J G Enad1, L L Loomis. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, VA 23708, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare results of patellar tendon repair after early and delayed postoperative mobilization. DESIGN: Two separate treatment groups, comparing 2 treatment alternatives at different time periods (before-after trial). PARTICIPANTS: Postoperative rehabilitation of 10 men who underwent patellar tendon repair. INTERVENTION: Delayed mobilization group: weight-bearing in a cast and isometric lower-extremity exercises for 6 weeks; active flexion and extension exercises thereafter. Early mobilization group: weight-bearing in an extension brace, isometric lower-extremity exercises, prone active knee flexion, and passive knee extension for 6 weeks; active flexion and extension exercises thereafter. Sixteen-month minimum follow-up. RESULTS: Clinical (physical) findings were: 2 excellent, 1 good, 2 fair in the delayed-mobilization group; 1 excellent, 3 good, 1 fair in early-mobilization group. Functional (pain and activity level) findings were: 2 good, 2 fair, 1 poor in the delayed-mobilization group; 3 good, 1 fair, 1 poor in the early-mobilization group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and functional results were similar for both treatment groups. Further study is required to determine any significant long-term differences between rehabilitation methods.
OBJECTIVE: To compare results of patellar tendon repair after early and delayed postoperative mobilization. DESIGN: Two separate treatment groups, comparing 2 treatment alternatives at different time periods (before-after trial). PARTICIPANTS: Postoperative rehabilitation of 10 men who underwent patellar tendon repair. INTERVENTION: Delayed mobilization group: weight-bearing in a cast and isometric lower-extremity exercises for 6 weeks; active flexion and extension exercises thereafter. Early mobilization group: weight-bearing in an extension brace, isometric lower-extremity exercises, prone active knee flexion, and passive knee extension for 6 weeks; active flexion and extension exercises thereafter. Sixteen-month minimum follow-up. RESULTS: Clinical (physical) findings were: 2 excellent, 1 good, 2 fair in the delayed-mobilization group; 1 excellent, 3 good, 1 fair in early-mobilization group. Functional (pain and activity level) findings were: 2 good, 2 fair, 1 poor in the delayed-mobilization group; 3 good, 1 fair, 1 poor in the early-mobilization group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and functional results were similar for both treatment groups. Further study is required to determine any significant long-term differences between rehabilitation methods.
Authors: Carlos Francisco Arguello Frutos; Osmar Pedro Arbix Camargo; Nilson Roberto Severino; Ricardo de Paula Leite Cury; Victor Marques de Oliveira; Tatsuo Aihara; Roger Avakian Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2015-12-06