Loading
Skip Navigation LinksHome » Articles » ACL reconstruction

ACL reconstruction

Predictors and prognosis of outcome post reconstruction

 

– Written by Bart Sas, Qatar

 

Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is arguably the most devastating injury that an athlete can encounter during their sporting career, influencing not only the player but often their parents, teammates, managers and coaches as well. Having an ACL injury unavoidably triggers questions ranging from “when will I be able to compete again?” to “will I compete again at all?” The positive note is that research around predictors and prognosis in ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation is rapidly evolving in a wide variety of domains. The main focus of this review is to provide current evidence on predictive parameters and interventions which can have an impact on quality and speed of recovery after ACL reconstruction. This information should help clinicians in their day to day decision-making. Reviewed parameters and variables can help clinicians to find an ideal, individualised path from injury to return to play (RTP) for each unique athlete and are divided in two groups: preoperative and postoperative predictors.

 

PREOPERATIVE PREDICTORS

Preoperative rehabilitation

It is well-established that improving knee function in the pre-surgical phase has a positive effect on post-surgical outcome1-6. Pre-surgical rehabilitation generally aims at reducing swelling, restoring knee extension range of motion, gait re-education and muscle reinforcement5. Preoperative quadriceps strength symmetry has been shown to be a meaningful predictor of an individual’s ability to pass or fail return to sport criteria 6 months after surgery7. Quadriceps strength preoperatively pre-dicts IKDC 2000 (International Knee Documentation Committee) scores and has an influence on self-reported knee function 6 months after ACL reconstruction8. Marked preoperative deficits in this phase are also predictive of on-going deficits at 2 year follow-up1. Thus maximising quadriceps strength preoperatively might reward the patient with optimal outcomes after surgery7. It is important to consider that weakness of the quadriceps can be an actual muscle weakness, but might also be due to neuromuscular inhibition. Deficits in voluntary activation have been identified post ACL injury in both the involved and uninvolved leg9,10. This is of importance as patients who showed a better improvement in terms of voluntary activation eventually returned to higher levels of activity. This finding also advocates the use of EMG analysis during isokinetic testing and questions the usage of the contralateral leg as the reference leg during test interpretation10. Bottoni et al explored the influence of acutely performed reconstruction on range of motion and general clinical outcome. Although they did not advocate generalising this approach, they established that surgery in the acute phases did not result in loss of range of motion or suboptimal clinical results11.

 

Gait analysis

Alterations in gait pattern are shown in ACL deficient subjects and normalisation of gait is an important factor in restoring function. These alterations could be explained by quadriceps weakness, but another important contributor might be altered neuromuscular strategies. Previously, clinicians advocated quadriceps and hamstring co-contraction as a means of reducing the anterior shear at the knee, however Lewek et al suggest that those who adopt this strategy are less likely to achieve a good functional outcome12. Hartigan et al investigated if this inability to use normal kinetic and muscular control strategies had an impact on the ability to achieve higher level goals such as RTP. They found that a difference in knee flexion moments measured at peak knee flexion angle in the involved leg during preoperative gait is indeed a meaningful predictor of the ability to pass or fail RTP 6 months post-surgery7.

 

Patient-specific parameters

Patient-specific parameters which nega-tively influence outcome are older age7,13, smoking3,14-16, higher body mass index3,14,15,17-19 and female gender13,14,19. Patients should be made aware of these factors and for the modifiable parameters (smoking and body mass index), appropriate advice for alterations should be suggested. In older patients, on the other hand, advice for a more cautious RTP may be warranted7.

 

Questionnaires

Questionnaires such as the IKDC, Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score can help us to monitor progression and evaluate outcomes20. Normative data for these questionnaires is well-established and is a valid point of reference21. Preoperatively, these questionnaires have not yet shown prognostic significance, but questionnaires such as Marx-scale and the psycho-vitality questionnaire have shown predictive value in determining the chances to return to pre-injury activity levels20. Preoperative self-efficacy of knee function can be determined with the knee self-efficacy scale (K-SES) and is of predictive value for players returning to acceptable levels of physical activity, symptoms and muscle function 1 year after ACL reconstruction22. Pre-intervention Tegner activity levels are important predictors for postoperative health-related quality of life13,23.

 

Radiographic findings

Although the prevalence of a typical bone bruising pattern post ACL injury is very high, there seems to be no association with symptoms or pain at the time of ACL reconstruction19. Furthermore the presence of bone bruising has no effect on IKDC outcomes24. Additional work to identify possible relationships might be needed along with agreement on quantification of bone bruising. The influence of this typical bone bruising on the eventual development of osteoarthritis (OA) remains unknown. The importance of the meniscus in this context is well-appreciated. It is known that the incidence of OA in the presence of normal menisci is low, even despite continued participation in sporting activity17,25,26 as opposed to commonly reported radiographic abnormalities in subgroups who underwent meniscectomy27,28. Pre-operative cartilage lesions have also been related to an earlier onset of OA3,17,26,27,29. This raises the importance of early surgery in a functionally unstable knee of a non-coping patient as recurring episodes of giving way have been linked to an increased prevalence of meniscal and cartilage injury30 and therefore a likely increased incidence of later OA.

 

POSTOP PREDICTORS

Rehabilitation

Criteria rather than timeline-based rehabilitation has been generally accepted as being the gold standard5,31. Benchmarks for progression in ACL-rehabilitation have been described with the main aim being minimisation of the risk of injury to the healing tissue, while maximising the patient’s response to exercise at the current level of functioning5. A number of individual parameters and interventions are shown to aid in reducing the time needed to reach specific criteria and will be discussed below.

 

Extension

Residual extension deficits have been linked to inferior subjective and objective results32. Risberg et al have shown an association with persisting extension deficits and a lower Cincinnati knee score at the 2-year follow-up4. Since early active and passive knee extension did not increase postoperative knee laxity up to 2 years after bone-tendon-bone (BTB) ACL reconstruction33, early restoration of extension is a priority.

 

Quadriceps strengthening

Quadriceps muscle performance, especially when accompanied by pain, is identified as a significant predictor of disability4. Accordingly, a specific postoperative strengthening regimen should be initiated as soon as appropriate. Early isometric quadriceps exercises should be encouraged during the first 2 postoperative weeks since this leads to significantly more favourable Cincinnati scores for symptoms and less problems with sport 6 months postoperatively when compared with no isometric quadriceps exercises during the first 2 weeks34. A well-balanced programme will incorporate both open kinetic chain (OKC) and closed kinetic chain strengthening exercises. There is on-going debate regarding the timing of initiating OKC strengthening and the importance (or not) of possible effects on anterior knee laxity. Heijne et al investigated the effect of early (4 weeks postoperative) versus late (12 weeks postoperative) OKC quadriceps exercises in both hamstring (HS) versus BTB graft and found no difference in quadriceps muscle torques 7 months postoperative in any of the subgroups. They did, however, find an increased anterior knee laxity in the early HS OKC group35. According to Mikkelsen et al, addition of OKC quadriceps training as early as 6 weeks after ACL reconstruction results in a significantly better improvement in quadriceps torque without reducing knee joint stability at 6 months and also leads to a significantly higher number of athletes returning to their previous activity earlier and at the same level as before36. Both study-groups had a relatively small sample size: 68 and 44 patients respectively, however, given the possible importance of these findings, the most appropriate time or criteria to initiate OKC strengthening warrants further investigation.

 

Strengthening principals

Traditional strengthening protocols have been well described37. When comparing neuromuscular exercises with traditional strength exercises, Risberg et al found a significant improvement in knee function (global function) and reduced pain during activity in the neuromuscular training group, compared with the traditional strengthening group. On the other hand these authors found significantly improved hamstring strength for the traditional strengthening group when compared with the neuromuscular training group. They concluded that a postoperative programme should combine both training principles38.

 

Perturbation training

Perturbation training as an addition to the standard ACL protocol appears to reduce the risk of continued episodes of giving way of the knee during athletic participation and allows subjects to maintain their functional status for longer periods39.

 

GRAFT CHOICE

Graft choice impacts outcome in a variety of ways. Although some authors report similar outcomes in terms of OA at follow-up40,41, anterior knee pain, donor site morbidity17, functional outcomes42 and graft failure43,44 in BTB vs HS graft, others have found a lower incidence of OA and improved functional performance after HS compared to BTB graft43-46, more anterior knee pain in BTB grafts47,48 and lower donor site morbidity in HS grafts42. These findings should be considered during surgical decision-making and should be accounted for during subsequent rehabilitation. Special attention is needed when working with patients with an allograft5 as re-rupture rates have been reported to be five times higher when compared to autografts49,50. This might be explained by the fact that on one hand the absence of donor site morbidity speeds up the process of recovery post-reconstruction and possibly shortens the time to RTP, but on the other hand the integration of the graft is delayed when using allograft51. Further research is required given these outcomes and the incidence of allograft reconstructions. Until clarification is forthcoming, it seems prudent to be more cautious in this group of patients.

 

CONCOMITANT MENISCUS INJURY/SURGERY

Injury to the ACL is frequently accompanied by injury to the meniscus. A slight predominance of lateral meniscal tear (LMT) has been reported in acute ACL rupture (56% LMT vs 44% MMT) whereas significantly higher incidence of medial meniscal tears (MMT) has been described in the chronic ACL deficient knee (70% MMT vs 30% LMT)52. Meniscal repairs and partial or total arthroscopic meniscectomy are therefore frequently performed during ACL reconstruction. Although there is some disagreement in the literature18, it seems that meniscus injury or surgery around the time of ACL reconstruction has a negative effect on the final functional outcome1,28,30,53. It may be that rehabilitation needs to be altered in the presence of these co-pathologies. To date no comparative studies have been performed to investigate the effects of initial weight-bearing and/or range of motion restrictions in case of the aforementioned concomitant injuries/surgeries and thus most guidelines are still based on clinical experience. More evidence is needed to support our current practice in these cases.

 

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

Psychological factors have a strong influence on progression and outcome after surgery. Ardern et al reported in their systematic review that despite high rates of successful outcome in terms of knee impairment based function, only 44% of the athletes had returned to competition at follow-up. They suggested that this was partially contributed to by psychological factors54. In the Qatar Football League we see a much higher return to competition rate. A possible explanation is that this cohort only includes professional athletes in contrast to the more heterogeneous group of athletes (amateur and professional level) that were analysed in previous studies. Other variables to consider are demographic differences and general fitness level at the time of injury. Zaffagnini et al showed that patients instructed to watch a video producing positive therapeutic insight had significant positive improvements in IKDC, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and shortened time on crutches when compared with a group that received a video with images unfavourable to psychological recovery55. This study has investigated only short-term impact of such strategies, but might also be promising in mid- to long-term implementations. A questionnaire that can help us to identify possible athletes with a lower psychological response is the ACL-Return to Sport after Injury scale(ACL-RSI). The ACL-RSI scale has shown good reliability and validity and may help the clinician to identify athletes who will find sport resumption difficult56. It is suggested that such athletes would then benefit from an appropriately targeted psychological intervention to enhance their outcomes.  While appealing, the validity of this approach is still to be confirmed.

 

FEAR OF RE-INJURY

Despite high rates of successful outcome in terms of knee impairment-based function, a relatively low rate of return to competitive sport is documented54. Lifestyle changes and fear of re-injury have been suggested to be contributors to this phenomenon54, where the former might be partially driven by the latter.

 

RE-INJURY RATES

Hettrich et al in a recently reported a re-rupture rate of 7.7% in the ipsilateral and 6.4% in the contralateral knee57. Wright et al earlier showed lower re-injury rates with 3% ipsilateral and 3% contralateral58. The individual numbers notwithstanding, both groups present the same injury rate in the contralateral leg when compared to the involved leg in their respective cohorts. If interventions are able to influence ACL rupture incidence, it is a strong motivator to focus intervention and prevention on both legs. Re-injury rate does not seem to be related to graft size or activity level but appears to be higher in patients younger than 25 years57,59 and it would seem sensible to factor this into RTP criteria. In the same breath it needs to be mentioned that revision surgery is generally associated with lower activity levels14.

 

REMAINING LAXITY

Although ACL injury and consequent surgery have an undisputable effect on anterior knee laxity and rotatory stability, this doesn’t appear to be related to dynamic stability and functional outcome60. Moller et al compared patients whom 2 years after surgery showed a side-to-side difference in anterior-posterior knee laxity of more than 3 mm with those with 3 mm or less and found no significant group differences in terms of knee function as determined by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score61. While a positive pivot-shift was found to be a good measure for functional instability62, this particular study was potentially hampered by recall bias as only 336 out of 1537 subjects were included due to lack of 2-year follow-up data62.

 

HOP TESTING

Preoperative single leg hop tests seem to have a poor ability to predict postoperative outcomes, but at 6 months post-operation they can predict likelihood of successful or unsuccessful outcome 1 year postop63.

 

A positive correlation between higher speed isokinetic knee extension peak torque, subjective knee scores and three hop tests has been reported64. Hop testing is widely accepted as a good measure for functional outcome but its current limitation is that we only evaluate limb symmetry index which is a quantitative measure comparing distance (or time) recorded during testing of involved and uninvolved limb65 and does not reflect altered movement strategies. Landing technique, foot placement, knee positioning, pelvic stability and hip-knee-ankle flexion moments might give us more information to separate patients who have acquired alterations in movement patterns from those who have truly recovered normal movement strategies. When we add these parameters to the equation, hop testing might be a stronger predictor of good functional outcome and could provide additional guidance towards more effective rehabilitation techniques66. More work is needed to establish easy and valid ways to assess aforementioned parameters and to confirm their individual significance on normal movement patterns and dynamic stability.

 

FUTURE RESEARCH

Although gap-analysis of the current literature was not the primary intention of this review, some fields have been identified to be potentially interesting topics for further research. Weight-bearing and range of motion restrictions in case of meniscal involvement, timing or criteria to start OKC quadriceps and psychological factors could have a significant impact on the final result, but need to be explored more in-depth. Hop testing has shown some predictive value but more investigation into quality of movement during this particular testing is required.

 

CONCLUSION

To date, a wide variety of predictive and prognostic parameters have been well-documented. They provide us with good tools to inform our patients regarding expected outcomes, but also help us to identify patients at risk in certain aspects. Appropriate intervention at this stage is warranted and seems to be spread out over different fields of expertise. A multidisciplinary approach should be the backbone in any given rehabilitation process, but even more so in a long-term intervention such as ACL-reconstruction. Decision-making and progression monitoring should be based on a perfect communication between surgeon, physician, physiotherapist, sports-rehabilitator, fitness-coach, dietician, psychologist, team medical staff and any other discipline involved. When accounting for all aforementioned factors and decision-making models, we can expect to have optimal outcomes minimising complications.

 

References

1.            Eitzen I, Holm I, Risberg M. Preoperative quadriceps strength is a significant predictor of knee function two years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med 2009; 43:371-376.

2.            Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs K, Zurakowski D, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ. Determinants of patient satisfaction with outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84:1560-1572.

3.            Kowalchuk DA, Harner CD, Fu FH. Prediction of patient-reported outcome after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2009; 25:457-463.

4.            Risberg M, Holm I, Tjomsland O, Ljunggren E, Ekeland A. Prospective study of changes in impairments and disabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1999; 29:400-412.

5.            Adams D, Logerstedt DS, Hunter-Giordano A, Axe MJ, Snyder-Makler L. Current concepts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a criterion–based rehabilitation progression. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42:601-614.

6.            Eitzen I, Moksnes H, Snyder-Makler L, Risberg MA. A progressive 5-week exercise therapy program leads to significant improvement in knee function early after anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010; 40: 705-721.

7.            Hartigan E.H, Zeni J Jr, Di Stasi S, Axe MJ, Snyder-Makler L. Preoperative predictors for noncopers to pass return to sports criteria after ACL reconstruction. J Appl Biomech 2012; 28:366-373.

8.            Logerstedt D, Lynch A, Axe MJ, Snyder-Makler L. Pre-operative quadriceps strength predicts IKDC2000 scores 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The Knee 2013; 20:208-212.

9.            Urbach D, Nebelung W, Becker R, Awiszus F. Effects of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament on voluntary activation of quadriceps femoris a prospective twitch interpolation study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83:1104-1110.

10.          Urbach D, Nebelung W, Weiler HT, Awiszus F. Bilateral deficit of voluntary quadriceps muscle activation after unilateral ACL tear. Medicine Sci Sports Ex 1999; 31:1691-1696.

11.          Bottoni CR, Liddell TR, Trainor TJ, Freccero DM, Lindell KK. Postoperative range of motion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autograft hamstrings a prospective, randomized clinical trial of early versus delayed reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 2008; 3:656-662.

12.          Lewek MD, Chmielewski TL, Risberg MA, Snyder-Makler L. Dynamic knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Ex Sport Sci Rev 2003; 31:195-200.

13.          Frobell R, Svensson E, Göthrick M, Roos EM. Self-reported activity level and knee function in amateur football players: the influence of age, gender, history of knee injury and level of competition. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16:713-719.

14.          Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Predictors of activity level 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) ACLR Cohort Study. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38:2040-2050.

15.          Spindler KP, Huston LJ, Wright RW, Kaeding CC, Marx RG, Amendola A et al. The prognosis and predictors of sports function and activity at minimum 6 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a population cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39:348-359.

16.          Karim A, Pandit H, Murray J, Wandless F, Thomas NP. Smoking and reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88:1027-1031.

17.          Lebel B, Hulet C, Galaud B, Burdin G, Locker B, Vielpeau C. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36:1275-1282.

18.          Spindler KP, Warren TA, Callison JC Jr, Secic M, Fleisch SB, Wright RW. Clinical outcome at a minimum of five years after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87:1673-1679.

19.          Dunn WR, Spindler KP, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Kaeding CC, Marx RG et al. Which preoperative factors, including bone bruise, are associated with knee pain/symptoms at index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)? A Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) ACLR cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38:1778-1787.

20.          Gobbi A and Francisco R. Factors affecting return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring graft: a prospective clinical investigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14:1021-1028.

21.          Anderson AF, Irrganag JJ, Kocher MS, Mann BJ, Harrast JJ. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34:128-135.

22.          Thomeé P, Währborg P, Börjesson M, Thomeé R, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J. Self-efficacy of knee function as a pre-operative predictor of outcome 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16:118-127.

23.          Månsson O, Kartus J, Sernert N. Preoperative factors predicting good outcome in terms of healthrelated quality of life after ACL reconstruction. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2013; 23:15-22.

24.          Hanypsiak BT, Spindler KP, Rothrock CR, Calabrese GJ, Richmond B, Herrenbruck TM et al. Twelve-year follow-up on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction long-term outcomes of prospectively studied osseous and articular injuries. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36:671-677.

25.          Deehan D, Salmon LJ, Webb VJ, Davies A, Pinczewski LA. Endoscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with an ipsilateral patellar tendon autograft. A prospective longitudinal five-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82:984-991.

26.          Hart A, Bucombe J, Malone A, Dowd GS. Assessment of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a study using single-photon emission computed tomography at ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87:1483-1487.

27.          Janssen RP, du Mée AW, van Valkenurg J, Sala HA, Tseng CM. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with 4-strand hamstring autograft and accelerated rehabilitation: a 10-year prospective study on clinical results, knee osteoarthritis and its predictors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21:1977-1988.

28.          Wu WH, Hackett T, Richmond JC. Effects of meniscal and articular surface status on knee stability, function, and symptoms after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a long-term prospective study. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30:845-850.

29.          Drogset JO, Grøntvedt T. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without a ligament augmentation device results at 8-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2002; 30:851-856.

30.          Barenius B, Forssblad M, Engström B, Eriksson K. Functional recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, a study of health-related quality of life based on the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21:914-927.

31.          Myer GD, Paterno MV, Ford KR, Quatman CE, Hewett TE. Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: criteria-based progression through the return-to-sport phase. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006; 36:385-402.

32.          Shelbourne KD, Gray T. Minimum 10-year results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how the loss of normal knee motion compounds other factors related to the development of osteoarthritis after surgery. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37:471-480.

33.          Isberg J, Faxén E, Brandsson S, Eriksson BI, Kärrholm J, Karlsson J. Early active extension after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not result in increased laxity of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14:1108-1115.

34.          Shaw T, Williams MT, Chipchase LS. Do early quadriceps exercises affect the outcome of ACL reconstruction? A randomised controlled trial. Aust J of Physiother 2005; 51:9-17.

35.          Heijne A, Werner S. Early versus late start of open kinetic chain quadriceps exercises after ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon or hamstring grafts: a prospective randomized outcome study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2007; 15:402-414.

36.          Mikkelsen, C, Werner S, Eriksson E. Closed kinetic chain alone compared to combined open and closed kinetic chain exercises for quadriceps strengthening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with respect to return to sports: a prospective matched follow-up study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2000; 8:337-342.

37.          Kraemer WJ, Adams K, Cafarelli E, Dudley GA, Dooly C, Feigenbaum MS et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34:364-380.

38.          Risberg MA, Holm I. The long-term effect of 2 postoperative rehabilitation programs after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled clinical trial with 2 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37:1958-1966.

39.          Fitzgerald GK, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. The efficacy of perturbation training in nonoperative anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation programs for physically active individuals. Phys Ther 2000; 80:128-140.

40.          Holm I, Oiestad BE, Risberg MA, Aune AK. No difference in knee function or prevalence of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with 4-strand hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon-bone autograft: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38:448-454.

41.          O’Neill DB. Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A prospective randomized analysis of three techniques. J Bone Joint Surg 1996; 78:803-813.

42.          Matsumoto A, Yoshiya S, Muratsu H, Yagi M, Iwasaki Y, Kurosaka M et al. A comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and bone-hamstring tendon-bone autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34:213-219.

43.          Roe J, Pinczewski LA, Russell VJ, Salmon LJ, Kawamata T, Chew M. A 7-year follow-up of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon grafts for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction differences and similarities. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33:1337-1345.

44.          Sajovic M, Vengust V, Komadina R, Tavcar R, Skaza K. A prospective, randomized comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction five-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34:1933-1940.

45.          Keays SL, Bullock-Saxton JE, Keays AC, Newcombe PA, Bullock MI. A 6-year follow-up of the effect of graft site on strength, stability, range of motion, function, and joint degeneration after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendon graft. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35:729-739.

46.          Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Roe J, Linklater J. A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35:564-574.

47.          Ibrahim SA, Al-Kussary IM, Al-Misfer AR, Al-Mutairi HQ, Ghafar SA, El Noor TA. Clinical evaluation of arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patellar tendon versus gracilis and semitendinosus autograft. Arthroscopy 2005; 21:412-417.

48.          Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M, Lo Presti M, Giordano G, Iacono F, Neri MP. Prospective and randomized evaluation of ACL reconstruction with three techniques: a clinical and radiographic evaluation at 5 years follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14:1060-1069.

49.          Krych AJ, Jackson JD, Hoskin TL, Dahm DL. A meta-analysis of patellar tendon autograft versus patellar tendon allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2008; 24:292-298.

50.          Borchers JR, Pedroza A, Kaeding C. Activity level and graft type as risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament graft failure a case-control study. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37:2362-2367.

51.          Gulotta LV, Rodeo SA. Biology of autograft and allograft healing in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 2007; 26:509-524.

52.          Bellabarba C, Bush-Joseph C, Bach B Jr. Patterns of meniscal injury in the anterior cruciate-deficient knee: a review of the literature. Am J Orthop 1997; 26:18-23.

53.          Gerhard P, Bolt R, Dück K, Mayer R, Friederich NF, Hirschmann MT. Long-term results of arthroscopically assisted anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon autograft: are there any predictors for the development of osteoarthritis? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21:957-964.

54.          Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA. Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med 2011; 45:596-606.

55.          Zaffagnini S, Russo RL, Marcheggiani, Muccioli GM, Marcacci M. The Videoinsight® method: improving rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction – a preliminary study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21:851-858.

56.          Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C. Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport 2008; 9:9-15.

57.          Hettrich CM, Dunn WR, Reinke EK, Spindler KP. The rate of subsequent surgery and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction two-and 6-year follow-up results from a multicenter cohort. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41:1534-1540.

58.          Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Bergfeld J, Kaeding CC et al. Risk of tearing the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee and rupturing the anterior cruciate ligament graft during the first 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective MOON cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35:1131-1134.

59.          Kamien PM, Hydrick JM, Replogle WH, Go LT, Barrett GR. Age, graft size, and Tegner activity level as predictors of failure in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41:1808-1812.

60.          Snyder-Mackler L, Fitzgerald GK, Bartolozzi AR III, Ciccotti MG. The relationship between passive joint laxity and functional outcome after anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25:191-195.

61.          Möller E, Weidenhielm L, Werner S. Outcome and knee-related quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17:786-794.

62.          Kocher MS. Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ. Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32:629-634.

63.          Logerstedt D, Grindem H, Lynch A, Eitzen I, Engebretsen L, Risberg MA et al. Single-legged hop tests as predictors of self-reported knee function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40:2348-2356.

64.          Wilk K, Romaniello WT, Soscia SM, Arrigo CA, Andrews JR. The relationship between subjective knee scores, isokinetic testing, and functional testing in the ACL-reconstructed knee. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994; 20:60-73.

65.          Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE, McCloskey JW, Hartman W. Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 255:204-214.

66.          Fitzgerald GK, Lephart SM, Hwang JH, Wainner RS. Hop tests as predictors of dynamic knee stability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2001; 31:588-597.

 

Image via Trysil

Switch Language: list thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Category

Sports Rehab

Article Images

Copyright © Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal 2018