## 3 Results  
Table 2 presents the results of the tests carried out on the arthrometer and the results of the FMS test. Figure 2: Arthrometry results suggesting complete anterior cruciate ligament injury. The analysis shows that for individual translations (Translation R and L) in the experimental group, no significant changes (\(p<0.05\)) of these parameters were observed under the influence of the training applied. In the case of the control group, there is a significant difference for the right limb (Translation R), which is about 0.49 mm. For both translations in measurements I and II, no significant differences were observed between the experimental and control groups. When analyzing the results of the stability index, there is a significant difference (0.18) in the experimental group (\(p<0.05\)). From the value of 1 mm, this index drops to the value of 0.82 mm, which shows the positive effect of the applied training on the stability of the lower limbs. It is significant that such a situation was not observed in the control group. The performed FMS test showed a significant difference (0.83) in the scores between the experimental group and the control group in measurement I. The experimental group obtained more points in measurements I (14.21) and II (14.60) compared to the control group (I--13.38 and II--14.15). Within both groups, there was a statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)) increase in the number of points in measurement II compared to measurement I. Table 3 shows the Spearman correlation coefficients between the arthrometer results and the FMS score. For the FMS and Stability variables, the correlations between relative and absolute increases were additionally calculated. The analysis shows that there are statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)) relationships between the translation of the left limb and the results of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Measurements**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Experimental Group (\(N=68\))**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Control Group (\(N=48\))**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**r**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-12}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & (E-C) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Translation R} & I & 7.48 & 1.89 & 7.25 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.309} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.12} & 6.84 & 1.75 & 6.80 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.010 \({}^{*}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.37} & 0.120 & 0.14 \\  & II & 7.44 & 1.67 & 7.10 & & & & & 7.33 & 1.55 & 7.45 & & 0.010 \({}^{*}\) & 0.37 & 0.120 & 0.14 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Translation L} & I & 7.26 & 1.96 & 7.20 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.415} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.10} & 6.99 & 1.54 & 7.15 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.066} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.27} & 0.497 & 0.06 \\  & II & 7.61 & 1.56 & 7.60 & & & & 7.25 & 1.36 & 7.15 & & 0.060 & 0.250 & 0.11 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Stability index} & I & 1.00 & 0.93 & 0.70 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.015 \({}^{*}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.29} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.73} & 0.59 & 0.60 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.757} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.04} & 0.213 & 0.12 \\  & II & 0.82 & 0.93 & 0.50 & & & & 0.73 & 0.51 & 0.60 & 0.550 & \(-\)0.06 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{FMS} & I & 14.21 & 1.96 & 14.00 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.006 \({}^{*}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.33} & 13.38 & 1.91 & 13.50 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.0001 \({}^{*}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.61} & 0.045 \({}^{*}\) & 0.19 \\  & II & 14.60 & 2.10 & 14.00 & & & & 14.15 & 1.86 & 14.00 & & 0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 0.120 & 0.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{*}\)—statistical significance (\(p<0.05\)); I—initial measurement; II—measurement measurement at the end of the experiment; M—mean value; SD—standard deviation; Me—median; \(p\) (I–II)—Test probability for the difference between Measurement I and Measurement II; \(r\) (I–II)—effect size for \(p\) (I–II); \(p\) (E-C)—Test probability for the difference between experimental and control groups; effect size for \(p\) (E-C).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of arthrometer test and functional movement screen test.