| Literature DB >> 35395764 |
Michael Giummarra1, Loretta Vocale2, Matthew King3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries represents a large burden of knee injuries in both the general and sporting populations, often requiring surgical intervention. Although there is much research on complete ACL tears including outcomes and indications for surgery, little is known about the short- and long-term outcomes of non-operative, physiotherapy led intervention in partial ACL tears. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate studies looking at the effectiveness of physiotherapy led interventions in improving pain and function in young and middle-aged adults with partial ACL tears. Additionally, the secondary aim was to evaluate the completeness of exercise prescription in randomised trials for physiotherapy led interventions in the management in partial ACL tears.Entities:
Keywords: ACL; Anterior crucial ligament; Non operative; Partial tear; Rehabilitation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35395764 PMCID: PMC8991495 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05278-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram depicting how articles were selected for review
Characteristics of included studies
| Buyukturan et al. [ | single-blinded RCT | Conducted by physician based on the patient histories, physical examinations, and diagnostic imaging | 29 (15 females, 14 males) | 24.7 (± 6.2) years | 24.9 + -5.7 | Dominant side R/L, 26/3; Involved dominant/Non-dominant, 22/7; Duration of the symptoms, 21.8 ± 4.8 months; Education status 13.7 ± 1.7 years | 29 (13 females, 16 males) | 26.1 (± 7.4) years | 24.6 + -4.1 | Dominant side R/L, 25/4; Involved dominant/Non-dominant, 20/9; Duration of the symptoms, 20.1 ± 8.6 months; Education status 14.2 ± 2.6 years | 3 × 60 min sessions for 24 weeks of Tai Chi -Yang style (10 forms) by experienced instructor (> 5 years’ experience) | |
| Celik et al., [ | single-blinded RCT | Conducted by physician based on the patient histories, physical examinations, and diagnostic imaging | 26 (24 females, 2 males) | 25.9 (± 7.5) years,a 22–45 years | 25.8 ± 4.2 | Dominant side R/L, 20/6; Involved dominant/Non-dominant, 14/10; Duration of the symptoms, 6.2 ± 1.2 months | 24 (22 females, 2 males) | 25.2 (± 5.3) years, 20–43 years | 25.5 ± 5.1 | Dominant side R/L, 20/4; Involved dominant/Non-dominant, 16/8; Duration of the symptoms, 5.4 ± 2.4 months | 3 × 60-min Pilates classes per week for 6 weeks run by a trained physical therapist. Home programme was given to participants to engage in after the initial 6 weeks until the end of the study | |
aAges reported in table, note this is different to the ages reported in the body of the text of the article. Values expressed as mean ± SD, M mean, SD standard deviation
Risk of Bias assessment (PEDro scrore)
| Author | Eligibility Criteria | Random Allocation | Concealed Allocation | Baseline Comparability | Blind Subjects | Blind Therapists | Blind Assessors | Adequate Follow-up | Between Group Comparisons | Point estimates and variability | Total Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buyukturan | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6/10 |
| Celik | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | 4/10 |
Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*
Between group standard mean differences (SMDs)
| MPTS | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IKDC 2000 | LKS | Pain (VAS) | Proprioception | CKS | Extension 60 degrees | Flexion 60 degrees | Extension 180 degrees | Flexion 180 degrees | ||
| Buyukturan et al. [ | Baseline | -0.05 [-0.56, 0.47] | -0.30 [-0.82, 0.22] | -0.15 [-0.67, 0.36] | 0.39 [-0.13, 0.91] | -0.67 [-1.20, -0.14] | 0.34 [-0.18, 0.86] | -0.18 [-0.69, 0.34] | 0.38 [-0.14, 0.90] | |
| Follow up | 0.25 [-0.26, 0.77] | -0.10 [-0.61 0.42] | -2.17 [-2.83, -1.52] | -1.33 [-1.90, -0.75] | 0.56 [0.04, 1.09] | 0.51 [-0.02, 1.03] | 1.32 [0.75, 1.89] | 0.55 [0.03, 1.08] | ||
| Celik et al. [ | Baseline | 0.36 [-0.92, 0.20] | -0.10 [-0.65, 0.46] | -0.19 [-0.74, 0.37] | -0.03 [-0.59, 0.52] | |||||
| Follow up | -0.29 [-0.84, 0.27] | 0.37 [-0.19, 0.93] | 0.63 [0.06, 1.20] | 0.35 [-0.21, 0.90] | ||||||
Reported as Standard Mean Difference [95% confidence interval]
IKDC International Knee Documentation Committee Questionnaire, LKS Lysholm Knee Scale, VAS Visual Analogue Scale, CKS Cincinnati Knee Scale, MPTS Muscle Peak Torque Strength
Fig. 2SMD results for between-group comparisons at follow up. This figure shows (A) outcomes where a negative score in favourable in the intervention group and (B) outcomes where a positive score in favourable in the intervention group
Fig. 3TIDieR checklist items for each study. Template for intervention description and replication
Fig. 4Reporting for each of the Togio and Boutellier exercise descriptors