DARI Evaluation Syndesmosis

Abstract

Introduction/Purpose: Return to play (RTP) assessment and decision-making protocols are among the most discussed topics in sports medicine. Given the lack of validated guidelines, physicians and rehabilitation practitioners often rely on subjective functional evaluation to guide decisions to RTP. Biomechanical assessment using motion capture may be a useful strategy to evaluate an athlete’s post-injury functional status, and to estimate their ability to RTP with reduced risk of re-injury. The purpose of this case-study was to determine the efficacy of using marker-less 3D motion capture to provide an objective functional evaluation to tailor rehabilitation and aid RTP status for a patient who underwent syndesmotic fixation. Methods: In this case-study, a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I collegiate football offensive lineman (Height: 1.96 m, Weight: 141 kg) performed a movement screen 5 weeks after left ankle syndesmotic fixation for purely ligamentous syndesmotic injury. Testing was performed at the anticipated time of RTP. After a standardized warm-up, the patient performed a series of 14 movements consisting of upper and lower extremity actions in all three planes of motion, including bilateral and unilateral lower extremity actions. Kinematic data was captured using an 8-camera marker-less motion capture system (MLMCS). Left and right joint-specific ranges of motion were compared for symmetry and to normative data produced by the MLMCS manufacturer. Results: The participant successfully performed all 14 movements without limitation. Ankle flexion was symmetrical during bilateral and unilateral squatting actions. However, left ankle (i.e., involved side) flexion was consistently less than right ankle flexion during more dynamic actions (Table 1). Despite the asymmetries, ankle range of motion was within normal ranges for both sides in all movements. From a performance standpoint, left-side jump heights were consistently less than the right-side efforts during the unilateral countermovement jump (left: 34.5 cm versus right: 41.1 cm; -16.0%) and consecutive hops (left: 29.5 cm versus right: 33.0 cm; -10.8%). Results were shared with the athletic trainer to focus rehabilitation efforts. The patient was able to fully RTP at 6 weeks. Conclusion: In this case-study, the patient successfully performed a movement screen without limitation at the time of RTP after left ankle syndesmotic fixation. A MLMCS detected kinematic differences that would be difficult to qualitatively recognize. Specifically, the patient expressed reduced ankle flexion and jumping performance on the operative side. No baseline screening was performed, but the observed asymmetries were consistent with what would be expected from the specific injury. Further research is needed to compare baseline measures to kinematic changes. These findings suggest that a basic movement screen using MLMCS can detect kinematic asymmetries after syndesmotic fixation. Table 1. Kinematic Assessment of Ankle Range of Motion