title: Knee bracing after ACL reconstruction: effects on postural control and proprioception.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. tbirming@uwo.ca
authors.forename: T B
authors.initials: TB
authors.lastname: Birmingham
authors.forename: J F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Kramer
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Kirkley
authors.forename: J T
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Inglis
authors.forename: S J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Spaulding
authors.forename: A A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Vandervoort
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D016118:Anterior Cruciate Ligament / Q000601:surgery*; D000070598:Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D001915:Braces; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007593:Joint Instability; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D019637:Orthopedic Procedures; D011187:Posture; D011434:Proprioception; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis