Jocelyn Wu1, Jamie L Kator2, Michael Zarro3, Natalie L Leong1,4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Surgery, Baltimore VA Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is among the most common orthopaedic injuries, and reconstruction of a ruptured ACL is a common orthopaedic procedure. In general, surgical intervention is necessary to restore stability to the injured knee, and to prevent meniscal damage. Along with surgery, intense postoperative physical therapy is needed to restore function to the injured extremity. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been the standard of care in recent decades, and advances in surgical technology have reintroduced the prospect of augmented primary repair of the native ACL via a variety of methods. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search of PubMed database of articles and reviews available in English was performed through 2020. The search terms ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament repair, bridge enhanced acl repair, suture anchor repair, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal bracing, suture ligament augmentation, and internal brace ligament augmentation were used. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5. RESULTS: No exact consensus exists on effective rehabilitation protocols after ACL repair techniques, as the variation in published protocols seem even greater than the variation in those for ACLR. For some techniques such as internal bracing and dynamic interligamentary stabilization, it is likely permissible for the patients to progress to full weightbearing and discontinue bracing sooner. However, caution should be applied with regard to earlier return to sport than after ACLR as to minimize risk for retear. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to address how physical therapies must adapt to these innovative repair techniques. Until that is accomplished, we recommend that physical therapists understand the differences among the various ACL surgery techniques discussed here and work with the surgeons to develop a rehabilitation protocol for their mutual patients. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION TAXONOMY (SORT): C.
CONTEXT: Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is among the most common orthopaedic injuries, and reconstruction of a ruptured ACL is a common orthopaedic procedure. In general, surgical intervention is necessary to restore stability to the injured knee, and to prevent meniscal damage. Along with surgery, intense postoperative physical therapy is needed to restore function to the injured extremity. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been the standard of care in recent decades, and advances in surgical technology have reintroduced the prospect of augmented primary repair of the native ACL via a variety of methods. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search of PubMed database of articles and reviews available in English was performed through 2020. The search terms ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament repair, bridge enhanced acl repair, suture anchor repair, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal bracing, suture ligament augmentation, and internal brace ligament augmentation were used. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5. RESULTS: No exact consensus exists on effective rehabilitation protocols after ACL repair techniques, as the variation in published protocols seem even greater than the variation in those for ACLR. For some techniques such as internal bracing and dynamic interligamentary stabilization, it is likely permissible for the patients to progress to full weightbearing and discontinue bracing sooner. However, caution should be applied with regard to earlier return to sport than after ACLR as to minimize risk for retear. CONCLUSION: More research is needed to address how physical therapies must adapt to these innovative repair techniques. Until that is accomplished, we recommend that physical therapists understand the differences among the various ACL surgery techniques discussed here and work with the surgeons to develop a rehabilitation protocol for their mutual patients. STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION TAXONOMY (SORT): C.
Authors: B D Beynnon; R J Johnson; B C Fleming; C J Stankewich; P A Renström; C E Nichols Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 1997 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Roy A G Hoogeslag; Reinoud W Brouwer; Barbara C Boer; Astrid J de Vries; Rianne Huis In 't Veld Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Braden C Fleming; Kurt P Spindler; Matthew P Palmer; Elise M Magarian; Martha M Murray Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Rick W Wright; Amanda K Haas; Joy Anderson; Gary Calabrese; John Cavanaugh; Timothy E Hewett; Dawn Lorring; Christopher McKenzie; Emily Preston; Glenn Williams Journal: Sports Health Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.843