scholarly journals Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712093082 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean J. Meredith ◽  
Thomas Rauer ◽  
Terese L. Chmielewski ◽  
Christian Fink ◽  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Multidisciplinary Group ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Definition Of

Background: A precise and consistent definition of return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is lacking, and there is controversy surrounding the process of returning patients to sport and their previous activity level. Purpose: The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS after ACL injury and a description of the RTS continuum as well as provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary group of ACL experts convened as part of a consensus meeting. Consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi method. Literature review was performed to report the supporting evidence. Results: Key points include that RTS is characterized by achievement of the preinjury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to RTS and, ultimately, return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along an RTS continuum, with decision-making by a multidisciplinary group that incorporates objective physical examination data and validated and peer-reviewed RTS tests, which should involve functional assessment as well as psychological readiness. Consideration should be given to biological healing, contextual factors, and concomitant injuries. Conclusion: The resultant consensus statements and scientific rationale aim to inform the reader of the complex process of RTS after ACL injury that occurs along a dynamic continuum. Research is needed to determine the ideal RTS test battery, the best implementation of psychological readiness testing, and methods for the biological assessment of healing and recovery.

scholarly journals Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group

2021 ◽  
pp. jisakos-2020-000495
Author(s):  
Sean J Meredith ◽  
Thomas Rauer ◽  
Terese L Chmielewski ◽  
Christian Fink ◽  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Multidisciplinary Group ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectivesA precise and consistent definition of return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is lacking, and there is controversy surrounding the process of returning patients to sports and their previous activity level. The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury RTS Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS after ACL injury and description of the RTS continuum, as well as provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making.MethodsAn international, multidisciplinary group of ACL experts convened as part of a consensus meeting. Consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi method. Literature review was performed to report the supporting evidence.ResultsKey points include that RTS is characterised by achievement of the preinjury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to RTS, and ultimately return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along an RTS continuum with decision-making by a multidisciplinary group that incorporates objective physical examination data and validated and peer-reviewed RTS tests, which should involve functional assessment as well as psychological readiness. Consideration should be given to biological healing, contextual factors and concomitant injuries.ConclusionThe resultant consensus statements and scientific rationale aim to inform the reader of the complex process of RTS after ACL injury that occurs along a dynamic continuum. Research is needed to determine the ideal RTS test battery, the best implementation of psychological readiness testing and methods for the biological assessment of healing and recovery.

scholarly journals Treatment After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712093109
Author(s):  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
Benjamin B. Rothrauff ◽  
Lars Engebretsen ◽  
Andrew D. Lynch ◽  
Olufemi R. Ayeni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Anatomic Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best-practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus nonoperative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. There were 66 international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, who were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the scientific organizing committee and session chairs for the 3 working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements before the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Ultimately, 80% agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Overall, 9 statements achieved unanimous support, 2 reached strong consensus, 1 did not achieve consensus, and 1 was removed because of redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended because of the high risk of secondary meniscal and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight-plane activities, nonoperative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and nonoperative treatment with patients after an ACL injury.

scholarly journals Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 2390-2402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
◽  
Benjamin B. Rothrauff ◽  
Lars Engebretsen ◽  
Andrew D. Lynch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Operative Treatment ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Anatomic Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative vs. non-operative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study is to report the consensus statements on operative vs. non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organizing Committee and Session Chairs for the three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to the meeting and provided the initial agreement and comments on the statement via an online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Eighty percent agreement was defined a-priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative v. non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached the consensus during the Symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support, two reached strong consensus, one did not achieve consensus, and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight plane activities, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatments with patients after an ACL injury. Level of evidence V.

scholarly journals Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group

2021 ◽  
pp. jisakos-2020-000493
Author(s):  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
Benjamin B Rothrauff ◽  
Lars Engebretsen ◽  
Andrew D Lynch ◽  
Eleonor Svantesson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Operative Treatment ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Ligament Injury ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance towards consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus non-operative treatment for ACL injury.The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organising Committee and Session Chairs for the three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Eighty per cent agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative veresus non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support; two reached strong consensus; one did not achieve consensus; and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided.In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting and pivoting sports, early anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight plane activities, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomical ACLR is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatment with patients after an ACL injury.Level of evidence: V

scholarly journals Rehabilitation and Return to Sport Assessment after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Quantifying Joint Kinematics during Complex High-Speed Tasks through Wearable Sensors

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 2331
Author(s):  
Stefano Di Paolo ◽  
Nicola Francesco Lopomo ◽  
Francesco Della Villa ◽  
Gabriele Paolini ◽  
Giulio Figari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Excellent Agreement ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Wearable Sensors ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Wearable Sensor ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Full Body

The aim of the present study was to quantify joint kinematics through a wearable sensor system in multidirectional high-speed complex movements used in a protocol for rehabilitation and return to sport assessment after Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury, and to validate it against a gold standard optoelectronic marker-based system. Thirty-four healthy athletes were evaluated through a full-body wearable sensor (MTw Awinda, Xsens) and a marker-based optoelectronic (Vicon Nexus, Vicon) system during the execution of three tasks: drop jump, forward sprint, and 90° change of direction. Clinically relevant joint angles of lower limbs and trunk were compared through Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), and the Coefficient of Multiple Correlation (CMC). An excellent agreement (r > 0.94, CMC > 0.96) was found for knee and hip sagittal plane kinematics in all the movements. A fair-to-excellent agreement was found for frontal (r 0.55–0.96, CMC 0.63–0.96) and transverse (r 0.45–0.84, CMC 0.59–0.90) plane kinematics. Movement complexity slightly affected the agreement between the systems. The system based on wearable sensors showed fair-to-excellent concurrent validity in the evaluation of the specific joint parameters commonly used in rehabilitation and return to sport assessment after ACL injury for complex movements. The ACL professionals could benefit from full-body wearable technology in the on-field rehabilitation of athletes.

Assessing Physical Activity After ACL Injury: Moving Beyond Return to Sport

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110253
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuenze ◽  
Katherine Collins ◽  
Karin Allor Pfeiffer ◽  
Caroline Lisee
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Noncommunicable Diseases ◽  
Successful Recovery ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Context: Return to sport is widely utilized by sports medicine researchers and clinicians as a primary outcome of interest for successful recovery when working with young patients who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). While return-to-sport outcomes are effective at tracking progress post-ACLR, they are limited because they do not necessarily capture physical activity (PA) engagement, which is important to maintain knee joint health and reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, there is a critical need (1) to describe current PA participation and measurement recommendations; (2) to appraise common PA measurement approaches, including patient-reported outcomes and device-based methodologies; and (3) to provide clinical recommendations for future evaluation. Evidence Acquisition: Reports of patient-reported or device-based PA in patients with ACL injury were acquired and summarized based on a PubMed search (2000 through July 2020). Search terms included physical activity OR activity AND anterior cruciate ligament OR ACL. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: We highlight that (1) individuals with ACLR are 2.36 times less likely to meet the US Department of Health and Human Services PA recommendations even when reporting successful return to sport, (2) common patient-reported PA assessments have significant limitations in the data that can be derived, and (3) alternative patient-reported and device-based assessments may provide improved assessment of PA in this patient population. Conclusion: Clinicians and researchers have relied on return to sport status or self-reported PA participation via surveys. These approaches are not consistent with current recommendations for PA assessment and do not allow for comparison with contemporary PA recommendations or guidelines. Return to sport, patient-reported outcome measures, and device-based assessment approaches should be used in complementary manners to comprehensively assess PA participation after ACLR. However, appropriate techniques should be used when assessing PA in adult and adolescent populations.

Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport Is Associated With Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 857-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
April L. McPherson ◽  
Julian A. Feller ◽  
Timothy E. Hewett ◽  
Kate E. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Short Version ◽  
Cutoff Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Psychological responses after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and ACL reconstruction (ACLR) have been identified as predictors of return to sport but have not been investigated in relation to further injury. Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine whether psychological readiness to return to sport is associated with second ACL injury. It was hypothesized a priori that at both preoperative and 12-month postoperative time points, patients who sustained a second ACL injury would have lower psychological readiness than patients who did not have a second injury. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had a primary ACLR procedure between June 2014 and June 2016 completed the ACL–Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) (short version) scale before their ACLR and repeated the scale at 12 months after surgery to assess psychological readiness to return to sport. Patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years (range, 2-4 years) after surgery to determine further injury. The primary outcome was the relationship between ACL-RSI scores and the incidence of second ACL injury. Results: In 329 patients who returned to sport after ACLR, 52 (16%) sustained a second ACL injury. No difference in psychological readiness was observed at the preoperative time point, but patients who sustained a second injury trended toward lower psychological readiness at 12 months compared with noninjured patients (60.9 vs 67.2 points; P = .11). Younger (≤20 years) patients with injury had significantly lower psychological readiness to return to sport than young noninjured patients (60.8 vs 71.5 points; P = .02), but no difference was found in older patients (60.9 vs 64.6 points; P = .58). In younger patients, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed a cutoff score of 76.7 points with 90% sensitivity to identify younger patients who sustained a second ACL injury. Conclusion: Younger patients with lower psychological readiness are at higher risk for a second ACL injury after return to sport.

scholarly journals Decision to Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, Part I: A Qualitative Investigation of Psychosocial Factors

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 452-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie P. Burland ◽  
Jenny Toonstra ◽  
Jennifer L. Werner ◽  
Carl G. Mattacola ◽  
Dana M. Howell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Psychosocial Factors ◽  
Biopsychosocial Model ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document