Journey around the Notch: A Systematic Review on the History of ACL Reconstruction in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex E. White ◽  
Duncan Van Nest ◽  
Fotios P. Tjoumakaris ◽  
Kevin B. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
The United States ◽  
Operative Morbidity ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Acl Anatomy ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Drilling

AbstractThe evolution of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery, seemingly circular at times, informs and provides context for past and current controversies in ACL management. The purpose of this systematic review is to objectively summarize the historical course of ACL reconstruction and repair in the United States over the last 40 years. Femoral tunnel drilling and graft selection have evolved dramatically over the last few decades. An initial focus on restoring ACL anatomy was for a period sacrificed for decreased operative morbidity. However, recent developments in operative techniques aim to restore ACL anatomy while also achieving minimal operative morbidity. Despite this historically iterative process, there remains no perfect choice for the treatment of ACL tears. Continued research on ACL repair, anatomic graft placement, graft choice, and augmentation will help our patients over the next generation.

scholarly journals Deep Venous Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructive Surgery: What Is the Current State of Practice?

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. Keller ◽  
Vasilios Moutzouros ◽  
Joshua S. Dines ◽  
Charles A. Bush-Joseph ◽  
Orr Limpisvasti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Reconstructive Surgery ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Chemical Prophylaxis

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant perioperative risk with many common orthopaedic procedures. Currently, there is no standardized recommendation for the use of VTE prophylaxis during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This study sought to evaluate the current prophylactic practices of fellowship-trained sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. Hypothesis: Very few surgeons use perioperative VTE prophylaxis for ACL reconstructive surgery. Study Design: Survey. Methods: Surveys were emailed to the alumni networks of 4 large ACGME-accredited sports medicine fellowship programs. Questions were focused on their current use of chemical and nonchemical VTE prophylaxis. Results: Surveys were completed by 142 surgeons in the United States, yielding a response rate of 32%. Of those who responded, 50.7% stated that they routinely use chemical prophylaxis, with 95.5% of those using aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]). There was no standardized dosing protocol, with respondents using ASA 325 mg once (46%) or twice daily (26%) or ASA 81 mg once (18%) or twice (10%) daily. The most common reason for not including chemical prophylaxis within the reconstruction procedure was that it is unnecessary given the low risk of VTE. Physicians also based their prophylaxis regimen more on their own clinical experience than concern for litigation. Conclusion: Half of all sports medicine fellowship–trained surgeons surveyed routinely use chemical VTE prophylaxis after ACL reconstruction, with more than 90% of those using ASA. Of those using ASA, there was no prevailing dosing protocol. For those not using chemical prophylaxis, the most important reason was that it was felt to be unnecessary due to the risks outweighing the benefits. Those who do not regularly use chemical prophylaxis would be willing to, however, if a patient had a personal or family history of clotting disorder or is currently on birth control. Additionally, clinical experience was the primary driver for a current prophylaxis protocol. Clinical Relevance: This survey study evaluating the use of VTE prophylaxis with ACL reconstruction lends clinical insight to the current practice of a large, geographically diverse group of fellowship-trained sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons in the United States.

scholarly journals Comparison of Blood Flow Restriction Training versus Non-Occlusive Training in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Cristina Bobes Álvarez ◽  
Paloma Issa-Khozouz Santamaría ◽  
Rubén Fernández-Matías ◽  
Daniel Pecos-Martín ◽  
Alexander Achalandabaso-Ochoa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis (KOA) have been shown to have quadriceps muscle weakness and/or atrophy in common. The physiological mechanisms of blood flow restriction (BFR) training could facilitate muscle hypertrophy. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of BFR training on quadriceps cross-sectional area (CSA), pain perception, function and quality of life on these patients compared to a non-BFR training. A literature research was performed using Web of Science, PEDro, Scopus, MEDLINE, Dialnet, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases. The main inclusion criteria were that papers were English or Spanish language reports of randomized controlled trials involving patients with ACL reconstruction or suffering from KOA. The initial research identified 159 publications from all databases; 10 articles were finally included. The search was conducted from April to June 2020. Four of these studies found a significant improvement in strength. A significant increase in CSA was found in two studies. Pain significantly improved in four studies and only one study showed a significant improvement in functionality/quality of life. Low-load training with BFR may be an effective option treatment for increasing quadriceps strength and CSA, but more research is needed.

Twenty-Year Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Prospectively Collected Data

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110273
Author(s):  
Joshua S. Everhart ◽  
Sercan Yalcin ◽  
Kurt P. Spindler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Function ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Several long-term (≥20 years) follow-up studies after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have been published in recent years, allowing for a systematic evaluation of outcomes. Purpose: To summarize outcomes at ≥20 years after ACL reconstruction and identify patient and surgical factors that affect these results. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Prospective studies of primary ACL reconstructions with hamstring or bone–patellar tendon—bone (BTB) autograft via an arthroscopic or a mini-open technique and with a mean follow-up of ≥20 years were identified. When possible, the mean scores for each outcome measure were calculated. Factors identified in individual studies as predictive of outcomes were described. Results: Five studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 2012 patients. The pooled mean follow-up for patient-reported outcome measures was 44.2% (range, 29.6%-92.7%) and in-person evaluation was 33.2% (range, 29.6%-48.9%). Four studies (n = 584) reported graft tears at a mean rate of 11.8% (range, 2%-18.5%) and 4 studies (n = 773) reported a contralateral ACL injury rate of 12.2% (range, 5.8%-30%). Repeat non-ACL arthroscopic surgery (4 studies; n = 177) to the ipsilateral knee occurred in 10.4% (range, 9.5%-18.3%) and knee arthroplasty (1 study; n = 217) in 5%. The pooled mean of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee function (IKDC) score was 79.1 (SD, 21.8 [3 studies; n = 644]). In 2 studies (n?= 221), 57.5% of patients continued to participate in strenuous activities. The IKDC-objective score was normal or nearly normal in 82.3% (n = 496; 3 studies), with low rates of clinically significant residual laxity. Moderate-severe radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) (IKDC grade C or D) was present in 25.9% of patients (n = 605; 3 studies). Medial meniscectomy is associated with increased risk of radiographic OA. Radiographic OA severity is associated with worse patient-reported knee function, but the association with knee pain is unclear. Conclusion: Currently available prospective evidence for ACL reconstruction with hamstring or BTB autograft provides several insights into outcomes at 20 years. The rates of follow-up at 20 years range from 30% to 93%. IKDC-objective scores were normal or nearly normal in 82% and the mean IKDC-subjective score was 79 points.

Timeline for Maximal Subjective Outcome Improvement After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 2501-2509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avinesh Agarwalla ◽  
Richard N. Puzzitiello ◽  
Joseph N. Liu ◽  
Gregory L. Cvetanovich ◽  
Anirudh K. Gowd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Clinical Significance ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are one of the most common traumatic knee injuries experienced by athletes. Return to sport is considered the pinnacle endpoint among patients receiving ACL reconstruction. However, at the time of return to sport, patients may not be participating at their previous levels of function, as defined by clinical metrics. Purpose: To establish when patients perceive maximal subjective medical improvement according to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted to identify studies that reported sequential PROMs up to a minimum of 2 years after ACL reconstruction. Pooled analysis was conducted for PROMs at follow-up points of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Clinically significant improvement was determined between pairs of intervals with the minimal clinically important difference. Results: This review contains 30 studies including 2253 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Clinically significant improvement in the KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) was seen up to 1 year after ACL reconstruction, but no clinical significance was noted from 1 to 2 years. Clinically significant improvement in the IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) and Lysholm questionnaires was seen up to 6 months postoperatively, but no clinical significance was noted beyond that. Conclusion: After ACL reconstruction, maximal subjective medical improvement is established 1 year postoperatively, with no further perceived clinical improvement beyond this time point according to current PROMs. The KOOS may be a more responsive metric to subjective improvements in this patient cohort than other patient-reported outcomes, such as the IKDC and Lysholm. Clinical Relevance: After ACL reconstruction, patients perceive interval subjective improvements until 1 year postoperatively.

scholarly journals Current Trends Among US Surgeons in the Identification, Treatment, and Time of Repair for Medial Meniscal Ramp Lesions at the Time of ACL Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596711982726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas N. DePhillipo ◽  
Lars Engebretsen ◽  
Robert F. LaPrade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Acl Surgery

Background: Given the potential hidden nature of medial meniscal ramp lesions and the controversy regarding treatment, it is important to understand the current trends regarding the identification and treatment strategies of meniscal ramp lesions by the leading surgeons and educators in the field of sports medicine. Purpose: To better understand the current trends in orthopaedic surgery regarding arthroscopic identification and treatment of medial meniscal ramp lesions at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was sent in a blinded fashion to 91 directors of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship training programs in the United States. Participants’ email addresses were obtained through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine directory of current fellowship program directors. Inclusion criteria were only those surgeons who currently performed ACL reconstruction surgery. Exclusion criteria were those surgeons who did not perform ACL reconstruction or who chose to opt out of the survey. Results: Overall, 19 surgeons opted out of the survey; 36 responded from the remaining 72 surveys (50%). The majority (n = 31, 86%) reported routinely checking for a medial meniscal ramp lesion via inspection of the posteromedial meniscocapsular junction during an ACL reconstruction. The most common repair technique cited was all-inside (n = 24, 66.7%), followed by inside-out (n = 8, 22.2%). Three (8%) surgeons indicated that they did not repair meniscal ramp lesions. Regarding surgical treatment (repair vs no treatment), the majority reported using the extent of the tear (89%; partial vs full thickness) and the stability of the tear upon probing (81%) as the main criteria for intraoperative decision making. Nineteen (52.8%) surgeons required a mean time of <15 minutes for meniscal ramp repair; 16 surgeons (44.4%), 15 to 30 minutes; and 1 surgeon (2.8%), 30 to 45 minutes. Conclusion: This study provides insight regarding meniscal ramp tear identification, treatment, and repair strategies from the fellowship directors of sports medicine orthopaedic surgery in the United States. Such information may be useful for current orthopaedic surgeons to advance their practice according to the current trends surrounding ACL reconstruction and medial meniscal ramp repair.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Subsequent Meniscal Surgery After Successful Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (14) ◽  
pp. 3525-3533
Author(s):  
Yuka Kimura ◽  
Eiji Sasaki ◽  
Yuji Yamamoto ◽  
Shizuka Sasaki ◽  
Eiichi Tsuda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Laxity ◽  
Meniscal Surgery ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Femoral Tunnel Drilling ◽  
Primary Acl Reconstruction

Background: One of the goals of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a meniscal protective effect on the knee. Despite the advancement of ACL reconstruction techniques, subsequent meniscal tears after ACL reconstruction remain a problem, and the risk factors for recurring lesions are still unclear. Purpose: To investigate the incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after primary ACL reconstruction without revision ACL surgery and to determine the risk factors associated with this reoperation. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Overall, 518 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2012 at one instution participated in this study. Data on body mass index, graft type and femoral tunnel-drilling technique of ACL reconstruction, and location and type of meniscal injury and its treatment at ACL reconstruction were collected from medical records. Clinical outcomes were investigated, including side-to-side difference of anterior laxity, pivot-shift grade, and subsequent meniscal surgery without ACL insufficiency (at minimum 2-year follow-up). Results: The prevalence of tears to the medial meniscus (MM) at the primary ACL reconstruction was 43.6% (226/518), 140 of which were repaired; on the contrary, tears of the lateral meniscus (LM) had a prevalence of 55.8% (289/518), 42 of which were repaired. At a mean 30.3 months (range, 8-124 months) after ACL reconstruction, 20 patients (3.9%; 14 MM tears, 3 LM tears, 3 MM + LM tears) required meniscal surgery without ACL reinjury or recurrence of instability. Of these, 14 MMs and 3 LMs had been repaired at primary ACL reconstruction. The failure rates of repaired MM and LM were 10.0% (14/140) and 7.1% (3/42), respectively. The failure rate of MM repair using the all-inside technique (6/36) was significantly higher compared with no treatment, inside-out repair, or partial resection ( P = .045). In multiple regression analysis, the presence of MM injury at the time of ACL reconstruction (odds ratio [OR], 7.81; P = .003), the side-to-side difference of postoperative anterior tibial translation (OR, 1.91; P = .032), and follow-up period after ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.02; P = .003) were risk factors of subsequent meniscal surgery after ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after successful ACL reconstruction was <5%. Presence of MM tear at the time of ACL reconsturuction, small amount of increased anterior laxity, and long-term period after ACL reconstruction were predictive of subsequent meniscal surgery.

Surgical Management of Simultaneous Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Patellar Tendon Ruptures: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (09) ◽  
pp. 875-883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Meheux ◽  
Robert Jack ◽  
Patrick McCulloch ◽  
David Lintner ◽  
Joshua Harris
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The One

AbstractThis study performs a systematic review to determine (1) if a significant difference exists in return to preinjury activity level between one- and two-stage treatment of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and patellar tendon (PT) tears; and (2) if a significant difference exists in the number of postoperative complications between the two differing surgical treatment approaches. A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered on PROSPERO. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, and Sport Discus were searched for English language level I–IV evidence studies on either one- (simultaneous) or two-stage (sequential) surgical treatment of simultaneously sustained ipsilateral ACL and PT tears. The approach to initial evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes were qualitatively analyzed. Methodological quality assessment of all included studies was completed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess quality of evidence and provide strength of recommendation. Statistical analyses were done using Fischer's exact test. Eleven articles (18 patients; 83% males; mean age, 31.1 ± 10.1 years; mean follow-up, 2.2 ± 1.7 years; and mean MINORS 7.8/16) were analyzed. Eight patients had a one-stage procedure (primary PT repair and ACL reconstruction), and 10 patients underwent a two-stage procedure (primary PT repair first followed by ACL reconstruction) with mean 28 ± 45.7 weeks (5 weeks–3 years) between surgeries. The rate for return to preinjury activity level after surgery was not significantly different between one- (88%) and two-stage (100%) (p = 0.444). There was a significantly higher complication rate (p = 0.023) in the one-stage (stiffness, instability, and patella baja) versus two-stage surgery (no complications). There was no significant difference in return to preinjury activity level between one- and two-stage PT repair and ACL reconstruction. However, the one-stage combined surgery had a significantly higher complication rate compared with two-stage surgery. The level of evidence is IV.

scholarly journals Transportal versus all-inside techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Bhimani ◽  
Reza Shahriarirad ◽  
Keivan Ranjbar ◽  
Amirhossein Erfani ◽  
Soheil Ashkani-Esfahani
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Bony Tissue ◽  
Surgical Technical ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Semitendinosus Graft

Abstract Background Transportal (TP) and all-inside techniques (AIT) are the most commonly used anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction procedures in current clinical practice. However, there is an ongoing debate over which procedure is superior. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications of these two techniques to propose recommendations for future application. Our primary hypothesis was that AIT is a superior ACLR technique compared to TP. Methods A systematic literature review, using PRISMA guidelines, was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, up to February 2021 to identify studies focusing on AIT and TP techniques of ACL reconstruction. We excluded animal experiments, cadaveric studies, retrospective studies, case reports, technical notes, and studies without quantitative data. Patients’ characteristics, surgical technical features, along with postoperative follow-up and complications were extracted and reported accordingly. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS). Results A total of 44 studies were selected for this review, of which four were comparative studies. A total of 923 patients underwent AIT and 1678 patients underwent the TP technique for ACLR. A single semitendinosus graft was commonly used in the AIT compard to combined semitendinosus and gracilis graft in the TP group. The postoperative increase in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, KT-1000, and Short Form-12 (physical and mental) scores were similar in the AIT group and the TP group. Contrastingly, the VAS pain score was significantly lower in the AIT group compared to the TP group. Furthermore, the pooled complication rates from all studies were similar between the two groups (AIT: 54 patients, 8.26% vs. PT: 55 patients, 6.62%). However, the four studies that prospectively compared AIT and TP techniques showed lesser complications in the AIT group than the TP group. Conclusion Since the future trend in orthopedic surgery is toward less invasive and patients’ satisfaction with good outcomes, AIT is a good alternative method considering preserving bony tissue and gracilis tendon with less post-operative pain, along with more knee flexor strength and equal outcomes compared to conventional ACL reconstruction surgery. Level of Evidence II.

Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Relationship With Meniscal Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652096448
Author(s):  
Apostolos D. Prodromidis ◽  
Chrysoula Drosatou ◽  
Georgios C. Thivaios ◽  
Nasri Zreik ◽  
Charalambos P. Charalambous
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Reconstruction Surgery ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures are common, but the ideal timing for ACL reconstruction after injury is unclear with regard to meniscal insult. Purpose: To determine whether there is a relationship between timing from ACL rupture to ACL reconstruction and development of meniscal tears within this period. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken independently by 2 reviewers using the Cochrane method for systematic reviews in 5 online databases. The reviewers performed independent data extraction and assessment of risk of bias and study quality. The search included any comparative study, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of an adult population, that assessed the relationship between timing of ACL reconstruction surgery and rates of meniscal tears. Results: After screening, 12 studies (No. of participants = 3042) out of 3390 records were included for analysis: 3 RCTs (n = 272), 2 prospective cohort studies (n = 307), and 7 retrospective cohort studies (n = 2463). In analysis of these studies, rates of reported meniscal tears were compared for ACL procedures performed at 3 and 6 months after injury. Meta-analysis of 5 studies (n = 2012) showed that ACL reconstruction performed >3 months after injury was associated with a higher rate of medial meniscal tears compared with ACL reconstruction performed within 3 months of injury (estimated OR, 2.235; 95% CI, 1.183-4.223; P = .013) but not with a higher rate of lateral meniscal tears. Similarly, meta-analysis of 4 studies (n = 990) showed that ACL reconstruction performed >6 months after injury was associated with a higher rate of medial meniscal tears compared with ACL reconstruction performed within 6 months of injury (estimated OR, 2.487; 95% CI, 1.241-4.984; P = .01) but not with a higher rate of lateral meniscal tears. Conclusion: Our results suggest that delay of ACL reconstruction surgery >3 months after injury is associated with a higher rate of medial meniscal tears within this prereconstruction time frame. Further high-quality prospective studies may help determine whether this is a causal effect. However, based on current evidence, in those patients for whom ACL reconstruction is indicated, ACL reconstruction within 3 months of injury may be recommended. Registration: CRD42016032846 (PROSPERO)

scholarly journals Physical prognostic factors predicting outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e033429
Author(s):  
Andrew Middlebrook ◽  
Sheree Bekker ◽  
Nicola Middlebrook ◽  
Alison B Rushton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Predicting Outcome ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

IntroductionInjuries of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are a common musculoskeletal complication and can cause significant reduction in patient function and quality of life. Many undergo ACL reconstruction, with high-quality rehabilitation key to successful outcome. Knowledge of physical prognostic factors, such as quadriceps strength, is crucial to inform rehabilitation and has important implications for outcome following ACL reconstruction. However, these factors predicting outcome are poorly defined. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to establish physical prognostic factors predictive of outcome in adults following ACL reconstruction. Outcome will be subdivided into two groups of outcome measures, patient-reported and performance-based. Physical prognostic factors of interest will reflect a range of domains and may be modifiable/non-modifiable. Results will help decide most appropriate management and assist in planning and tailoring preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation.Methods and analysisThis systematic review protocol is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, key journals and grey literature will be searched from inception to July 2019. Prospective cohort studies including participants aged ≥16 years who have undergone ACL reconstruction will be included, with articles focusing on multi-ligament reconstructions and ACL repair surgery, or not published in English excluded. Two independent reviewers will conduct searches, assess study eligibility, extract data, assess risk of bias (Quality in Prognostic Studies tool) and quantify overall quality of evidence (modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines). If possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted, otherwise a narrative synthesis will ensue focusing on prognostic factors, risk of bias of included studies and strength of association with outcomes.Ethics and disseminationFindings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and locally to physiotherapy departments. Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019127732.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document