Abstract
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.
Publisher
Baycinar Tibbi Yayincilik
Subject
Rehabilitation,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Reference40 articles.
1. Rishiraj N, Taunton JE, Lloyd-Smith R, Woollard R, Regan W, Clement DB. The potential role of prophylactic/ functional knee bracing in preventing knee ligament injury. Sports Med 2009;39:937-60.
2. Buyukkuscu MO, Misir A, Cetinkaya E, Ezici A, Ozcafer R, Gursu SS. The interposition of soft tissue between the cortical button and femoral lateral cortex significantly increases button migration but does not negatively affect knee stability and clinical outcome. Knee 2020;27:891-8.
3. Campbell JD. The evolution and current treatment trends with anterior cruciate, posterior cruciate, and medial collateral ligament injuries. Am J Knee Surg 1998;11:128-35.
4. Decoster LC, Vailas JC, Swartz WG. Functional ACL bracing. A survey of current opinion and practice. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 1995;24:838-43.
5. Delay BS, Smolinski RJ, Wind WM, Bowman DS. Current practices and opinions in ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: Results of a survey of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Am J Knee Surg 2001;14:85-91.