## 3 Results
### Side-Hop Kinematics  
Differences in the logarithm of CTG were observed among the experimental groups (F(2,43) = 5.785, \(p\) = 0.006), with the surgical limbs exhibiting a longer contact time in HT (\(p\) = 0.025, \(g\) = \(-\)1.13) and PT (\(p\) = 0.014, \(g\) = \(-\)1.09) compared to the control group. No differences were found between HT and PT (\(p\) = 1). These results are presented in Table 3.  
As shown in Table 3, the analysis revealed no significant differences in maximum varus among the groups (F(2,43) = 0.543, \(p\) = 0.585). Although no statistical significance was identified, participants in the HT group demonstrated a mean maximum varus that was slightly greater than that of the PT and control groups. Similarly, no significant differ  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **HT** & **PT** & \\  & \(n\) = 15** & \(n\) = 13 & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**Height (m)** & 1.77 (0.08) & 1.75 (0.16) & 0.98 \\ \hline
**Limb dominance** & & & 0.65 \\ Right & 11 (73\%) & 11 (85\%) & \\ Left & 4 (27\%) & 2 (15\%) & \\ \hline
**Injured Limb** & & & 0.04 * \\ Right & 2 (13\%) & 7 (54\%) & \\ Left & 13 (87\%) & 6 (46\%) & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Continuous variables are presented as median (interquartile range). Categorical variables are presented as frequency (percentage). An asterisk (*) denotes a significant difference (\(p\) < 0.05). TAS: Tøger Activity Scale.  
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Units** & **Control Group** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Autograft Group**} \\  & & & **HT** & **PT** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{CTG} & \multirow{2}{*}{S} & \(-\)0.57 \(\pm\) 0.11 & \(-\)0.46 \(\pm\) 0.19 a & \(-\)0.46 \(\pm\) 0.20 a  \\  & & [\(-\)0.68; \(-\)0.46] & [\(-\)0.65; \(-\)0.27] & [\(-\)0.66; \(-\)0.26] \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON]} & \multirow{2}{*}{Deg} & 3.88 \(\pm\) 3.17 & 2.27 \(\pm\) 3.89 & 4.55 \(\pm\) 3.34 \\  & & [0.71; 7.05] & [\(-\)1.62; 6.16] & [1.21; 7.89] \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{[PERSON]} & \multirow{2}{*}{Deg} & 0.68 \(\pm\) 3.07 & 2.54 \(\pm\) 3.40 & 0.97 \(\pm\) 2.75 \\  & & [\(-\)2.39; 3.75] & [\(-\)0.86; 5.94] & [\(-\)1.78; 3.72] \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Flexion in} & \multirow{2}{*}{Deg} & 31.80 \(\pm\) 8.51 & 30.90 \(\pm\) 6.24 & 34.90 \(\pm\) 5.45 \\  & & [23.29; 40.31] & [24.66; 37.14] & [29.45; 40.35] \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Flexion in} & \multirow{2}{*}{Deg} & 27.70 \(\pm\) 6.64 & 27.10 \(\pm\) 8.47 & 25.80 \(\pm\) 8.45 \\  & & [21.06; 34.34] & [18.63; 35.57] & [17.35; 34.25] \\ \hline \end{tabular} The \(p\)-value given for CTG refers to the analysis of the log (CTG). CTG: contact time with the ground. Max: maximum. Deg: degree. A superscript letter indicates significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05) in relation to (a) the control group, (b) the HT subgroup, and (c) the PT subgroup.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison of CTG, maximum valgus, flexion in maximum valgus, maximum varus, and flexion in maximum varus in the control and case groups and in the autograft subgroups.  
ences were observed when comparing maximum valgus across the groups (F(2,43) = 0.795, \(p\) = 0.458). However, participants with PT autografts appeared to achieve a greater mean valgus during ground contact (4.55\({}^{\circ}\)), followed by healthy controls (3.88\({}^{\circ}\)), and finally the HT participants (2.77\({}^{\circ}\)).  
Flexion did not differ significantly between groups, whether measured at maximum vars (F(2,43) = 0.086, \(p\) = 0.915) or maximum valgus (F(2,43) = 1.135, \(p\) = 0.331). The median values for flexion at maximum varus were very similar across all groups. However, the PT group demonstrated a slightly greater mean flexion during maximum valgus (34.9\({}^{\circ}\)) compared to the HT (30.9\({}^{\circ}\)) and control (31.8\({}^{\circ}\)) groups. These results are presented in Table 3.