scholarly journals Good to Excellent Functional Short-Term Outcome and Low Revision Rates Following Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Using Suture Augmentation

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 3068
Author(s):  
Kristian Nikolaus Schneider ◽  
Benedikt Schliemann ◽  
Georg Gosheger ◽  
Christoph Theil ◽  
Jan Weller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Ikdc Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using suture augmentation (SA) in 93 consecutive patients (67 female) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients’ outcomes were determined using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score (LS) and Tegner score (TS). Knee-laxity was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Eighty-eight patients (67 female, mean age 42 years ± standard deviation (SD) 13) were available for follow-up after a mean time of 21 months (range 12–39). Three patients (3%) underwent revision surgery and were excluded from functional analysis. The mean IKDC score was 87.4 ± 11, mean LS was 92.6 ± 11, mean pre-traumatic TS was 6 ± 2 and mean postoperative TS was 6 ± 2, with a mean difference (TSDiff) of 1 ± 1. The interval from injury to surgery had no significant impact on the postoperative IKDC (p = 0.228), LS (p = 0.377) and TSDiff (p = 0.572). Patients’ age (>40 years), BMI (>30) and coexisting ligament or meniscal injuries did not seem to influence postoperative functional results. Primary ACL repair using SA provides good to excellent functional outcomes with a low probability of revision surgery at a minimum of 12 months.

scholarly journals Satisfactory patient-reported outcomes at 5 years following primary repair with suture tape augmentation for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme P. Hopper ◽  
Joanna M. S. Aithie ◽  
Joanne M. Jenkins ◽  
William T. Wilson ◽  
Gordon M. Mackay
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Activity Scale ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Suture Tape

Abstract Purpose An enhanced understanding of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) healing and advancements in arthroscopic instrumentation has resulted in a renewed interest in ACL repair. Augmentation of a ligament repair with suture tape reinforces the ligament and acts as a secondary stabilizer. This study assesses the 5-year patient-reported outcomes of primary repair with suture tape augmentation for proximal ACL tears. Methods Thirty-seven consecutive patients undergoing ACL repair with suture tape augmentation for an acute proximal rupture were prospectively followed up for a minimum of 5 years. Patients with midsubstance and distal ruptures, poor ACL tissue quality, retracted ACL remnants and multiligament injuries were excluded. Patient-reported outcome measures were collated using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS-pain), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) and the Marx Activity Scale. Patients with a re-rupture were identified. Results Three patients were lost to follow-up leaving 34 patients in the final analysis (91.9%). The mean KOOS at 5 years was 88.5 (SD 13.8) which improved significantly from 48.7 (SD 18.3) preoperatively (p < 0.01). The VAS score improved from 2.3 (SD 1.7) to 1.0 (SD 1.5) and the VR-12 score improved from 35.9 (SD 10.3) to 52.4 (SD 5.9) at 5 years (p < 0.01). However, the Marx activity scale decreased from 12.4 (SD 3.4) pre-injury to 7.3 (SD 5.2) at 5 years (p = 0.02). Six patients had a re-rupture (17.6%) and have since undergone a conventional ACL reconstruction for their revision surgery with no issues since then. These patients were found to be younger and have higher initial Marx activity scores than the rest of the cohort (p < 0.05). Conclusion Primary repair with suture tape augmentation for proximal ACL tears demonstrates satisfactory outcomes in 28 patients (82.4%) at 5-year follow-up. Six patients sustained a re-rupture and have no ongoing problems following treatment with a conventional ACL reconstruction. These patients were significantly younger and had higher initial Marx activity scores. Level of evidence Level IV.

scholarly journals Primary ACL Repair vs Reconstruction: Investigating the Current Conventional Wisdom

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (6_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriella Bucci ◽  
Michael Begg ◽  
Kevin Pillifant ◽  
Steven B. Singleton
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Arthroscopic Technique ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Injured Knee

BACKGROUND: “Why try to convert other collagen substitutes into ligament if the original can be preserved?” said Sherman1. Nowadays, reconstruction became the gold standard treatment for ACL injuries. Despite current treatment, secondary knee osteoarthritis has been described in more than 70% of the injured patients after 10 years follow up.2 Recent studies have reported that tears involving the proximal ACL have an intrinsic healing response. This response has been compared to the one observed in MCL injuries.3, 4. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to initiate a scientific analysis of our experience in patients diagnosed with an acute, proximal ACL tear treated with a primary repair arthroscopic technique. We suggest the creation of a symposium that reconsiders the ACL repair as a tool for treatment, on a selected subset of patients. METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively the data of 12 consecutive patients diagnosed clinically and radiologically (MRI) with proximal ACL tears in our clinic. The inclusion criteria were: proximal ACL tear (type 1 tear in Sherman´s classification), good remaining ACL quality tissue and less than 3 months from injury. The mean age at time of surgery was 33 years (16 to 55). Patients included in this study are athletes either at an amateur or professional level. The technique consists of an anatomical reinsertion of native ACL by reinforcing the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the ACL with a series of high strength locking Bunnell-type sutures, moving up the ligament from distal to proximal with an arthroscopic suture passer. The normal ACL insertional footprint within the notch is then debrided to provide a bleeding surface for healing. Finally, the torn ligament is opposed to the native footprint using 1-2 absorbable anchors that recreate the anatomic bundle insertional sites of the native ACL. RESULTS: Associated injuries were found in 7 of the 12 patients, these included 4 knees with lateral and 1 with medial meniscal tear which were repaired in the same procedure. Also, one knee had a medial bucket handle tear, partial meniscectomy was performed, and one knee with a combined ACL/MCL injury in which the MCL was simultaneously repaired. In our ongoing series, were excluded patients that had sustained complex knee injuries with multi-ligament damage (except ACL/MCL injuries), those with ACL re-ruptures, and previous knee surgery with cartilage repair procedures. Validated functional outcomes scores were collected after a mean follow up of 20 months (14-26). For the IKDC subjective score 11 of 12 patients rated their knees as normal or nearly normal. Lachman and Pivot Shift was negative in all patients. Lysholm score postoperatively averaged 93.5 ± 7; preoperatively 48 ± 7. Tegner preinjury 7.5 ± 1.2 postinjury: 7 ± 1.4. The KT-1000 knee arthrometer, objectively measured < 3 mm of anterior tibial motion relative to the femur in the injured knee compared to the non-injured knee at all levels of force, including manual max tests, in all patients included in the study. No complications or further surgeries are reported up to date. CONCLUSION: The keys to success include: Proper patient selection, early intervention, all arthroscopic technique, appropriate suture control of the torn ACL fibers, and stable opposition to a bleeding bone surface at the native attachment site within the femoral notch. Long-term data is pending. However, basic science and early clinical studies are promising. REFERENCES Mark F. Sherman, MD, Lawernce Lieber, MD, Joel R. Bonamo, MD, Luga Podesta, MD, Ira Reiter, RPT., The long-term followup of primary anterior cruciate ligament repair, 1991, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 19, No 3. Martha M. Murray, MD. Current Status and Potential for Primary ACL Repair. 2009. Clin Ssports Med. Duy Tan Nguyen, Tamara H. Ramwadhdoebe, Cor P. van der Hart, Leendert Blankervoort, Paul Peter Tak, Cornelis Niek van Dijk., Intrinsic Healing Response of the Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament: An Histological Study of Reattached ACL Remnants, 2014, Journal of Orthopaedic Research. Martha M. Murray, MD, Braden C. Fleming, Ph.D., Use of a Bioactive Scaffold to Stimulate ACL Healing Also Minimizes Post-traumatic Osteoarthritis after Surgery, 2014, American Journal of Sports Medicine. Primary ACL Repair vs Reconstruction: Investigating the Current Conventional Wisdom

scholarly journals Preliminary Results in Anatomic All-inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (s2) ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Octav Russu ◽  
Tiberiu Bățagă ◽  
Andrei-Marian Feier ◽  
Radu Prejbeanu ◽  
Radu Fleaca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Lysholm Score ◽  
X Rays ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Introduction: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is one of the most common lesions in knee traumatology; therefore the number of ACL reconstructions is increasing worldwide. Usually, an anteromedial (AM) accessory portal is required in anatomical positioning of the femoral tunnel, which is not absolutely necessary in this technique. Aim: Assessment of all-inside ACL reconstruction preliminary clinical results with adjustable loops and buttons on both femoral and tibial surfaces. Method: Our prospective study included 28 subjects (19 male, 9 female) with chronic ACL ruptures. The mean age of the study population was 27.72 ± 8.23 years. In all cases ACL reconstruction was carried out with the use of quadrupled semitendinosus auto-grafts with adjustable loops and buttons on the femoral and tibial surfaces and anatomic placement of both tunnels, using an outside-in technique, with flipcutters (Arthrex®). Clinical and radiological evaluations were carried out before surgery and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, with the Lysholm scoring system, the Tegner activity scale and anterior-posterior and latero-lateral X-rays. Anterior knee laxity was measured in 25° of flexion using a portable arthrometer (RolimeterTM, Aircast®) and maximum manual force. Results: During the final follow-up, the Lysholm score was good and excellent in 27 cases, with a mean Lysholm score of 95.55 ± 4.63; all results were classified as good. The mean preoperative Tegner activity score was 3.46 ± 1.71 (range: 1-7), and the post-operative mean score was 5.75 ± 2.24 (range: 2-10). We found no graft ruptures. Preoperative knee laxity measurements showed a mean displacement of 11.5 ± 3.1 mm and side-to-side differences of 5.6 ± 3.5 mm, while the postoperative measurements at the last follow-up were 6.3 ± 1.54 mm and 2.65 ± 1.86 mm, respectively. Conclusion: Short-term clinical outcomes of all-inside ACL restoration with anatomic placement femoral and tibial tunnels seem to recommend this surgical option, with good subjective and objective results. Additional research will have to prove the long-term success.

scholarly journals Risk Factors for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Frequency With Which Patients Change Surgeons

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. 232596711988048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Sutherland ◽  
Mark Clatworthy ◽  
Kevin Chang ◽  
Richard Rahardja ◽  
Simon W. Young
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Primary Procedure ◽  
Subsequent Revision ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Revision surgery is a known complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), but the proportion of patients who seek a different surgeon for their revision procedure is unknown. Purpose: To determine the rate and risk factors for revision ACLR in New Zealand and to find the proportion of patients undergoing revision ACLR who see a different surgeon compared with their primary procedure as well as the factors that may influence this decision. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Data from New Zealand’s single government insurer, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), were analyzed. All primary ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014 were evaluated, and revision ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, were evaluated to allow for a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Cases undergoing subsequent revision were divided into those with the same or a different surgeon compared with the primary procedure. Risk factors for revision and change of surgeons were assessed, including age, sex, time from injury to surgery, time between primary and revision procedures, surgeon volume, and ethnicity. Results: A total of 15,212 primary ACLR procedures were recorded in 14,926 patients. The mean patient age was 29.2 years, and 61% were male patients. There were 676 subsequent revision procedures and 510 contralateral procedures during the study period, resulting in a 5-year survival rate of 95.5% for the ACL graft and 96.5% for the contralateral ACL. Risk factors for revision surgery included male sex, age <20 years, and <1 year from injury to surgery. Of the revision procedures, 44.5% (n = 301) were performed by a different surgeon compared with primary ACLR. For primary ACLR procedures performed by low-volume surgeons, 75.0% of patients requiring revision ACLR changed surgeons, compared with 21.5% for high-volume surgeons (≤10 vs >50 primary ACLR/y; hazard ratio, 10.70 [95% CI, 6.01-19.05]; P < .001). Other factors associated with change of surgeons included older age, longer time between primary and revision surgery, and Asian and Maori ethnicities. Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients change surgeons when requiring revision ACLR. In the absence of formal follow-up systems such as registries, surgeons, particularly those with a low volume of ACLRs, may underestimate their personal revision rate.

scholarly journals Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Is Not Inferior to Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at 2 Years: Results of a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 1305-1315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha M. Murray ◽  
Braden C. Fleming ◽  
Gary J. Badger ◽  
Christina Freiberger ◽  
Rachael Henderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Subjective Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Background: Preclinical studies suggest that for complete midsubstance anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, a suture repair of the ACL augmented with a protein implant placed in the gap between the torn ends (bridge-enhanced ACL repair [BEAR]) may be a viable alternative to ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patients treated with BEAR would have a noninferior patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] Subjective Score; prespecified noninferiority margin, –11.5 points) and instrumented anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity (prespecified noninferiority margin, +2-mm side-to-side difference) and superior muscle strength at 2 years after surgery when compared with patients who underwent ACLR with autograft. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: One hundred patients (median age, 17 years; median preoperative Marx activity score, 16) with complete midsubstance ACL injuries were enrolled and underwent surgery within 45 days of injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either BEAR (n = 65) or autograft ACLR (n = 35 [33 with quadrupled semitendinosus-gracilis and 2 with bone–patellar tendon–bone]). Outcomes—including the IKDC Subjective Score, the side-to-side difference in instrumented AP knee laxity, and muscle strength—were assessed at 2 years by an independent examiner blinded to the procedure. Patients were unblinded after their 2-year visit. Results: In total, 96% of the patients returned for 2-year follow-up. Noninferiority criteria were met for both the IKDC Subjective Score (BEAR, 88.9 points; ACLR, 84.8 points; mean difference, 4.1 points [95% CI, –1.5 to 9.7]) and the side-to-side difference in AP knee laxity (BEAR, 1.61 mm; ACLR, 1.77 mm; mean difference, –0.15 mm [95% CI, –1.48 to 1.17]). The BEAR group had a significantly higher mean hamstring muscle strength index than the ACLR group at 2 years (98.2% vs 63.2%; P < .001). In addition, 14% of the BEAR group and 6% of the ACLR group had a reinjury that required a second ipsilateral ACL surgical procedure ( P = .32). Furthermore, the 8 patients who converted from BEAR to ACLR in the study period and returned for the 2-year postoperative visit had similar primary outcomes to patients who had a single ipsilateral ACL procedure. Conclusion: BEAR resulted in noninferior patient-reported outcomes and AP knee laxity and superior hamstring muscle strength when compared with autograft ACLR at 2-year follow-up in a young and active cohort. These promising results suggest that longer-term studies of this technique are justified. Registration: NCT02664545 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

scholarly journals The Effects of Tunnel Position in Patients Who Underwent the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Transfix Method on the Clinical and Functional Results

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0005
Author(s):  
Tayyar Taylan Öz ◽  
Kaya Akan ◽  
İrfan Esenkaya ◽  
Samet Erinç ◽  
Burak Özturan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Tibial Tunnel ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ikdc Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Tunnel Positions

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyse the effects of femoral and tibial tunnel localization in the sagittal plane in the patients who underwent the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transfix method in our clinic on the clinical and functional results. Methods: 36 patients underwent the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction performed by different surgeons with the same method between January 2010 and December 2014 in Istanbul Medeniyet University Goztepe Training and Research Hospital Orthopaedics and Traumatology Clinic. Femoral and tibial tunnel localization was conducted on the lateral radiography of the knee of the patients. The clinical evaluations of the patients were carried out with lysholm score, IKDC score, tegner activity score, extensor and flexor measured by CYBEX CSMI dynamometer for muscular strength loss. Results: It was observed that femoral tunnel positions of 47.2% (n=17) of the patients were at the intended location while the ones of 52.8% (n=19) were in anterior. Tibial tunnel positions of 52.8% (n=19) of the patients were at the intended location while the ones of 33.3% (n=12) were in anterior, and the ones of 13.9% (n=5) were in posterior. The postoperative lysholm scores of F (+) T (+) group were significantly higher than F (+) T (-) (p=0.004), F (-) T (+) (p=0.004) and F (-) T (-) (p=0.004) groups. The postoperative IKDC score normality of F (+) T (+) group were significantly higher than F (-) T (+). The postoperative tegner measurements of F (+) T (+) group were significantly higher than F (-) T (+). The measurements of extensor deficit of F (+) T (+) (p=0.022) group and F (+) T (-) (p=0.049) group were significantly lower than F (-) T (-) group. The measurements of flexor deficit of F (+) T (+) group were significantly lower than F (-) T (+) (p=0.011) group and F (-) T (-) (p=0.040) group and F (+) T (-) group of flexor deficit measurements significantly lower than F (-) T (+) group (p=0.028) (p<0.05). Conclusion: Misplacement of femoral and tibial tunnels has negative effects on clinic functional results. While misplacement of tibial tunnel can be tolerated better, the placement of femoral tunnel in anterior cannot be tolerated and has further effects on the results.

scholarly journals Review and Long-Term Outcomes of Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction versus Conservative Treatment in Siblings with Congenital Anterior Cruciate Ligament Aplasia

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Davanzo ◽  
Paolo Fornaciari ◽  
Geoffroy Barbier ◽  
Mauro Maniglio ◽  
Daniel Petek
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Conservative Treatment ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Patient Counseling ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

There is no consensus on the best treatment for anterior cruciate ligament hypoplasia or aplasia. To our knowledge, no comparative study between operative and conservative treatment of this condition has ever been performed. Conservative treatment is a viable alternative to surgery for ACL aplasia. Two siblings were examined at our outpatient clinic. The male patient underwent bilateral ACL reconstruction, while his sister was treated conservatively. Our results show a worse long-term outcome for the operative patient. At her last follow-up, the female patient treated conservatively showed subjective improvement in stability and gait. A review of the literature shows inconsistent outcomes after reconstruction in contrast to reports with cruciate ligament agenesis that did not undergo reconstruction with acceptable to good outcomes. Cruciate reconstruction should be reserved for cases of impaired articular instability, objectively manifest in the frequency of giving-way episodes. Treatment depends on the patient’s condition and expectations. Surgery should therefore only be suggested after proper patient counseling.

scholarly journals Two-stage procedure in anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery: a five-year follow-up prospective study

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 1369-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Franceschi ◽  
Rocco Papalia ◽  
Angelo Del Buono ◽  
Biagio Zampogna ◽  
Lorenzo Diaz Balzani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Results of a New Treatment Concept for Concomitant Lesion of Medial Collateral Ligament in Patients with Rupture of Anterior Cruciate Ligament

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (07) ◽  
pp. 652-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jochen Paul ◽  
Maximilian Haenle ◽  
Jannes Sailer ◽  
Geert Pagenstert ◽  
Lutz Wehren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Medial Collateral Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Rupture ◽  
Treatment Concept ◽  
Collateral Ligament ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
New Treatment

AbstractAnteromedial knee injury with rupture of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and concomitant lesion of medial collateral ligament (MCL) is common in athletes. No standardized treatment concept can be found within the literature. This study presents results of a new treatment concept for concomitant MCL lesions in patients with ACL rupture. In this study, 67 recreational athletes with ACL injury and concomitant MCL lesion were treated according to a distinct treatment concept. Patients were classified in six different types of concomitant MCL lesion depending on grade of MCL lesion and presence of anteromedial rotatory instability (AMRI). Final classification and surgical indication were determined 6 weeks posttraumatic. All patients received ACL reconstruction. MCL was treated by surgical or conservative regime due to type of concomitant MCL lesion. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), AMRI, and Lysholm scores were evaluated both preoperatively and after 6 weeks, 16 weeks, 12 months, and 18 months postoperatively. All patients could be uniquely classified and treated according to the introduced treatment concept. AMRI was verifiable in patients with grade II and III MCL lesions. All patients showed good to excellent clinical results at the follow-up examinations. In all 67 patients (100%), the findings were graded as normal or nearly normal according to the IKDC knee examination form. Lysholm score averaged 93.9 at final follow-up. The introduced treatment concept showed good results on short-term outcome and provides a sufficient treatment strategy for concomitant MCL lesions in athletes with ACL rupture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document