【教練，我想打籃球─十字韌帶重建後何時可以回去運動？】
有在運動或看運動賽事的人，應該對於十字韌帶斷裂這樣的運動傷害不陌生。雖然現今的醫療可以將斷掉的十字韌帶做重建，但並不是每一位運動員都能在手術後順利重返運動賽事，或是恢復到和過去一樣的運動表現。根據統計，如果不計運動賽事等級的話，在十字韌帶重建後能回到運動場上的比例大約落在56%-100% (不同研究有不同結果)。但如果要恢復到受傷前的運動表現的話，則只有13%-69%的人有機會能做到。即使回去運動後，也有20%-25%的機會再一次受傷。在面對韌帶重建的個案時，我們是否有甚麼方法可以評估個案是否具備回到運動場上的能力，或是個案達到甚麼標準之後，未來受傷機率可以比較低呢？這次的影片將跟大家分享四個用來評估十字韌帶重建後，何時可以重返運動場上的測試動作。

People who like to play sports or watch sport events might be familiar with ACL rupture. Although we can reconstruct the ruptured ACL with modern medical technology, not every athlete can return to sports after the reconstruction, not to say regain his previous performance level. It has been indicated that the rate of return to sport at any level ranged from 56%-100% (Different research has different result.). However, only 13%-69% athletes can regain their pre-injury level of performance. After back to sport, up to 20%-25% athletes will experience contralateral tear or re-rupture. When faced with those ACL reconstruction clients, do we have any method to evaluate whether client is ready to return to sport? Is there any standard client can achieve, which indicate the risk of injury could be relatively low? Today’s video will show you 4 single-leg hop tests commonly used to assess functional performance and predict when to return to sport for ACL reconstruction clients.

參考資料：
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31272644/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31745732/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27215935/

#教練我想打球 #十字韌帶斷裂 #重建 #運動員 #受傷機率 #物理治療 #跳躍測試 #ACLrupture #reconstruction #athlete #physiotherapy #hoptest #backtosport #riskofinjury

❗️重要：電檢處告示並不代表導演團隊立場
《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》遭電檢處多番為難❗️
(Please scroll down for English)

香港電影、報刊及物品管理處要求《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》片首加上聲明，我們要澄清這聲明並非創作人的意願。

《佔領立法會》及《理大圍城》一直為外界爭議度非常高的電影，導演團隊一直為真實紀錄各社會運動而不惜冒著各種風險，電影帶來的回響及反應大家有目共睹。

但！

香港電影、報刊及物品管理處（簡稱電檢處）卻利用各種手段，逼使導演們需要作出非本人意願的聲明！如果不跟從指引，電檢處便可以利用行政手段令放映無法進行！

電檢處要求作出之聲明如下：
《佔領立法會》:
「影片紀錄2019年7月1日立法會綜合大樓受到示威衝擊的嚴重事件，當中有部分描述或行為，根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。」

《理大圍城》:
「影片紀錄2019年11月在香港理工大學及周邊地點發生的嚴重事件，當中有部分描述或行為，根據現行法例可能會構成刑事罪行。此外，影片部分內容或評論亦可能未獲證實或有誤導成份。」

影意志表示強烈不滿電檢處以下行為：
1.以保障各方為由，實屬保障自己之實來強逼修改影片
2.要求影片開首作出聲明，但不願表明此為電檢處要求
3.以不知明原因推翻由電檢處發出的證明書
4.未能按時發出證明書，並將責任推卸於申請者

以下為影意志與電檢處之洽商經過：

7月中時，影意志為舊版本影片申請電檢證明書。

8月7日（國安法生效約一個月後）
影意志首次收到電檢處通知，表示需要在電影片頭加入由電檢處發出之警告字眼。影意志清楚表示此字句並不是出自導演團隊意願，並不會修改影片。電檢處表示，若不跟從指引，有機會令行政程序時間增加。

9月3日（國安法生效約兩個月後）
影意志重新遞交申請，並於新版本影片中加入電檢處要求之字句，及標明此字句為電檢處要求。

9月8日
影意志收到電檢處通知，表示影片開首有不屬於此影片之告示字眼，要求刪改。影意志表示此要求不合理，電檢處不能在未執行檢視工作前便要求申請者進行更改；但對方亦一貫作風，以會引致檢視工作延誤等為由而要求進行修改。

9月9日
影意志立即按電檢處要求遞交新版本。

9月15日
影意志致電查詢電檢進度，對方則回應未能於本星期批核證明書。影意志表明早於9月3日已遞交申請，理應9月17日收到證明書；電檢處解釋因為9月11日才正式收到更新版本影片，當作9月14日才正式開始工作，故最快只能於9月21日發出證明書。(影意志：申請表已列明9月3日為申請日期，但因為電檢處內部審查緩慢而將責任推卸。）

9月18日 下午6時40分 （辦公完結時間為下午6時）
電檢處通知影意志需在片頭加上其提供的告示字句，並於9月21日當日交回新版本，否則未能於放映當日發出證明書；影意志重新要求要標示電檢處是發出告示者，並且需於放映當日收到證明書。電檢處回覆，告示並不能標明是電檢處發出，並且只能按照他們要求作出更改。

同時，影意志被告知原有舊版本的電檢證明書不能使用，因為新舊版本不可同時擁有兩張證明書（影意志不明所以，但對方亦無法列出清晰原因）

9月21日
直到放映前兩小時，影意志才收到電檢處發出的證明書，而《理大圍城》被評為III級，需作出退票手續。為觀眾帶來不便，影意志深感抱歉。

影意志及香港紀錄片工作者不希望為業界帶來錯誤先例，但亦不想真相任由香港政府扼殺、及默許歷史被政權改寫！為了能順利放映，影意志暫時接受此條件，但一定會繼續上訴！請大家廣傳此消息！多謝大家一直支持香港電影；煩請以後看電影出現奇怪告示，請大家不要誤會導演們！

*註1：在香港舉行之所有公開放映，需獲得由香港電影、報刊及物品管理處發出的核准證明書，方可進行放映活動；否則，實屬違法。

__________

❗️Disclaimer: The opinion expressed in the statement issued by The Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (OFNAA) does not reflect the views of the director and the production team.

The Tug of War with the OFNAA over “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".

Although “Taking back the Legislature" and "Inside the Red Brick Wall" have not shied away from controversy, yet the production crew have always strived to objectively capture every social movement against all odds, and the films have received a wide swath of responses since their release.

Nevertheless, the OFNAA has gone out of their way to coerce the directors into making statements against their wills. When failed to oblige, they could face having their works barred from screening by the OFNAA with whatever administrative reasons they might come up with.

Therefore, Ying E Chi hereby express our strong discontent to the following actions of the OFNAA:
1. Force the films to be edited under the pretext of protecting everyone, but in fact, only to protect their own interest
2. Request an announcement to be made at the beginning of the film, yet refused to be declared as the one who demanded the announcement
3. Overturn the previous certificate issued by the OFNAA with unspecified reason
4. Fail to issue the certificate on time as promised, whilst shifting the responsibility to the applicant

The statement required by the OFNAA is as follows:
“Taking back the Legislature”:
“This film records the serious incident of the storming of the Legislative Council Complex on 1 July 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws.”

“Inside the Red Brick Wall:
“This film records the serious incidents at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and nearby areas in November 2019. Some of those depictions or acts may constitute criminal offences under prevailing laws. Some of the contents of or commentaries in the film may be unverified or misleading.”

Here is how the negotiation between Ying E Chi and the OFNAA unfolds:

Mid-July
Ying E Chi filed an application for a Certificate of Approval for the old version of “Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall".

7/8/2020 (A month after the National Security Law was enacted)
The first time Ying E Chi were notified by the OFNAA that a warning issued by them must be added at the beginning of the film. Ying E Chi then categorically declared that since the content of the warning does not reflect the will of the director, the films will not be edited as a result. The OFNAA responded by saying the administrative procedure might be delayed if their instructions have not been followed.

3/9/2020 (About 2 months after the National Security Law was enacted)
Ying E Chi handed in the application again with a new version of the films including the warning statement as requested, indicating that the warning is issued by the OFNAA.

8/9/2020
Ying E Chi were informed by the OFNAA to remove the statement at the beginning of the film as it does not belong to the film. Ying E Chi responded by calling out the absurdity of such request, as the OFNAA ought not to ask the films to be edited before they even review the whole film. Yet again the OFNAA demanded the changes to be made since it might cause a delay in the reviewing process.

9/9/2020
As a result, Ying E Chi submitted a new version at the first instance at the request of the OFNAA.

15/9/2020
Ying E Chi phoned in to enquire about the application procedure, since the application was made on the 3 Sep, so the Certificate of Approval should be issued on 17 Sep. However, the OFNAA replied that the Certificate of Approval would in fact not be granted this week for they claimed to have received the updated version on 11 Sep, so they could only have begun the reviewing process officially on the 14th, and thus the earliest time the certificate could be issued would be 21 Sep. (Note: Despite the official application date listed on the application form was 3 Sep, the OFNAA still tried to avoid the responsibility caused by their sluggish bureaucratic process.

18/9/2020 6.40pm (Office Hour ends at 6pm)
The OFNAA informed Ying E Chi that a statement PROVIDED by them must be included at the start of the film, and the new version must be handed in on 21 Sep, otherwise the Certificate of Approval would not be issued on the day of the screening. Ying E Chi again requested to indicate the OFNAA as the one who issued the statement, and that the certificate should be granted on screening day. The OFNAA, however, rejected to be identified as the one who issued such a statement, and insisted that all amendments can only be made subject to their approvals and requirements. At the time, Ying E Chi were informed that the Certificate of Approval obtained for the old version of “ Taking back the Legislature" + "Inside the Red Brick Wall" could no longer be used, as there cannot be two certificates for both old version and the updated version. (Ying E Chi, are deeply confounded by this sudden decision, but the OFNAA has failed to offer any clarifications.)

21/9/2020
Not only have Ying E Chi just received the certificate on the day of the screening from OFNAA, but at the same time we have been notified that "Inside the Red Brick Wall” has been classified as a Category III Film, and therefore need to make the refund arrangements.

We are profoundly sorry about the inconvenience caused.

It is not the wish of Ying E Chi and Hong Kong Documentary Filmmakers to set the wrong example for the industry, yet we would hate to have the truth to be buried by the Hong Kong Government or to let those in power rewrite the history. Ying E Chi have compromised for this instance in order to facilitate this screening, we, nevertheless, will keep on protesting, so please spread the words and make our story known. Thank you for continuing to support Hong Kong films, and from now on please do not be misled by any bizarre statements in movies and misunderstand the directors.

*Note: Under the Film Censorship Ordinance (Cap 392), a film intended for exhibition in Hong Kong at any public place has to be submitted to the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration for prior approval. Failing to comply with such requirement may constitute a criminal offence.

［屁股指揮腦袋］Facebook同Twitter最初設計就不同，導致後來兩間公司命運亦好唔同，所以對政治嘅取向亦都唔同。

Economist 原文：Twitter and Facebook have differing business models—
And that makes for differing attitudes to politics（https://econ.st/31m8eKh）

TL：DR—Facebook比Twitter大好多，Network Effect亦勁好多，客戶咩人都有，一唔小心分分鐘畀政府告到甩褲話干預大選，所以只能夠企埋一邊，唔出嚟做「真理仲裁者」。但將來可能會變。因為，其實矽谷工程師，普遍都係偏左反侵的。

1. 上篇文講過，會講下Facebook同Twitter兩個唔同嘅社交平台，business model有乜唔同，導致佢地處理政治嘢（主要係近排侵侵，以及啲極右嘅反Black Lives Matter言論）方法都唔同。

2. 事實係，兩間公司，一開頭嘅設計就唔同（否則就會一間殺死另一間，或者食埋），小小嘅差別，就令到佢地之後嘅命運都唔同，搵錢嘅模式都唔同，結果亦因為咁，對政治嘢嘅處理手法都唔同—see？都係人在江湖，柏木由紀的。最初小小唔同，日後就爭千里了。

3. Facebook應該不用多講，你而家咪在Facebook睇緊呢篇文。但Twitter，唔少讀者可能比較陌生。但難得埃汾其實都算係資深兼一度活躍用家（而家冇咁活，所以唔使科）。其實香港，係少數Twitter 極不流行嘅市場。美國固然Twitter都好流行，但其實亞洲，日本都相當流行（同香港相比），甚至台灣都係。我記得舊公司有次食飯，我在Twitter出post ，個台灣同事留意到—但其他香港同事係唔知係乜東東。

4. 至於點解Twitter在香港唔流行，我問過多次，聽過好多人解，但暫時都係冇答案令我信服。早年有人答我啲友睇明星寧願睇微博，但而明顯唔係，變咗IG，但依然都係冇乜人會用Twitter。就多得侵侵先開始多人聽過Twitter，然後亦因為社運多咗一班新人用，「打國際線」云云。

5. Anyway，其實係我鼓勵大家開個Twitter戶口嘅，「但就真係唔使科勞香港人」。原因好簡單：Twitter有一個特性，係同Facebook唔同，而下面正題唔會講嘅：就係Twitter基本上順時序，唔玩演算法，你科勞ABCDE五條友，佢就畀晒ABCDE呢五條友出過嘅嘢畀你。但Facebook大家都唔知，你成日like某條友佢就塞多啲畀你，你成日鬧佢都會—久而久之，就會變成圍爐，迴音室，以為你個Facebook就係全世界。相對地，Twitter係冇咁嚴重—當然睇你最初科勞啲乜人（所以，我專科勞啲我唔妥嘅人）

6. 講返正題，唔了解Twitter點玩嘅，自己reg一個。咁你知道同Facebook有乜分別後，我地睇下數字先。其實唔睇都知，Facebook勁好多。計任何嘢都係。影響力，收廣告嘅錢，用戶人數，盈利，市值，乜都係。睇表見到。有趣嘅係，Facebook用戶「只係」Twitter 9倍左右，但收入係20倍，盈利係12倍（其實好多人以為Twitter係賺唔到錢的），市值係25倍

7. 都話，一開頭兩間公司設計上，少少唔同，出嚟就大大唔同了。咁正路地，你計$計影響力計名氣（邊位講得出Twitter CEO咩名？甚至任何一個員工？你識Miranda Kerr老公都未識佢啦），小朱絶對係成功嘅一代鬼才。當然，好可能最初佢都冇諗到呢壇嘢咁勁

8. Economist 呢篇文有講，侵侵其實擺明係Twitter代言人（真的），但佢寫嘅嘢，畀Twitter標示，話假內容，同埋美化暴力。激到侵侵扎扎跳，仲話要整頓社交網。而Facebook呢？冇喎，有得佢。話自己唔想做arbiter of truth。

9. 點解唔同取態？唔係因為創辦人紅絲定藍絲，而係公司本身就唔同。成套business model都唔同，由設計第一日已經唔同，其實想轉都轉唔到。

10. 表面上，兩檔嘢好似差不多。都係你開戶口，加入，然後入去睇人貼嘢食，無病呻吟，講政治，貼旅行相，派福利圖，睇片。其實真係好似一樣。兩間公司都係靠廣告搵錢，亦都係得益於Network Effect，越多人玩越有價值，所以兩間都唔收用戶錢，係收落廣告嘅客嘅錢。亦因為咁，佢地想用戶多互動，知道你地啲行為，廣告商就可以更清準咁落廣告。廣告界嘅cliché：個個客都知有一半廣告廢用係浪費的，但唔知係邊一半。有咩好得過，落廣告嘅，可以知道你幾大，鍾意食乜，大約幾錢人工，幾時會上網？

11. 但睇真的，就有小小嘅唔同。有本書講（＊），Twitter 似Speakers’ Corner，人人可以廣播，one to many，weak bond（呢個我加的） ．但 Facebook 係類似複製咗朋友，家人，同事嘅關係（你最初加嘅咪係呢啲人），係one to one, or one to few, strong bond（不過埃汾質疑：咁Facebook Page呢？但你可以話，Facebook Page其實搶走埋Twitter嘅功能）。事實亦係咁，Twitter我加嘅，好多係陌生人，好多根本連係男定女都未必知。但Facebook好多人你都會係識，就算純係網上「識」，個交流都唔同的。

12. 唔好睇少呢小小嘅分別。就係因為Facebook用戶嘅bond強啲，佢地互動亦都多啲（例如Twitter好多鬼我科咗係純睇的），就令到佢收集到更多data—呢個真係寶藏。同Twitter上面，個撚個公仔頭雞蛋頭，男女都未知，兩回事—Twitter同想保存私隱嘅用家（例如麻甩佬扮女嗰啲）可能好，但對廣告客戶就十分老母了。

13. 另外，亦因為咁，兩間公司都有Network Effect，但Facebook強好多。你諗下你最初上Facebook時，啲朋友增長得幾快？例如埃汾甚至係見證到Facebook初嚟香港，嗰時嘅增長真係不得了。相比之下，Twitter係兩回事。用返頭先嘅比喻，一般嚟講個個都要有朋友有親人，但唔係個個好撚多理論要日日發表。

14. 正係因為咁，你見到Facebook嘅用戶，收入等等，都拋離晒Twitter．亦都因為佢嘅Network Effect太寶貴，所以佢出盡力保護，唔畀任何人踩入呢條紅線—2012年佢就用10億美金買咗instagram—呢單堪稱商業史上N年最佳收購，舊文有講（https://bit.ly/3gcRjhv）。另外，2014年用200億美金買Whatsapp—咩仙甩治呀帶嚟幾多收入呀，撈撈撈，全部係其次—最重要係收編你，整死你先。我當用錢打發你走，自己繼續獨霸住世人嘅時間—呢刻世界上最值錢嘅嘢

15. 亦因為咁，你當Facebook好似間大公司咁（事實就係），咩客都有，唔想得失人。點表態都死，因為啲客咩立場都有。Twitter相對地，細班人圍爐取暖，影響力冇咁大。Facebook太大，太重要，你踩埋入政治？真係分分鐘畀人告。想像下，如果Facebook封殺晒侵侵啲post，一定會畀人覺得佢唔中立，打壓共和黨，收民主黨錢（而家已經大把人咁覺得）。所以佢唯一嘅做法，就係靠邊站，邊個都唔幫。十人十義，你話嗰啲嘢係hate speech，但大把人好buy．你話係假新聞，但大把人覺得真。做平台嘅，我點去介入？我點去證明寵物傳心係咪偽科學？我挑，周兆祥都博士啦，你小朱大學都未撚畢業。

16. 不過，改變可能會有嘅，但嚟自內在。小朱再勁，都係一個人啫。下面有一大班工程師幫佢。固然Facebook 高人工，但亦唔係得你一個出得起人工，員工唔滿意，咪走咯。之前都話罷工啦。

17. 而好重要嘅一點，好多人可能都唔知，矽谷工程師嘅文化，其實係左傾嘅（當然係以美國嘅定義，唔使講返香港或中國）。矽谷雖然多有錢撚，但係主要反侵。原因亦都簡單：矽谷納天下人才，一般嚟講只睇能力唔睇出身唔睇其他嘢，基佬又多，移民亦多—呢種價值正係侵侵對立嘅。你睇，小朱，光頭佬，添Apple，甚至標基，都係侵侵眼中釘—唯一扒冷嘅，就係埃汾耐唔耐講嘅神人，Peter Thiel—此人簡直係矽谷呂不韋，唔係侵侵選到先仆埋去，係一早已經睇好佢幫佢站台。最正係，Peter Thiel（＊＊）此人係基嘅，亦係移民（德國法蘭克福出世）。

（＊）Terms of Disservice: How Silicon Valley is Destructive by Design　　（https://amz.run/3Ld7），好似幾好睇。但未睇過。

（＊＊）有機會真係認真寫下Peter Thiel，此人先真係一代鬼才。留意佢有本書，The Diversity Myth，就係批評啲「左膠」政治正確，佢本人當然一路都係共和黨人。此人大把爭議言論，例如質疑啲女人告強姦只係因為後悔（ a multicultural rape charge may indicate nothing more than belated regret, a woman might 'realize' that she had been 'raped' the next day or even many days later）。又或者，佢認為，根本自由，同民主，係不能相容嘅（I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible）

————————————
多謝你睇到呢度，而家到你救我全家了。新搞作。同Homeblogger新合作，以往得文字，而家玩短片。第一炮當然係你最關心嘅，下半年個市點睇。港股，美股，樓市。暫時斷次買。80蚊，講足半個鐘。你請我食一次飯一定唔止，我好大食的，食你七八舊水都得。

入面有埋圖，有埋恒指標普目標價，教埋資產配置，有埋6隻心水股。有港股有美股有大有細。

請去呢度睇：https://bit.ly/37S4iC5
課程編號：CC002
客服whatsapp: 63832145

本集節目由 WORD UP 贊助播出

《字根字首魔法學院》
· 用字根字首，幫助你背單字，甚至輕鬆看懂沒學過的單字
· 開課老師：楊智民 — 字根字首研究權威、高中職教科書編著，以及語言學習榜暢銷作家
· 可愛美麗的動畫、親切人聲教學
· 現正優惠中 !!!

你的專屬連結：https://lihi1.com/r1HTd

【本集部分筆記】

dic / dict 說

Pre- 在...之前
predict 預測

tion 名詞結尾
Prediction 預測（名詞）

Able 形容詞結尾，可以...的
Predictable 可預知的

Contra- 相對的
contradict 產生矛盾

tion 名詞結尾
contradiction 矛盾

Ory 可以是形容詞結尾
contradictory 矛盾的

in 裡面 - 說的話裡面的訊息 - 指出
ate 動詞結尾
indicate 指示


Tion 名詞結尾
indication 跡象；徵兆 名詞

火山矽肺症 Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis


你想要這集的完整筆記嗎？快來 PressPlay 訂閱賓狗唷：
https://www.pressplay.cc/bingobilingual

· 免費試用 3 天
· 搭配本集 Podcast 的詳細講義
· 手機背景播放，善用零碎時間學習
· 一次掌握頂尖學習資源：文法、發音、口說及更多


字根字首, 楊智民, Word Up, 線上課程, 火山矽肺症, 超長單字, 怎麼背


賓狗誠心徵求廠商乾媽乾爹!!
歡迎來信：weeklybingoenglish@gmail.com
口播案例：https://bingobilingual.firstory.io/playlists/ckmm0e1of9zai08974rfszzfh


現在抖內賓狗，有好康回饋啦！
https://pay.firstory.me/user/bingobilingual

· 加入 IG 摯友清單（看得到綠圈圈）
· 點餐賓狗碎碎念主題
· 每月一集「抖內限定」的私房賓狗碎碎念


想跟賓狗一起不死背、「玩單字」嗎？
歡迎加入臉書私密社團：
https://www.facebook.com/groups/883689222203801/


賓狗的 IG @bingobilingual_bb
https://www.instagram.com/bingobilingual_bb

賓狗的 FB
https://www.facebook.com/bingobilingual

陪賓狗錄 podcast：
https://www.youtube.com/c/BingoBilingual
（側錄影片）



你想要高品質中英對照新聞嗎？訂閱《風傳媒》，就能隨意暢讀華爾街日報的新聞，中英對照喔！原價一年一萬四，立刻降到三千九，趕快透過賓狗的專屬連結訂閱吧： https://events.storm.mg/member/BGWSJ/


跟賓狗 Line 聊天：
https://line.me/ti/g2/AnkujGhzM4qHqycKmUd9Nw?utm_source=invitation&utm_medium=link_copy&utm_campaign=default


在 KKBOX 收聽賓狗：
https://podcast.kkbox.com/channel/4tuXnkLJpEDF7ypC6S?lang=tc

【教練，我想打籃球─十字韌帶重建後何時可以回去運動？】
有在運動或看運動賽事的人，應該對於十字韌帶斷裂這樣的運動傷害不陌生。雖然現今的醫療可以將斷掉的十字韌帶做重建，但並不是每一位運動員都能在手術後順利重返運動賽事，或是恢復到和過去一樣的運動表現。根據統計，如果不計運動賽事等級的話，在十字韌帶重建後能回到運動場上的比例大約落在56%-100% (不同研究有不同結果)。但如果要恢復到受傷前的運動表現的話，則只有13%-69%的人有機會能做到。即使回去運動後，也有20%-25%的機會再一次受傷。在面對韌帶重建的個案時，我們是否有甚麼方法可以評估個案是否具備回到運動場上的能力，或是個案達到甚麼標準之後，未來受傷機率可以比較低呢？這次的影片將跟大家分享四個用來評估十字韌帶重建後，何時可以重返運動場上的測試動作。

People who like to play sports or watch sport events might be familiar with ACL rupture. Although we can reconstruct the ruptured ACL with modern medical technology, not every athlete can return to sports after the reconstruction, not to say regain his previous performance level. It has been indicated that the rate of return to sport at any level ranged from 56%-100% (Different research has different result.). However, only 13%-69% athletes can regain their pre-injury level of performance. After back to sport, up to 20%-25% athletes will experience contralateral tear or re-rupture. When faced with those ACL reconstruction clients, do we have any method to evaluate whether client is ready to return to sport? Is there any standard client can achieve, which indicate the risk of injury could be relatively low? Today’s video will show you 4 single-leg hop tests commonly used to assess functional performance and predict when to return to sport for ACL reconstruction clients.

參考資料：
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31272644/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31745732/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27215935/

#教練我想打球 #十字韌帶斷裂 #重建 #運動員 #受傷機率 #物理治療 #跳躍測試 #ACLrupture #reconstruction #athlete #physiotherapy #hoptest #backtosport #riskofinjury