ORCID Profile
0000-0001-9514-2746
Current Organisations
Macquarie University
,
University of Sydney
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 02-2020
Abstract: None of the anterolateral procedures used in combination with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) to control rotational laxity have demonstrated superiority. The objective was to compare the capacity of the main anterolateral procedures associated with ACLR to restore intact knee kinematics in case of combined ACL and anterolateral structure injury. The complete kinematics of 10 cadaveric knees, previously modelled by TDM, were recorded using a 3D Motion Analysis® system. Intact knee kinematics, including internal rotation (IR) of the tibial and anterior-posterior (AP) laxity at 30 and 90° flexion were initially assessed, followed by a sequential section of the ACL and anterolateral complex (ALC) (anterolateral ligament (ALL), ALL capsule and Kaplan fibers). After the ACLR, 5 anterolateral procedures were performed consecutively on the same knee: ALLR Ellison Deep Lemaire Superficial Lemaire and MacIntosh. The last three procedures were randomized. For each procedure, the graft was fixed in neutral rotation at 30° flexion with a tension of 20 N. ACLR alone did not restore overall knee kinematics when there was an ACL+ALC injury, and resulted in residual rotational laxity of the tibia (p 0.001). Only the ALLR (p=0.262) and modified Ellison (p=0.081) procedures restored normal global IR kinematics. Superficial/deep Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures resulted in over-constrained kinematic profiles (respectively: p=0.013, p=0.018 and p=0.030). In terms of ACLR, the addition of an anterolateral procedure did not provide additional control over AP translation at 30 and 90° (p 0.05), exception for the surficial Lemaire procedure at 90° (p = 0.032). ACLR alone was not sufficient to restore normal kinematics in ACL and ALC-deficient knees. ALLR and Ellison procedures restored physiological kinematics, unlike the MacIntosh procedure which caused additional control of IR and thereby induced over-constraint. The addition of ALLR or the modified Ellison procedure, which restore intrinsic kinematics, might be useful during primary ACL reconstruction to avoid repeated injury without a risk of over-constraint. The superficial/deep Lemaire and MacIntosh procedures resulted in over-constrained kinetics but provided additional rotation control that could be useful in revision surgery.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 28-08-2018
DOI: 10.1007/S00167-018-5102-4
Abstract: The hypotheses were that medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLr) would improve the long-term symptoms of patellofemoral Instability (PFI) and control patellar tilt, based on computed tomography (CT), and that the addition of a TT transfer, when it is necessary, would not deteriorate the outcome. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a large series of MPFLr, either isolated or associated with a TT transfer. From 133 MPFLr with a minimum of 4 years postoperatively, three groups were defined: isolated MPFLr, MPFLr with tibial tubercle (TT) medialisation or MPFLr with TT medialisation and distalisation. IKDC and Kujala scores were evaluated. Patellar tilt was evaluated on the patient's preoperative and the last available radiograph, and on CT scan measurements performed preoperatively and at 6-month postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 6.3 ± 1.7 years [4.1-10.3] and four patients reported recurrent patellar dislocation. Between pre and postoperative at last follow-up a significant improvement in IKDC and Kujala functional scores was observed (P < 0.01), with no difference between the three groups. Regarding patellar tilt, there were significant decreases in Laurin and Merchant angles and an improvement of the Maldague stage (P < 0.01). The CT analysis of patellar tilt also demonstrates a significant improvement of the patella tilt (P < 0.01). The control of the patella tilt was correlated with a good functional result (P < 0.01). The MPFLr, whether isolated or associated with a TT transfer, provides good long-term clinical and radiological outcomes with a low rate of recurrence. The addition of a TT transfer, when necessary, results in the same good outcomes. This article provides a guide for surgeons evaluating PFI to choose the most appropriate procedure. IV.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 29-04-2016
DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2016.1161819
Abstract: Spin bowling is generally coached using a standard technical framework, but this practice has not been based upon a comparative biomechanical analysis of leg-spin and off-spin bowling. This study analysed the three-dimensional (3D) kinematics of 23 off-spin and 20 leg-spin bowlers using a Cortex motion analysis system to identify how aspects of the respective techniques differed. A multivariate ANOVA found that certain data tended to validate some of the stated differences in the coaching literature. Off-spin bowlers had a significantly shorter stride length (p = 0.006) and spin rate (p = 0.001), but a greater release height than leg-spinners (p = 0.007). In addition, a number of other kinematic differences were identified that were not previously documented in coaching literature. These included a larger rear knee flexion (p = 0.007), faster approach speed (p < 0.001), and flexing elbow action during the arm acceleration compared with an extension action used by most of the off-spin bowlers. Off-spin and leg-spin bowlers also deviated from the standard coaching model for the shoulder alignment, front knee angle at release, and forearm mechanics. This study suggests that off-spin and leg-spin are distinct bowling techniques, supporting the development of two different coaching models in spin bowling.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 05-0011
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.KNEE.2019.07.008
Abstract: Determine whether the tibiofemoral motion and electromyographic activity of the knee differs in patients with a medial pivot implant, compared to those with cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised designs, during knee extension after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). An observational study was conducted on a cohort of patients that had undergone TKA for a minimum of 12 months prior. Three matched groups (n = 18) were categorised based on implant type: medial-pivot (MP), posterior-stabilised (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR). Kinematics, with motion analysis (Vicon, USA) and surface electromyography (Delsys, USA) were assessed during step-ascent and walking tasks. All groups displayed a similar amount of knee extension in both tasks. They also paradoxically produced an average mean internal rotation movement during knee extension in both the step-ascent and walking tasks. The only significant difference was found in the step-ascent task, in which the MP group produced a larger absolute amount of rotation than the CR implant group (P = 0.007), but neither group differed from the PS implant group. The groups did not differ in rotation during the walking task (P > 0.05). The MP group displayed significantly (P < 0.01) greater knee extensor activation during the step-ascent than the PS group. The MP design was only significantly different to another implant design for the step-ascent task. Patients with either knee implant types were not strictly limited to producing the traditional "screw-home" mechanism, defined by external rotation during extension. Furthermore, comparison with the non-implant contralateral limb suggested that rotation is not necessarily dictated by implant design.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 26-06-2023
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 18-02-2016
DOI: 10.1113/JP271889
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 27-07-2017
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1358460
Abstract: The techniques of spin bowling in cricket have been largely formulated from the collective intuitions of past players. A standard model of bowling technique has been generally prescribed for both off-spin and leg-spin bowlers, but there has been no biomechanics research to validate this approach. This study measured 20 Type-2 off-spin and 15 Type-2 leg-spin bowlers using a 3D Cortex motion analysis system. Correlation coefficients between segmental kinematic variables and spin rate in the off-spin and leg-spin bowlers revealed that off-spin bowling was associated with an earlier movement time of the thorax, whereas leg-spin bowling was associated with a greater magnitude and earlier movement time of pelvis rotation, as well as a greater magnitude of pelvis-shoulder separation movement. The maximum velocity of rear hip flexion differentiated between both groups of bowlers. The GLM suggested that for off-spinners, rear hip flexion velocity significantly explained the variance in spin rate (subject to sequential timing constraints), while for leg-spinners, the time of maximum rear hip flexion and maximum arm circumduction velocity significantly explained variance in spin rate. This study supports the notion that off-spinners and leg-spinners have significant differences in their joint kinematics, and should not be coached under a one-size-fits-all technical model.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2021
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-04-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.CSM.2018.11.010
Abstract: Multiligament knee injuries remain a challenge for the treating surgeon and little is known about the injury patterns and factors determining clinical and gait outcomes after multiligament knee reconstruction (MLKR). This article aims to identify specificities of this complex injury, in terms of demographics, mechanisms of injury, injury pattern, and associated lesions. The time frame between injury and surgery and distribution of repair versus reconstruction procedures have been analyzed. This study reports functional and clinical outcomes, providing an overview of expected results. Using motion capture gait analysis, knee kinematics and gait characteristics of MLKR patients have been assessed.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2017
No related grants have been discovered for Aaron Beach.