Force and Power Testing During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Rehabilitation
Navigation:
- Force and Power Testing During ACL Reconstruction Rehabilitation
- A, U or zigzag?
- ACL reconstruction rehabilitation: decades of change
- ACL Rehabilitation in 2025
- Influence of female sex and graft choice on the incidence of cyclops lesions after ACL reconstruction
- Return to sports after an ACL reconstruction in 2024
- Return to running too quickly after ACL surgery
- Reference values for quadriceps and hamstrings strength & double- and single-leg jump tests
- Return to sports after ACL reconstruction: Part 4
- Return to sports after ACL reconstruction: Part 3
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 8
- Return to sports after ACL reconstruction: Part 2
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 7
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 6
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 5
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 4
- ACL & Genetics
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 3
- Return to sports after ACL reconstruction: Part 1
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 2
- Knee pain after ACL reconstruction: Part 1
- Blood Flow Restriction Training in ACL Rehab
- Isokinetic testing after ACL rehabilitation in football players
- 10 Mistakes why ACL rehab regularly fails
- Blogs
During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction rehabilitation, the importance of restoring strength and power in a stage-based framework highlights the paramount role of testing and monitoring. Despite theoretical understanding of an optimal recovery pathway, it is unclear and inconsistent as to how practitioners implement force and power assessment following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
Results:
A total of 1154 practitioners from 78 different countries completed the survey. According to the pre-defined eight categories, 157 different combinations were recorded among practitioners. Respondents tended to use multiple devices (95.8%), with a mean of 3.6 ± 1.4. Patient assessments were most often repeated longitudinally throughout the recovery process post-ACLR (96.4%). Specific devices were used as part of “criteria-based” testing by 46.4% of respondents, “criteria- and time-based” testing by 30.8% and solely “time-based” testing by 21.9%. Read more about the results
Conclusion:
A high degree of variability in test device implementation existed among practitioners. According to the eight pre-defined device categories, over 150 different device combinations were recorded among respondents. Device use was different throughout the stages of rehabilitation and testing was primarily performed as criteria to advance patients throughout the recovery process. Read more about the conclusions
“ ”
A TOTAL OF 1154 PRACTITIONERS FROM 78 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES COMPLETED THE SURVEY

