Alberto Grassi1, Alberto Vascellari2, Alberto Combi3, Luca Tomaello4, Gian Luigi Canata5, Stefano Zaffagnini6. 1. IIa Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. alberto.grassi3@studio.unibo.it. 2. Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, Oderzo Hospital, Oderzo, Treviso, Italy. 3. Orthopaedic and Traumatology Department, Fondazione I.R.C.C.S. Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy. 4. Isokinetic Medical Group, Turin, Italy. 5. Centre of Sports Traumatology, Koelliker Hospital, Turin, Italy. 6. IIa Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A worldwide consensus for timing and criteria for return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is lacking. The aim of the study was to survey among the Italian Society of Knee, Arthroscopy, Sport, Cartilage and Orthopaedic Technologies (SIGASCOT) members in order to evaluate their approaches to the return to sport after ACL reconstruction regarding timing and criteria. METHODS: A web survey among the SIGASCOT members was performed, including 14 questions regarding technical and graft preferences, timing for return to training and competitive activity for contact and non-contact sports and criteria to allow return to sport. RESULTS: Totally, 123 members completed the questionnaire. Return to training sports was allowed within 6 month by 87 % for non-contact sports and by 53 % for contact sports. Return to competitive activity was allowed within 6 months by 48 % for non-contact sports and by 13 % for contact sports. Full ROM (77 %), Lachman test (65 %) and Pivot-Shift test (65 %) were the most used criteria to allow return to sport. The 90 % used at least one clinical score. CONCLUSION: The SIGASCOT members showed various approaches in the return to sport after ACL reconstruction, with differences between return to training or competitive activity, and between contact and non-contact sports. Six months was generally considered adequate by most of the members for the most demanding activities. The most used criteria to allow return to sport were manual testing. A clear definition of sport activities and more objective criteria for the return to sport are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.
BACKGROUND: A worldwide consensus for timing and criteria for return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is lacking. The aim of the study was to survey among the Italian Society of Knee, Arthroscopy, Sport, Cartilage and Orthopaedic Technologies (SIGASCOT) members in order to evaluate their approaches to the return to sport after ACL reconstruction regarding timing and criteria. METHODS: A web survey among the SIGASCOT members was performed, including 14 questions regarding technical and graft preferences, timing for return to training and competitive activity for contact and non-contact sports and criteria to allow return to sport. RESULTS: Totally, 123 members completed the questionnaire. Return to training sports was allowed within 6 month by 87 % for non-contact sports and by 53 % for contact sports. Return to competitive activity was allowed within 6 months by 48 % for non-contact sports and by 13 % for contact sports. Full ROM (77 %), Lachman test (65 %) and Pivot-Shift test (65 %) were the most used criteria to allow return to sport. The 90 % used at least one clinical score. CONCLUSION: The SIGASCOT members showed various approaches in the return to sport after ACL reconstruction, with differences between return to training or competitive activity, and between contact and non-contact sports. Six months was generally considered adequate by most of the members for the most demanding activities. The most used criteria to allow return to sport were manual testing. A clear definition of sport activities and more objective criteria for the return to sport are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.
Keywords:
ACL reconstruction; Criteria; Rehabilitation; Return to sport
Authors: Sheila M McRae; Jaskarndip Chahal; Jeff R Leiter; Robert G Marx; Peter B Macdonald Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Emily S Gardinier; Stephanie Di Stasi; Kurt Manal; Thomas S Buchanan; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Andrew D Lynch; David S Logerstedt; Hege Grindem; Ingrid Eitzen; Gregory E Hicks; Michael J Axe; Lars Engebretsen; May Arna Risberg; Lynn Snyder-Mackler Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-07-23 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: S Zaffagnini; A Grassi; G M Marcheggiani Muccioli; K Tsapralis; M Ricci; L Bragonzoni; S Della Villa; M Marcacci Journal: Knee Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Yong Ma; Christopher D Murawski; Amir Ata Rahnemai-Azar; Catherine Maldjian; Andrew D Lynch; Freddie H Fu Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Sean J Meredith; Thomas Rauer; Terese L Chmielewski; Christian Fink; Theresa Diermeier; Benjamin B Rothrauff; Eleonor Svantesson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Timothy E Hewett; Seth L Sherman; Bryson P Lesniak; Mario Bizzini; Shiyi Chen; Moises Cohen; Stefano Della Villa; Lars Engebretsen; Hua Feng; Mario Ferretti; Freddie H Fu; Andreas B Imhoff; Christopher C Kaeding; Jon Karlsson; Ryosuke Kuroda; Andrew D Lynch; Jacques Menetrey; Volker Musahl; Ronald A Navarro; Stephen J Rabuck; Rainer Siebold; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; Tim Spalding; Carola van Eck; Dharmesh Vyas; Kate Webster; Kevin Wilk Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-06-30
Authors: William G Blakeney; Hervé Ouanezar; Isabelle Rogowski; Gregory Vigne; Meven Le Guen; Jean-Marie Fayard; Mathieu Thaunat; Pierre Chambat; Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet Journal: Sports Health Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 3.843