Background: Most people have not returned to their preinjury level of sports participation at 12 months after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. Twelve months’ follow-up may be too early to assess return-to-sport outcomes accurately.
Purpose: This study was undertaken to evaluate the medium-term return-to-sport outcomes after ACL reconstruction surgery.
Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: A self-report questionnaire was used to collect data at 2 to 7 years after ACL reconstruction surgery regarding preinjury sports participation, postoperative sports participation, and subjective knee function. The main inclusion criteria were participation in regular sports activity before injury and the attendance at routine surgical follow-up appointments.
Results: A total of 314 participants (mean age, 32.5 ± 10.2 years) were included at a mean 39.6 ± 13.8 months after ACL reconstruction surgery. At follow-up, 45% were playing sport at their preinjury level and 29% were playing competitive sport. Ninety-three percent of the study sample had attempted sport at some time after their ACL reconstruction surgery. Those who had not attempted their preinjury level of sport by 12 months after surgery were just as likely to have returned to preinjury level by 39 months after surgery as those who had played sport by 12 months (risk ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.6).
Conclusion: Less than 50% of the study sample had returned to playing sport at their preinjury level or returned to participating in competitive sport when surveyed at 2 to 7 years after ACL reconstruction surgery. Return to the preinjury level of sport at 12 months after surgery was not predictive of participation at the preinjury level in the medium term, which suggests that people who return to sport within 12 months may not maintain their sports participation.
Background: The relationship between the biomechanical dose of rehabilitation exercises administered after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and the healing response of the graft and knee is not well understood.
Hypothesis: After ACL reconstruction, rehabilitation administered with either accelerated or nonaccelerated programs produces the same change in the knees’ 6 degrees of freedom, or envelope, laxity values.
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with a bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft were randomized to rehabilitation with either accelerated (19 week) or nonaccelerated (32 week) programs. At the time of surgery, and then 3, 6, 12, and 24 months later, the 6 degrees of freedom knee laxity values were measured using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis and clinical, functional, and patient-oriented outcome measures.
Results: Eighty-five percent of those enrolled were followed through 2 years. Laxity of the reconstructed knee was restored to within the limits of the contralateral, normal side at the time of surgery (baseline) in all participants. Patients in both programs underwent a similar increase in the envelope of knee laxity over the 2-year follow-up interval (anterior-posterior translation 3.2 vs 4.5 mm, and coupled internal-external rotations 2.6° vs 1.9° for participants in the accelerated and nonaccelerated programs, respectively). Those who underwent accelerated rehabilitation experienced a significant improvement in thigh muscle strength at the 3-month follow-up (P < .05) compared with those who participated in nonaccelerated rehabilitation, but no differences between the programs were seen after this time interval. At the 2-year follow-up, the groups were similar in terms of clinical assessment, patient satisfaction, function, proprioception, and isokinetic thigh muscle strength.
Conclusion: Rehabilitation with the accelerated and nonaccelerated programs administered in this study produced the same increase in the envelope of knee laxity. A majority of the increase in the envelope of knee laxity occurred during healing when exercises were advanced and activity level increased. Patients in both programs had the same clinical assessment, functional performance, proprioception, and thigh muscle strength, which returned to normal levels after healing was complete. For participants in both treatment programs, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) assessment of quality of life did not return to preinjury levels.
Background: Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is a key determinant affecting patient return to usual activity levels. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation is a treatment that can counteract strength loss and serve as an adjunct to conventional therapy.
Purpose: To compare the effect of adding traditional neuromuscular electrical stimulation (Polystim) or a novel garment-integrated neuromuscular electrical stimulation (Kneehab) to a standard postoperative rehabilitation program (control).
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: Ninety-six patients, of a total enrolled cohort of 131 patients randomized to 1 of 3 intervention groups, completed a standard rehabilitation program. In addition, the 2 neuromuscular electrical stimulation groups underwent 20-minute sessions of neuromuscular electrical stimulation 3 times a day, 5 days a week, for 12 weeks, in which stimulation was superimposed on isometric volitional contractions. Outcome measures including isokinetic strength of the knee extensors of the injured and uninjured leg at 90 and 180 deg/s, along with functional tests of proprioception, were assessed at baseline and at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively.
Results: The Kneehab group achieved significantly better results at each time point compared with the Polystim and control groups (P < .001). Extensor strength of the Kneehab group at speeds of 90 and 180 deg/s increased by 30.2% and 27.8%, respectively, between the preoperative measurements and the 6-month follow-up point in the injured leg. The corresponding changes for Polystim were 5.1% and 5%, whereas for the control group they were 6.6% and 6.7%, respectively. The mean single-legged hop test hop score of the Kneehab group improved by 50% between the 6-week and 6-month follow-up, whereas the corresponding changes for the Polystim and control groups were 26.3% and 26.2%, respectively. Although there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the Tegner score and the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 knee examination score, the Kneehab group showed a significant difference in mean improvement for the baseline corrected Lysholm score compared with the control group (P = .01; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-8.59) and with the Polystim group (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-9.09) with no significant difference evident between Polystim and control groups (P = .97; 95% confidence interval, –4.23 to 3.51).
Conclusion: Intensive garment-integrated stimulation combined with standard rehabilitation is effective at accelerating recovery after knee surgery.
Background: Despite a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, functional knee braces are commonly prescribed to patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
Purpose: This trial was conducted to compare postoperative outcomes in patients using an ACL functional knee brace and patients using a neoprene knee sleeve.
Hypothesis: Patients using a brace will have superior outcomes than those using a sleeve.
Study Design: Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: One hundred fifty patients were randomized to receive a brace (n = 76) or neoprene sleeve (n = 74) at their 6-week postoperative visit after primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Patients were assessed preoperatively, then 6 weeks and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Outcome measures included disease-specific quality of life (Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Quality of Life [ACL-QOL] Questionnaire), anterior tibial translation (KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference), the single-limb forward hop test (limb symmetry index), and Tegner Activity Scale. Outcomes at 1 and 2 years were compared after adjusting for baseline scores. Subjective ratings of how patients felt while using the brace/sleeve were also collected for descriptive purposes using a questionnaire. Four a priori directional subgroup hypotheses were evaluated using tests for interactions.
Results: There were no significant differences between brace (n = 62) and sleeve (n = 65) groups for any of the outcomes at 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Adjusted mean differences at 2 years were as follows: –0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], –7.52 to 5.64) for the ACL-QOL Questionnaire, –0.10 mm (95% CI, –0.99 to 0.81) for KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference, –0.87% (95% CI, –8.89 to 7.12) for hop limb symmetry index, and –0.05 (95% CI, –0.72 to 0.62) for the Tegner Activity Scale. Subjective ratings of confidence in the knee provided by the brace/sleeve were higher for the brace group than the sleeve group. Subgroup findings were minimal. Adverse events were few and similar between groups.
Conclusions: A functional knee brace does not result in superior outcomes compared with a neoprene sleeve after ACL reconstruction. Current evidence does not support the recommendation of using an ACL functional knee brace after ACL reconstruction.
