The Role of Bracing in ACL Injuries: The Current Evidentiary State of Play

Ma, Richard; Sheth, Chirag; Fenkell, Blake; Büyük, Abdul Fettah

doi:10.1055/s-0042-1742304

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The complication rate of ACLR has been reported to be up to 25%. [ 38 - 40 ] Our complication rates were similar between groups (around 8%), comparable with data in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Yapıcı

Gür

Sarı

et al. 2022

Turk J Phys Med Rehab

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aims to compare the clinical results of patients rehabilitated with or without a rehabilitative knee brace (RKB) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Patients and methods: This retrospective, comparative study was conducted at between January 2013 and December 2017. A total of 119 patients (112 males, 7 females; mean age: 32.0±8.6 years; range, 18 to 45 years) with acute ACL ruptures treated with arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and rehabilitated with (n=56) or without RKB (n=63) participated in the study. The minimum follow-up time was 24 months. The ACL quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Tegner Activity Level Scale were used for the evaluation of the QoL, knee function, and activity level, respectively. The time to return to sports was recorded. The side-to-side difference in the anterior translation of the tibia was measured using a KT-1000 arthrometer. Results: The mean follow-up time was 38.4±9.1 (range, 24 to 56) months. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Regarding QoL, knee function, and activity level, no significant difference was observed between patients who used RKB and those who did not use it at the postoperative 12th month (p=0.95, p=0.56, p=0.98, respectively) and the latest follow-up (p=0.21, p=0.73, p=0.99, respectively). The mean time to return to sports (nearly 11 months for both groups) and side-to-side difference in the anterior tibial translation at the latest follow-up was also similar between groups (p=0.15 and p=0.15, respectively). There was no graft rupture during the follow-up in both groups. The complication rates were 7.9% and 7.1% for no brace and brace groups, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (p=0.87). Conclusion: According to the results of this study, there was no significant difference between the rehabilitative brace and no brace groups in clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction.

show abstract

“…The complication rate of ACLR has been reported to be up to 25%. [ 38 - 40 ] Our complication rates were similar between groups (around 8%), comparable with data in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Yapıcı

Gür

Sarı

et al. 2022

Turk J Phys Med Rehab

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft

Liu

Wang

et al. 2022

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS). Material and methods Forty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomized to two groups, 1) ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft (n = 20) or 2) ACLR using artificial LARS (n = 20). Proprioception was assessed with knee joint position sense (JPS) passive-passive test at 45° and 75° flexions, with the contralateral healthy knee as a control baseline to calculate the JPS error. Knee JPS absolute error was used as the main outcome variable and defined as the absolute difference between the reproduction and target angles. Results JPS error in both groups at 3 months after ACLR was significantly higher than that at 12 months. However, no significant difference in JPS error was detected between the LARS and autograft groups at either 3 or 12 months after ACLR. Analyzing JPS data by grouping patients according to whether ACLR was performed more or less than 1 year following injury regardless of graft type showed a statistically significant difference between the groups at 3 months, but not at 12 months, after ACLR. Patients receiving the graft within 1 year of injury had a lower JPS error than those receiving the graft more than 1 year after injury at 3 months. No complications were associated with either ACLR method. Conclusion ACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft or LARS artificial graft is similarly safe and effective for recovering knee proprioception.

show abstract

Brace-Free Rehabilitation after Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Tendon Autograft Is Not Inferior to Brace-Based Rehabilitation—A Randomised Controlled Trial

Schoepp

Ohmann

Wolfgang

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The postoperative use of a rehabilitative knee brace after isolated primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) using a hamstring tendon (HT) autograft is controversial. A knee brace may provide subjective safety but can cause damage if applied incorrectly. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a knee brace on clinical outcomes following isolated ACLR using HT autograft. Methods: In this prospective randomised trial, 114 adults (32.4 ± 11.5 years, 35.1% women) underwent isolated ACLR using HT autograft after primary ACL rupture. Patients were randomly assigned to wear either a knee brace (n = 58) or no brace (n = 56) for 6 weeks postoperatively. An initial examination was performed preoperatively, and at 6 weeks and 4, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score to measure participants’ subjective perceptions. Secondary endpoints included objective knee function assessed by IKDC, instrumented knee laxity measurements, isokinetic strength tests of the knee extensors and flexors, Lysholm Knee Score, Tegner Activity Score, Anterior Cruciate Ligament—Return to Sport after Injury Score, and quality of life determined by Short Form-36 (SF36). Results: There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in IKDC scores between the two study groups (3.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.39 to 7.97, p = 0.03 for evidence of non-inferiority of brace-free compared with brace-based rehabilitation). The difference in Lysholm score was 3.20 (95% CI −2.47 to 8.87); the difference in SF36 physical component score 0.09 (95% CI −1.93 to 3.03). In addition, isokinetic testing did not reveal any clinically relevant differences between the groups (n.s.). Conclusions: Brace-free rehabilitation is non-inferior to a brace-based protocol regarding physical recovery 1 year after isolated ACLR using HT autograft. Consequently, the use of a knee brace might be avoided after such a procedure. Level of Evidence: Level I, therapeutic study.

show abstract

The Role of Bracing in ACL Injuries: The Current Evidentiary State of Play

Cited by 3 publications

References 63 publications

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft

Brace-Free Rehabilitation after Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Tendon Autograft Is Not Inferior to Brace-Based Rehabilitation—A Randomised Controlled Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About