tasks such as jumping and landing, thereby lacking a comprehensive longitudinal assessment of running mechanics (6,7). Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis are warranted to synthesize existing evidence on temporal changes in running kinematics and kinetics after ACLR and to inform more targeted rehabilitation strategies and return-to-sport criteria (8).
2. Methods
This study followed a systematic review and meta-analysis design. Articles published in English and Persian between May 2010 and August 2025 were identified through comprehensive searches in specialized databases, including PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, SID, Magiran, ISC, ScienceDirect, JCR, and Google Scholar. Only original clinical trials were included. For each database, an appropriate search strategy was developed using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms. The primary search keywords included anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, running, ground reaction force, and electromyography (EMG). A total of 754 records were initially retrieved, of which 26 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. For the quantitative synthesis, Hedges’ g effect size (the standardized mean difference between two groups, weighted by pooled standard deviation) was calculated. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic, defined as I² = ((Q − df)/Q) × 100%, where Q represents the chi-square statistic and df the degrees of freedom. A random-effects model was applied when I² exceeded 50%, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for values below 50%. The I² index reflects the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Publication bias was assessed using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., funnel plot symmetry and Egger’s test). All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software (Review Manager, Version 5.1; Cochrane Collaboration).
3. Results
In the present study, 26 articles were identified through keyword searches, and 10 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion and were included in the analysis. These studies encompass various designs, including clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and systematic reviews, providing valuable data on loading asymmetry, knee kinematics and kinetics, muscle activity, and the influence of time post-surgery (1,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12). The study populations primarily consist of young individuals, with a mean age between 23 and 27 years, who have returned to physical activity at least 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), indicating they are in the return-to-activity phase (1,3,4,5,7). Most studies included only participants without concomitant joint or soft tissue injuries to minimize confounding factors (1,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12). In terms of sex distribution, several studies included male-only participants (1,4,5), while others included a mixed-sex sample (3), which may reflect the higher incidence of ACL injury in males or a focus on male athletes.
The most commonly used graft type was the hamstring tendon autograft; however, Gohil et al. (4) utilized a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) graft. This difference in graft type may influence loading patterns and muscle function, as BTB grafts are frequently associated with greater quadriceps weakness and anterior knee pain (4). Running speed varied across studies: some used a standardized speed of 3 m/s (4,5,10,12), while others allowed self-selected speeds, which better reflect real-world athletic conditions but reduce inter-subject comparability (3,7). The time since surgery ranged from 6 to 18 months (1,3,4,5,7,10,11,12). Notably, studies such as Fu et al. (1) and Zhou et al. (7) demonstrate that even at 6 months post-surgery, loading on the injured limb remains significantly lower than on the uninjured limb (Hedges’ g = 0.78), reflecting a persistent neuromuscular protective strategy. Although some improvement is observed over time (12–18 months), biomechanical asymmetries persist in variables such as knee extension moment (4), vertical ground reaction force (GRF) (5), and EMG activity of the hamstring muscles (10). Delayed hamstring activation in the operated limb, as reported by Saki et al. (10), is a particular concern, given the critical role of the hamstrings in resisting anterior tibial shear forces and stabilizing the reconstructed knee. Systematic reviews by Zhou et al. (7) and Bafrouei et al. (6) indicate that biomechanical asymmetries can persist up to 24 months post-surgery, and full symmetry is not achieved in the majority of patients. However, Bafrouei et al. (6) concluded that core stability exercises can positively influence biomechanical patterns, underscoring the importance of comprehensive rehabilitation that extends beyond localized knee strengthening. Furthermore, studies such as Whiteley et al. (12) and Van Cant et al. (11) reveal that even among elite athletes, asymmetries in knee internal rotation during cutting maneuvers and suboptimal movement strategies remain present, which may increase the risk of reinjury. These findings collectively emphasize that return to sport should not be determined solely by time elapsed or the absence of pain, but must be supported by objective, criterion-based biomechanical assessments (11,12). The methodological quality of the included articles was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist, with results presented in Table 1. The mean overall quality score was 65.48%. The lowest quality article scored 58.06%, while the highest scored 70.96%. The percentage quality score was calculated using the following formula:
1. Introduction
Running is a fundamental component of rehabilitation following knee injuries, particularly after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)—a common procedure among athletes that often results in long-term biomechanical alterations (1,2). Although many individuals return to running, persistent biomechanical deficits frequently remain, including asymmetrical limb loading, reduced knee extension moments, greater knee flexion at initial contact, and altered muscle activation patterns after ACLR (3,4). These compensatory adaptations may contribute to an increased risk of re-injury or early onset of osteoarthritis, even in the absence of pain or joint instability (7,8).
Emerging evidence suggests that only a small proportion of patients fully restore pre-injury biomechanical function, with the magnitude and nature of deficits varying across recovery stages (e.g., <6, 6–12, and >12 months post-surgery), indicating incomplete functional recovery (5). Previous meta-analyses have largely focused on isolated time points or on tasks such as jumping and landing, thereby lacking a comprehensive longitudinal assessment of running mechanics (6,7). Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis are warranted to synthesize existing evidence on temporal changes in running kinematics and kinetics after ACLR and to inform more targeted rehabilitation strategies and return-to-sport criteria (8).
2. Methods
This study followed a systematic review and meta-analysis design. Articles published in English and Persian between May 2010 and August 2025 were identified through comprehensive searches in specialized databases, including PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, SID, Magiran, ISC, ScienceDirect, JCR, and Google Scholar. Only original clinical trials were included. For each database, an appropriate search strategy was developed using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms. The primary search keywords included anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, running, ground reaction force, and electromyography (EMG). A total of 754 records were initially retrieved, of which 26 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. For the quantitative synthesis, Hedges’ g effect size (the standardized mean difference between two groups, weighted by pooled standard deviation) was calculated. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic, defined as I² = ((Q − df)/Q) × 100%, where Q represents the chi-square statistic and df the degrees of freedom. A random-effects model was applied when I² exceeded 50%, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for values below 50%. The I² index reflects the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Publication bias was assessed using appropriate statistical tests (e.g., funnel plot symmetry and Egger’s test). All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software (Review Manager, Version 5.1; Cochrane Collaboration).
3. Results
In the present study, 26 articles were identified through keyword searches, and 10 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion and were included in the analysis. These studies encompass various designs, including clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and systematic reviews, providing valuable data on loading asymmetry, knee kinematics and kinetics, muscle activity, and the influence of time post-surgery (1,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12). The study populations primarily consist of young individuals, with a mean age between 23 and 27 years, who have returned to physical activity at least 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), indicating they are in the return-to-activity phase (1,3,4,5,7). Most studies included only participants without concomitant joint or soft tissue injuries to minimize confounding factors (1,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12). In terms of sex distribution, several studies included male-only participants (1,4,5), while others included a mixed-sex sample (3), which may reflect the higher incidence of ACL injury in males or a focus on male athletes.
The most commonly used graft type was the hamstring tendon autograft; however, Gohil et al. (4) utilized a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) graft. This difference in graft type may influence loading patterns and muscle function, as BTB grafts are frequently associated with greater quadriceps weakness and anterior knee pain (4). Running speed varied across studies: some used a standardized speed of 3 m/s (4,5,10,12), while others allowed self-selected speeds, which better reflect real-world athletic conditions but reduce inter-subject comparability (3,7). The time since surgery ranged from 6 to 18 months (1,3,4,5,7,10,11,12). Notably, studies such as Fu et al. (1) and Zhou et al. (7) demonstrate that even at 6 months post-surgery, loading on the injured limb remains significantly lower than on the uninjured limb (Hedges’ g = 0.78), reflecting a persistent neuromuscular protective strategy. Although some improvement is observed over time (12–18 months), biomechanical asymmetries persist in variables such as knee extension moment (4), vertical ground reaction force (GRF) (5), and EMG activity of the hamstring muscles (10). Delayed hamstring activation in the operated limb, as reported by Saki et al. (10), is a particular concern, given the critical role of the hamstrings in resisting anterior tibial shear forces and stabilizing the reconstructed knee. Systematic reviews by Zhou et al. (7) and Bafrouei et al. (6) indicate that biomechanical asymmetries can persist up to 24 months post-surgery, and full symmetry is not achieved in the majority of patients. However, Bafrouei et al. (6) concluded that core stability exercises can positively influence biomechanical patterns, underscoring the importance of comprehensive rehabilitation that extends beyond localized knee strengthening. Furthermore, studies such as Whiteley et al. (12) and Van Cant et al. (11) reveal that even among elite athletes, asymmetries in knee internal rotation during cutting maneuvers and suboptimal movement strategies remain present, which may increase the risk of reinjury. These findings collectively emphasize that return to sport should not be determined solely by time elapsed or the absence of pain, but must be supported by objective, criterion-based biomechanical assessments (11,12). The methodological quality of the included articles was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist, with results presented in Table 1. The mean overall quality score was 65.48%. The lowest quality article scored 58.06%, while the highest scored 70.96%. The percentage quality score was calculated using the following formula:
Article quality (%) = (Total score / 31) × 100
Table 1. Evaluation of the quality of the reviewed articles by Downs and Black questionnaire
Table 1. Evaluation of the quality of the reviewed articles by Downs and Black questionnaire
| Whiteley r et al. (12) | Yau tpl (2) |
Van cingel reh et al. (11) |
Saki m et al. (10) |
Bafrouei mk et al. (6) |
Zhou j et al. (7) |
Marques lr et al. (5) |
Gohil s et al. (4) |
Shahbazi m et al. (3) |
Fu tc et al. (1) |
|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods Section? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Are the interventions of interest clearly described? |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Are the main findings of the study clearly described? |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Have all important adverse events that may be a consequence of the intervention been reported? |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Have the characteristics of patients lost to follow-up been described? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Have actual probability values been reported? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were the staff, places, and facilities where the patients were treated, representative of the treatment the majority of patients receive? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received ? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging”, was this made clear? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | In trials and cohort studies, do the analyses adjust for different lengths of follow-up of patients, or in case-control studies, is the time period between the intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls ? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Was compliance with the intervention/s reliable? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were the main outcome measures used accurate? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were the patients in different intervention groups or were the cases and controls recruited from the same population? |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were study subjects in different intervention groups or were the cases and controls recruited over the same period of time? |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Were study subjects randomised to intervention groups? |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Was the randomised intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Were losses of patients to follow-up taken into account? |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | Did the study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect where the probability value for a difference being due to chance is less than 5%? |
| 22 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 19 | 21 | 21 | 18 | total score |
| 70.96 |
64.51 |
64.51 |
67.74 |
64.51 |
67.74 |
61.29 |
67.74 |
67.74 |
58.06 |
quality of articles (percent) |
4. Discussion
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis clearly demonstrate that individuals who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) continue to exhibit marked biomechanical deficits during running, persisting up to 18 months post-surgery. These impairments include loading asymmetry, reduced knee extension torque, greater knee flexion angle at initial contact, and decreased vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) on the reconstructed limb (1,5). Such alterations reflect a persistent neuromuscular protective strategy that may elevate the risk of reinjury, early-onset osteoarthritis, and incomplete return to sport despite apparent functional recovery (1,5). A major contributing factor to these deficits is quadriceps weakness, primarily resulting from neurogenic atrophy due to impaired proprioceptive and sensorimotor function following ACL injury (13). This weakness directly diminishes knee extension torque during the stance phase (Forest Plot 3), reducing propulsive force and increasing mechanical load on secondary knee structures such as the meniscus and articular cartilage, thereby accelerating joint degeneration (14).
Another important mechanism involves altered loading strategies. Individuals with ACLR consistently offload the reconstructed limb, displaying approximately 15–20% lower loading compared to the contralateral side (Forest Plots 1 and 4). Although this asymmetry may represent a compensatory strategy to protect the graft, it can lead to long-term maladaptation and increased injury risk in both limbs (15). Similarly, increased knee flexion angle at initial contact (Forest Plot 2) serves as a compensatory adjustment to minimize shear and bending moments but may concurrently increase patellofemoral stress, predisposing individuals to anterior knee pain and early degenerative changes (16). In addition, aberrant muscle activation patterns—such as delayed hamstring activation relative to the quadriceps—can disrupt normal agonist–antagonist coordination and compromise dynamic knee stability, heightening the risk of graft re-rupture or secondary injuries (17). These findings align with Zhou et al. (2024), who reported persistent kinetic and kinematic asymmetries up to two years post-ACLR (18), and Gohil et al. (2025), who confirmed significant knee extension torque deficits in patients with bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts (4). Such evidence underscores the necessity for comprehensive biomechanical assessment before clearance for return to sport, as many athletes continue to display suboptimal movement patterns despite meeting clinical criteria (19). Nonetheless, some studies, such as Marques et al. (2021), reported near-normal biomechanics by 12 months post-surgery, likely reflecting higher neuromuscular adaptability in elite athletes or the effects of intensive, individualized rehabilitation (20).
Moreover, Bafrouei et al. (2025) demonstrated that core stability and integrated neuromuscular training can accelerate biomechanical recovery, suggesting that these deficits are modifiable through targeted interventions (6). Therefore, post-ACLR rehabilitation should extend beyond isolated knee strengthening to incorporate dynamic balance, neuromuscular control, plyometric training, and sport-specific movement retraining. Pre–return-to-sport biomechanical evaluations using motion analysis, force platforms, and electromyography are essential to ensure optimal recovery and to prevent long-term complications.
Despite extended recovery periods, individuals with a history of ACL reconstruction continue to exhibit persistent biomechanical deficits during running. These findings emphasize the importance of implementing precise, targeted, and biomechanics-based rehabilitation programs prior to return to sport to ensure safe and complete functional recovery.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
There were no ethical considerations to be considered in this research.
Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.
Authors' contributions
All authors equally contributed to preparing article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this article.
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis clearly demonstrate that individuals who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) continue to exhibit marked biomechanical deficits during running, persisting up to 18 months post-surgery. These impairments include loading asymmetry, reduced knee extension torque, greater knee flexion angle at initial contact, and decreased vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) on the reconstructed limb (1,5). Such alterations reflect a persistent neuromuscular protective strategy that may elevate the risk of reinjury, early-onset osteoarthritis, and incomplete return to sport despite apparent functional recovery (1,5). A major contributing factor to these deficits is quadriceps weakness, primarily resulting from neurogenic atrophy due to impaired proprioceptive and sensorimotor function following ACL injury (13). This weakness directly diminishes knee extension torque during the stance phase (Forest Plot 3), reducing propulsive force and increasing mechanical load on secondary knee structures such as the meniscus and articular cartilage, thereby accelerating joint degeneration (14).
Another important mechanism involves altered loading strategies. Individuals with ACLR consistently offload the reconstructed limb, displaying approximately 15–20% lower loading compared to the contralateral side (Forest Plots 1 and 4). Although this asymmetry may represent a compensatory strategy to protect the graft, it can lead to long-term maladaptation and increased injury risk in both limbs (15). Similarly, increased knee flexion angle at initial contact (Forest Plot 2) serves as a compensatory adjustment to minimize shear and bending moments but may concurrently increase patellofemoral stress, predisposing individuals to anterior knee pain and early degenerative changes (16). In addition, aberrant muscle activation patterns—such as delayed hamstring activation relative to the quadriceps—can disrupt normal agonist–antagonist coordination and compromise dynamic knee stability, heightening the risk of graft re-rupture or secondary injuries (17). These findings align with Zhou et al. (2024), who reported persistent kinetic and kinematic asymmetries up to two years post-ACLR (18), and Gohil et al. (2025), who confirmed significant knee extension torque deficits in patients with bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts (4). Such evidence underscores the necessity for comprehensive biomechanical assessment before clearance for return to sport, as many athletes continue to display suboptimal movement patterns despite meeting clinical criteria (19). Nonetheless, some studies, such as Marques et al. (2021), reported near-normal biomechanics by 12 months post-surgery, likely reflecting higher neuromuscular adaptability in elite athletes or the effects of intensive, individualized rehabilitation (20).
Moreover, Bafrouei et al. (2025) demonstrated that core stability and integrated neuromuscular training can accelerate biomechanical recovery, suggesting that these deficits are modifiable through targeted interventions (6). Therefore, post-ACLR rehabilitation should extend beyond isolated knee strengthening to incorporate dynamic balance, neuromuscular control, plyometric training, and sport-specific movement retraining. Pre–return-to-sport biomechanical evaluations using motion analysis, force platforms, and electromyography are essential to ensure optimal recovery and to prevent long-term complications.
Despite extended recovery periods, individuals with a history of ACL reconstruction continue to exhibit persistent biomechanical deficits during running. These findings emphasize the importance of implementing precise, targeted, and biomechanics-based rehabilitation programs prior to return to sport to ensure safe and complete functional recovery.
Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
There were no ethical considerations to be considered in this research.
Funding
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors.
Authors' contributions
All authors equally contributed to preparing article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this article.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/08/20 | Accepted: 2025/10/25 | Published: 2025/10/25
Received: 2025/08/20 | Accepted: 2025/10/25 | Published: 2025/10/25
References
1. Fu S, Shi H, Yu Y, Huang H, Liu H, Ao Y. Effects of Knee Extension Constraint Training on Knee and Loading Asymmetry during Walking and Running after Unilateral ACL Reconstruction: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial. Gait & Posture. 2025;111:150-157. [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.07.311] [PMID]
2. Yau W. Relationship between body dimensions and the diameter of a 4‐strand ACLR graft. Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics. 2025;12(3):e70329. [DOI:10.1002/jeo2.70329] [PMID]
3. Shahbazi M, Esmaeili H, Salari-Esker F, Bashiri B, Khezri D. Hip and knee joints mechanics and asymmetries in individuals with a history of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during overground running. The Knee. 2025;52:1-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.knee.2024.10.010] [PMID]
4. Gohil AM, Hawk GS, Johnson DL, Fry CS, Noehren B. Exploring the Influence of Quadriceps Peak Torque and Rate of Torque Development on Running Mechanics After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Sports Health. 2025;17(1):88-95. [DOI:10.1177/19417381251338283] [PMID]
5. Marques JB, Sideris V, Whiteley R, Read PJ, Gomes MM, Santiago PRP. Wearable technology identifies differences in change of direction kinetics and kinematics in soccer players with a history of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2025;33(1):255-264. [DOI:10.1002/ksa.12679] [PMID]
6. Bafrouei MJ, Mousavi SH, Khorramroo F, Zwerver J. Core exercises for performance, pain, and Lower-limb biomechanics in individuals with ACL-Reconstruction: A systematic review with Meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Scientific Reports. 2025;15(1):27299. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-025-13568-1] [PMID]
7. Zhou H, Qian J, Xing Y-M, Cui L, Bu Y-F. How effective is the addition of specific exercise therapy for patients after anterior cruciate ligament surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology. 2025;16:1501458. [DOI:10.3389/fphys.2025.1501458] [PMID]
8. Alikhani M, Tabatabai H. The Effect of Six Weeks of Patella Taping on Pain in Women with Knee Osteoarthritis. Journal of Sport Biomechanics. 2024;10(2):174-186. [DOI:10.61186/JSportBiomech.10.2.174]
9. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 1998;52(6):377-384. [DOI:10.1136/jech.52.6.377] [PMID]
10. Saki F, Shafiee H, Tahayori B, Ramezani F. The effects of core stabilization exercises on the neuromuscular function of athletes with ACL reconstruction. Scientific Reports. 2023;13(1):2202. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-29126-6] [PMID]
11. Van Cant J, de Fontenay BP, Douaihy C, Rambaud A. Characteristics of return to running programs following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A scoping review of 64 studies with clinical perspectives. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2022;57:61-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.ptsp.2022.07.006] [PMID]
12. White AE, Van Nest D, Tjoumakaris FP, Freedman KB. Journey around the notch: a systematic review on the history of ACL reconstruction in the United States. The Journal of Knee Surgery. 2022;35(01):061-071. [DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1712947] [PMID]
13. Knurr KA, Cobian DG, Kliethermes SA, Stiffler-Joachim MR, Heiderscheit BC. The influence of quadriceps strength and rate of torque development on the recovery of knee biomechanics during running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;51(12):3171-3178. [DOI:10.1177/03635465231194617] [PMID]
14. Armitano-Lago C, Evans-Pickett A, Davis-Wilson H, Munsch A, Longobardi L, Willcockson H, et al. Modifying loading during gait leads to biochemical changes in serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein concentrations in a subgroup of individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clinical Rheumatology. 2024;43(4):1363-1373. [DOI:10.1007/s10067-024-06898-4] [PMID]
15. Homan MD, Braaten JA, Banovetz MT, Monson JK, Kennedy NI, LaPrade RF. Principles for optimizing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes in elite athletes: a review of current techniques. Annals of Joint. 2024;9:19. [DOI:10.21037/aoj-22-40] [PMID]
16. Hong IS, Pierpoint LA, Hellwinkel JE, Berk AN, Salandra JM, Meade JD, et al. Clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction in soccer (football, futbol) players: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2023;15(6):788-804. [DOI:10.1177/19417381231160167] [PMID]
17. Kaiyala M, Hannigan J, Traut A, Pollard C. Bilateral movement asymmetries exist in recreational athletes during a 45° sidestep cut post-anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2024;12:e16948. [DOI:10.7717/peerj.16948] [PMID]
18. Zhou W, Liu X, Hong Q, Wang J, Luo X. Association between passing return-to-sport testing and re-injury risk in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2024;12:e17279. [DOI:10.7717/peerj.17279] [PMID]
19. Jeong J, Choi D-H, Shin CS. Core strength training can alter neuromuscular and biomechanical risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021;49(1):183-192. [DOI:10.1177/0363546520972990] [PMID]
20. Marques VB, Oliveira DF, de Borba Capaverde V, Michel RC, Ribeiro-Alvares JBA, Baroni BM. Performance of male and female soccer players in field-based tests for screening the anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Sport Sciences for Health. 2023;19(1):131-137. [DOI:10.1007/s11332-022-01011-1]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Journal of Sport Biomechanics
Department of Sport Biomechanics, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan Branch, Prof. Mousivand Blvd, Imam Khomeini Blvd, Hamedan, Iran.
Journal Tel: +98 81 34494042
Website: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir
Email: sportbiomechanics@iauh.ac.ir
