Journal
ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY
Volume 32, Issue 8, Pages 1612-1621Publisher
W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.033
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Physalife
- Arthrex
- Arthroscopy
- Arthroscopy Association Learning Center
- Arthrosurface
- Cymedica
- DJ Orthopaedics
- Journal of Knee Surgery
- Minivasive
- Omeros
- Slack
- Smith and Nephew
- Athletico
- ConMed Linvatec
- Miomed
- Mitek
- Vindico Medical-Orthopedics Hyperguide
- Stryker
- Major League Baseball
- Aesculap/B. Braun
- American Journal of Orthopedics
- American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine
- American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons
- Arthroscopy Association of North America
- Carticept
- Cytori
- Elsevier Publishing
- International Cartilage Repair Society
- Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American
- Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
- Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
- Medipost
- National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases)
- National Institutes of Health (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development)
- Ossur
- Regentis
- Saunders/Mosby-Elsevier
- Smith Nephew
- Tornier
- Zimmer
- American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Medical Publishing Group Board of Directors
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Purpose: To assess the quality and variability found across anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rehabilitation protocols published online by academic orthopaedic programs. Methods: Web-based ACL physical therapy protocols from United States academic orthopaedic programs available online were included for review. Main exclusion criteria included concomitant meniscus repair, protocols aimed at pediatric patients, and failure to provide time points for the commencement or recommended completion of any protocol components. A comprehensive, custom scoring rubric was created that was used to assess each protocol for the presence or absence of various rehabilitation components, as well as when those activities were allowed to be initiated in each protocol. Results: Forty-two protocols were included for review from 155 U.S. academic orthopaedic programs. Only 13 protocols (31%) recommended a prehabilitation program. Five protocols (12%) recommended continuous passive motion postoperatively. Eleven protocols (26%) recommended routine partial or non-weight bearing immediately postoperatively. Ten protocols (24%) mentioned utilization of a secondary/functional brace. There was considerable variation in range of desired full-weight-bearing initiation (9 weeks), as well as in the types of strength and proprioception exercises specifically recommended. Only 8 different protocols (19%) recommended return to sport after achieving certain strength and activity criteria. Conclusions: Many ACL rehabilitation protocols recommend treatment modalities not supported by current reports. Moreover, high variability in the composition and time ranges of rehabilitation components may lead to confusion among patients and therapists.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available