No abstract

Context:  Return-to-sport criteria after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury are often based on “satisfactory” functional and patient-reported outcomes. However, an individual's decision to return to sport is likely multifactorial; psychological and physical readiness to return may not be synonymous. Objective:  To determine the psychosocial factors that influence the decision to return to sport in athletes 1 year post–ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Design:  Qualitative study. Setting:  Academic medical center. Patients or Other Participants:  Twelve participants (6 males, 6 females) were purposefully chosen from a large cohort. Participants were a minimum of 1-year postsurgery and had been active in competitive athletics preinjury. Data Collection and Analysis:  Data were collected via semistructured interviews. Qualitative analysis using a descriptive phenomenologic process, horizontalization, was used to derive categories and themes that represented the data. The dynamic-biopsychosocial model was used as a theoretical framework to guide this study. Results:  Six predominant themes emerged that described the participants' experiences after ACLR: (1) hesitation and lack of confidence led to self-limiting tendencies, (2) awareness was heightened after ACLR, (3) expectations and assumptions about the recovery process influenced the decision to return to sport after ACLR, (4) coming to terms with ACL injury led to a reprioritization, (5) athletic participation helped reinforce intrinsic personal characteristics, and (6) having a strong support system both in and out of rehabilitation was a key factor in building a patient's confidence. We placed themes into components of the dynamic-biopsychosocial model to better understand how they influenced the return to sport. Conclusions:  After ACLR, the decision to return to sport was largely influenced by psychosocial factors. Factors including hesitancy, lack of confidence, and fear of reinjury are directly related to knee function and have the potential to be addressed in the rehabilitation setting. Other factors, such as changes in priorities or expectations, may be independent of physical function but remain relevant to the patient-clinician relationship and should be considered during postoperative rehabilitation.

Higher strength measures at both 3 and 6 months after ACLR were associated with greater self-reported knee function and greater readiness to return to functional activities at 6 months and ultimately earlier return to sport in adolescent athletes. These results provide evidence that self-reported outcome scores should be used as an additional screening tool in conjunction with quadriceps strength testing to help provide realistic recovery timeframes for adolescent patients.

Context: Psychosocial factors arising after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury may have a direct influence on an individual’s decision to return to sport after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). While there is ample evidence to suggest that deficits in quadriceps strength, neuromuscular control, and clinical functional tasks exist after ACLR, the root and contribution of psychological dysfunction to an individual’s success or return to sport after ACLR is still largely uncertain and unexplored. Given the discrepancy between successful functional outcomes and the percentage of athletes who return to sport, it is important to thoroughly address underlying factors, aside from physical function, that may be contributing to these lower return rates. Evidence Acquisition: Articles that reported on return to sport, psychological factors, and psychosocial factors after ACLR were collected from peer-reviewed sources available on Medline (1998 through August 2018). Search terms included the following: anterior cruciate ligament OR ACL AND return-to-sport OR return-to-activity, anterior cruciate ligament OR ACL AND psychological OR psychosocial OR biopsychosocial OR fear OR kinesiophobia OR self-efficacy, return-to-activity AND psychological OR psychosocial. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: Psychosocial factors relative to injury are important components of the rehabilitation process. To fully understand how psychosocial factors potentially influence return to sport, an athlete’s emotions, experiences, and perceptions during the rehabilitation process must be acknowledged and taken into consideration. Conclusion: Acknowledgment of these psychosocial factors allows clinicians to have a better understanding of readiness to return to sport from a psychological perspective. Merging of the current ACLR rehabilitation protocols with knowledge related to psychosocial factors creates a more dynamic, comprehensive approach in creating a positive and successful rehabilitation environment, which may help improve return-to-sport rates in individuals after ACLR.

Context: Distinct from the muscle atrophy that develops from inactivity or disuse, atrophy that occurs after traumatic joint injury continues despite the patient being actively engaged in exercise. Recognizing the multitude of factors and cascade of events that are present and negatively influence the regulation of muscle mass after traumatic joint injury will likely enable clinicians to design more effective treatment strategies. To provide sports medicine practitioners with the best strategies to optimize muscle mass, the purpose of this clinical review is to discuss the predominant mechanisms that control muscle atrophy for disuse and posttraumatic scenarios, and to highlight how they differ. Evidence Acquisition: Articles that reported on disuse atrophy and muscle atrophy after traumatic joint injury were collected from peer-reviewed sources available on PubMed (2000 through December 2019). Search terms included the following: disuse muscle atrophy OR disuse muscle mass OR anterior cruciate ligament OR ACL AND mechanism OR muscle loss OR atrophy OR neurological disruption OR rehabilitation OR exercise. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: We highlight that (1) muscle atrophy after traumatic joint injury is due to a broad range of atrophy-inducing factors that are resistant to standard resistance exercises and need to be effectively targeted with treatments and (2) neurological disruptions after traumatic joint injury uncouple the nervous system from muscle tissue, contributing to a more complex manifestation of muscle loss as well as degraded tissue quality. Conclusion: Atrophy occurring after traumatic joint injury is distinctly different from the muscle atrophy that develops from disuse and is likely due to the broad range of atrophy-inducing factors that are present after injury. Clinicians must challenge the standard prescriptive approach to combating muscle atrophy from simply prescribing physical activity to targeting the neurophysiological origins of muscle atrophy after traumatic joint injury.