Frühphase nach Rekonstruktion des vorderen Kreuzbandes

Albrecht, Welf Leopold; Valle, Christina; Praetorius, Arthur

doi:10.1007/s43205-023-00195-x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different phases of rehabilitation following ACLR have been defined [8][9][10]. During the early postoperative period, pain-free, full range of motion (ROM) with safe walking is paramount, whereas late rehabilitation focuses on the restoration of full knee function and safe return to work, sport, and competition [11,12]. During the early postoperative period (up to 12 weeks), anti-inflammation and protection of the tendon graft during ligamentization must be balanced with a potential loss of range of motion and hypotrophy of the active stabilizers [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recurrent Instability Rate and Subjective Knee Function following Accelerated Rehabilitation after ACL Reconstruction in Comparison to a Conservative Rehabilitation Protocol

Deichsel,

Oeckenpöhler,

Raschke

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The Purpose of the present study was to assess the outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with an accelerated rehabilitation protocol and to compare it to a conservative rehabilitation protocol. It was hypothesized that an accelerated rehabilitation protocol, including brace-free early weight bearing, would result in a higher rate of recurrent instability and revision surgery compared to a conservative rehabilitation protocol. Methods: From 2016 to 2017, two different rehabilitation protocols for isolated ACLR were used at a high-volume knee surgery center. A total of 65 consecutive patients with isolated hamstring ACLR, of whom n = 33 had been treated with an accelerated (AccRehab) and n = 32 with a conservative rehabilitation protocol (ConRehab), were retrospectively included in the study. Patients were evaluated for recurrent instability, revision surgery, and other complications at a mean follow-up period of 64 ± 7.4 months. In addition, Tegner Activity Scale, Lysholm Score, and IKDC-subjective Score were evaluated. Statistical comparison between the two groups was performed utilizing Fisher’s exact test and Student’s t-test. Results: Mean age (29.3 vs. 26.6 years) and preoperative Tegner Score (6.4 vs. 5.9) were comparable between both groups. At 64 ± 7.4 months after ACLR, six cases of recurrent instability were reported in the AccRehab group (18%) in comparison to three cases (9%) in the ConRehab group (p = n.s.). There was no significant difference regarding revision surgery and further complications. Furthermore, no significant difference was found between both groups regarding Tegner (5.5 ± 1.9 vs. 5.5 ± 1.2), Lysholm (93.6 ± 6.3 vs. 89.3 ± 10.7), and IKDC score (89.7 ± 7.9 vs. 86.7 ± 12.1). Conclusion: No significant disadvantage of an accelerated rehabilitation protocol following ACLR was found in terms of recurrent instability rate, revision surgery, or patient-reported outcome. However, a trend towards a higher reinstability rate was found for an accelerated rehabilitation protocol. Future level one trials evaluating brace-free early weight bearing following ACLR are desirable.

show abstract