-
British Journal of Sports Medicine Dec 2022Critically appraise and summarise the measurement properties of knee muscle strength tests after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and/or meniscus injury using the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Measurement properties for muscle strength tests following anterior cruciate ligament and/or meniscus injury: What tests to use and where do we need to go? A systematic review with meta-analyses for the OPTIKNEE consensus.
OBJECTIVES
Critically appraise and summarise the measurement properties of knee muscle strength tests after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and/or meniscus injury using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias checklist.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analyses. The modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-guided assessment of evidence quality.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTSDiscus searched from inception to 5 May 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Studies evaluating knee extensor or flexor strength test reliability, measurement error, validity, responsiveness or interpretability in individuals with ACL and/or meniscus injuries with a mean injury age of ≤30 years.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies were included involving 31 different muscle strength tests (mode and equipment) in individuals following an ACL injury and/or an isolated meniscus injury. Strength tests were assessed for reliability (n=8), measurement error (n=7), construct validity (n=27) and criterion validity (n=7). Isokinetic concentric extensor and flexor strength tests were the best rated with sufficient intrarater reliability (very low evidence quality) and construct validity (moderate evidence quality). Isotonic extensor and flexor strength tests showed sufficient criterion validity, while isometric extensor strength tests had insufficient construct and criterion validity (high evidence quality).
CONCLUSION
Knee extensor and flexor strength tests of individuals with ACL and/or meniscus injury lack evidence supporting their measurement properties. There is an urgent need for high-quality studies on these measurement properties. Until then, isokinetic concentric strength tests are most recommended, with isotonic strength tests a good alternative.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Reproducibility of Results; Consensus; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Muscle Strength; Meniscus
PubMed: 36113973
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105498 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Oct 2020To explore the effectiveness of preoperative rehabilitation programmes (PreHab) on postoperative physical and psychological outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament...
BACKGROUND
To explore the effectiveness of preoperative rehabilitation programmes (PreHab) on postoperative physical and psychological outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
METHOD
A systematic search was conducted from inception to November 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
The search identified 739 potentially eligible studies, three met the inclusion criteria. All included RCTs scored 'high' risk of bias. PreHab in all three RCTs was an exercise programme, each varied in content (strength, control, balance and perturbation training), frequency (10 to 24 sessions) and length (3.1- to 6-weeks). Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were reported for quadriceps strength (one RCT) and single leg hop scores (two RCTs) in favour of PreHab three months after ACLR, compared to no PreHab. One RCT reported no statistically significant between-group difference for pain and function. No RCT evaluated post-operative psychological outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Very low quality evidence suggests that PreHab that includes muscular strength, balance and perturbation training offers a small benefit to quadriceps strength and single leg hop scores three months after ACLR compared with no PreHab. There is no consensus on the optimum PreHab programme content, frequency and length. Further research is needed to develop PreHab programmes that consider psychosocial factors and the measurement of relevant post-operative outcomes such as psychological readiness and return to sport.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO trial registration number. CRD42020162754 .
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Humans; Preoperative Exercise; Return to Sport
PubMed: 33010802
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03676-6 -
Journal of Spine Surgery (Hong Kong) Mar 2020The anterior approach to the cervical spine is commonly utilized for a variety of degenerative, traumatic, neoplastic, and infectious indications. While many potential... (Review)
Review
The anterior approach to the cervical spine is commonly utilized for a variety of degenerative, traumatic, neoplastic, and infectious indications. While many potential complications overlap with those of the posterior approach, the distinct anatomy of the anterior neck also presents a unique set of hazards. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the etiology, presentation, natural history, and management of these complications. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a PubMed search was conducted to evaluate clinical studies and case reports of patients who suffered a complication of anterior cervical spine surgery. The search specifically included articles concerning adult human subjects, written in the English language, and published from 1989 to 2019. The PubMed search yielded 240 articles meeting our criteria. The overall rates of complications were as follows: dysphagia 5.3%, esophageal perforation 0.2%, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy 1.3%, infection 1.2%, adjacent segment disease 8.1%, pseudarthrosis 2.0%, graft or hardware failure 2.1%, cerebrospinal fluid leak 0.5%, hematoma 1.0%, Horner syndrome 0.4%, C5 palsy 3.0%, vertebral artery injury 0.4%, and new or worsening neurological deficit 0.5%. Morbidity rates in anterior cervical spine surgery are low. Nevertheless, the unique anatomy of the anterior neck presents a wide variety of potential complications involving vascular, aerodigestive, neural, and osseous structures.
PubMed: 32309668
DOI: 10.21037/jss.2020.01.14 -
The Bone & Joint Journal Jun 2017The most effective surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. The direct anterior approach may be associated with a reduced risk of... (Review)
Review
AIMS
The most effective surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. The direct anterior approach may be associated with a reduced risk of dislocation, faster recovery, reduced pain and fewer surgical complications. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence for the use of this approach in THA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Following the Cochrane collaboration, an extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase and OvidSP was conducted. Randomised controlled trials, comparative studies, and cohort studies were included. Outcomes included the length of the incision, blood loss, operating time, length of stay, complications, and gait analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of medium to low quality. There was no difference between the direct anterior, anterolateral or posterior approaches with regards to length of stay and gait analysis. Papers comparing the length of the incision found similar lengths compared with the lateral approach, and conflicting results when comparing the direct anterior and posterior approaches. Most studies found the mean operating time to be significantly longer when the direct anterior approach was used, with a steep learning curve reported by many. Many authors used validated scores including the Harris hip score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. These mean scores were better following the use of the direct anterior approach for the first six weeks post-operatively. Subsequently there was no difference between these scores and those for the posterior approach.
CONCLUSION
There is little evidence for improved kinematics or better long-term outcomes following the use of the direct anterior approach for THA. There is a steep learning curve with similar rates of complications, length of stay and outcomes. Well-designed, multi-centre, prospective randomised controlled trials are required to provide evidence as to whether the direct anterior approach is better than the lateral or posterior approaches when undertaking THA. Cite this article: 2017;99-B:732-40.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Bias; Blood Loss, Surgical; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gait; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 28566391
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B6.38053 -
Physical Therapy in Sport : Official... Mar 2022to evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative exercise programmes on quadriceps strength prior to and following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
to evaluate the effectiveness of preoperative exercise programmes on quadriceps strength prior to and following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
a systematic review was undertaken, included studies were evaluated using the Modified Downs and Black checklist which is appropriate for determining the quality of randomised and non-randomised studies. Scientific databases searched included PubMED, EBSCO Health, CINAHL, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to March 2021.
RESULTS
Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. There were six randomised studies and four prospective studies. The level of evidence is categorised as 'limited' due to heterogenicity and only six studies reported quadriceps strength increases. Five studies demonstrated preoperative exercise of 4-16 weeks duration can significantly increase preoperative quadriceps strength. One study demonstrated preoperative OKC exercise produced significantly stronger preoperative quadriceps compared to CKC exercise. One study showed no between group (intervention vs control) quadriceps strength difference pre or 12 weeks postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS
4-16 weeks of preoperative exercise could increase quadriceps strength preoperatively but any persistent postoperative strength benefit from undertaking a standardised preoperative intervention is unclear. There is considerable variation and methodological limitations across the included studies and the composition of optimal preoperative ACLR exercise is currently unknown.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Humans; Muscle Strength; Preoperative Exercise; Prospective Studies; Quadriceps Muscle
PubMed: 34933208
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2021.12.004 -
Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) May 2022This systematic review explores the differences in the intrinsic biomechanical properties of different graft sources used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explores the differences in the intrinsic biomechanical properties of different graft sources used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as tested in a laboratory setting.
METHODS
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two authors conducted a systematic review exploring the biomechanical properties of ACL graft sources (querying PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases). Using the keywords "anterior cruciate ligament graft," "biomechanics," and "biomechanical testing," relevant articles of any level of evidence were identified as eligible and included if they reported on the biomechanical properties of skeletally immature or mature ACL grafts solely and if the grafts were studied in vitro, in isolation, and under similar testing conditions. Studies were excluded if performed on both skeletally immature and mature or non-human grafts, or if the grafts were tested after fixation in a cadaveric knee. For each graft, failure load, stiffness, Young's modulus, maximum stress, and maximum strain were recorded.
FINDINGS
Twenty-six articles were included. Most studies reported equal or increased biomechanical failure load and stiffness of their tested bone-patellar tendon-bone, hamstring, quadriceps, peroneus longus, tibialis anterior and posterior, Achilles, tensor fascia lata, and iliotibial band grafts compared to the native ACL. All recorded biomechanical properties had similar values between graft types.
INTERPRETATION
Most grafts used for ACL reconstruction are biomechanically superior to the native ACL. Utilizing a proper graft, combined with a standard surgical technique and a rigorous rehabilitation before and after surgery, will improve outcomes of ACL reconstruction.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Biomechanical Phenomena; Hamstring Muscles; Humans; Patellar Ligament
PubMed: 35428007
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105636 -
The Knee Mar 2014The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal clinical and cost-effective strategy for managing people following ACL rupture. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Is reconstruction the best management strategy for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus non-operative treatment.
AIMS
The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal clinical and cost-effective strategy for managing people following ACL rupture.
METHODS
A systematic review of the published (AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, psycINFO and the Cochrane Library) and unpublished literature (OpenGrey, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials and the UK National Research Register Archive) was conducted on April 2013. All randomised and non-randomised controlled trials evaluating clinical or health economic outcomes of isolated ligament reconstruction versus non-surgical management following ACL rupture were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro appraisal tool. When appropriate, meta-analysis was conducted to pool data.
RESULTS
From a total of 943 citations, sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria. These included 1397 participants, 825 who received ACL reconstruction versus 592 who were managed non-surgically. The methodological quality of the literature was poor. The findings indicated that whilst reconstructed ACL offers significantly greater objective tibiofemoral stability (p<0.001), there appears limited evidence to suggest a superiority between reconstruction versus non-surgical management in functional outcomes. There was a small difference between the management strategies in respect to the development of osteoarthritis during the initial 20 years following index management strategy (Odds Ratio 1.56; p=0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The current literature is insufficient to base clinical decision-making with respect to treatment opinions for people following ACL rupture. Whilst based on a poor evidence, the current evidence would indicate that people following ACL rupture should receive non-operative interventions before surgical intervention is considered.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Making; Humans; Joint Instability; Knee Injuries; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Patient Outcome Assessment; Physical Therapy Modalities; Range of Motion, Articular; Rupture; Tendons
PubMed: 24238648
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.10.009 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Jan 2018The primary objective was to calculate the rate of return to sport (RTS) following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in elite athletes. Secondary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes return to preinjury sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis of return to sport rates, graft rupture rates and performance outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to calculate the rate of return to sport (RTS) following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in elite athletes. Secondary objectives were to estimate the time taken to RTS, calculate rates of ACL graft rupture, evaluate postsurgical athletic performance and identify determinants of RTS.
DESIGN
Pooled RTS and graft rupture rates were calculated using random effects proportion meta-analysis. Time to RTS, performance data and determinants of RTS were synthesised descriptively.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, AMI, PEDro, SPORTDiscus and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 19 January 2016. Hand searching of 10 sports medicine journals and reference checking were also performed.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Studies were included if they reported the ratio of elite athletes who returned to their preinjury level of sport following ACL reconstruction. Twenty-four studies were included.
RESULTS
The pooled RTS rate was 83% (95% CI 77% to 88%). The mean time to RTS ranged from 6 to 13 months. The pooled graft rupture rate was 5.2% (95% CI 2.8% to 8.3%). Six out of nine studies that included a noninjured control group found no significant deterioration in athletic performance following ACL reconstruction. Indicators of greater athletic skill or value to the team were associated with RTS.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes returned to sport following ACL reconstruction, while 5.2% sustained a graft rupture. Most athletes who returned to sport performed comparably with matched, uninjured controls. This information may assist in guiding expectations of athletes and clinicians following ACL reconstruction.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Athletes; Athletic Performance; Humans; Recovery of Function; Return to Sport; Rupture
PubMed: 28223305
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096836 -
The Knee Mar 2022Primary repair of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures has re-emerged as a treatment option for proximal tears, with internal brace augmentation often utilised. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Primary repair of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures has re-emerged as a treatment option for proximal tears, with internal brace augmentation often utilised. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the current evidence presenting outcomes of ACL repair with internal bracing to assess the safety and efficacy of this technique.
METHODS
All studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal ACL tears, augmented with internal bracing from 2014-2021 were included. Primary outcome was failure rate and secondary outcomes were subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective assessment of anteroposterior knee laxity.
RESULTS
Nine studies were included, consisting of 347 patients, mean age 32.5 years, mean minimum follow up 2 years. There were 36 failures (10.4%, CI 7.4% - 14.1%). PROMs reporting was variable across studies. KOOS, Lysholm and IKDC scores were most frequently used with mean scores > 87%. The mean Tegner and Marx scores at follow-up were 6.1 and 7.8 respectively. The mean side to side difference measured for anteroposterior knee laxity was 1.2mm.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review with meta-analysis shows that ACL repair with internal bracing is a safe technique for treatment of proximal ruptures, with a failure rate of 10.4%. Subjective scores and clinical laxity testing also revealed satisfactory results. This suggests that ACL repair with internal bracing should be considered as an alternative to ACL reconstruction for acute proximal tears, with the potential benefits of retained native tissue and proprioception, as well as negating the need for graft harvest.
Topics: Adult; Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Knee Joint; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35366618
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2022.03.009 -
International Journal of Environmental... Nov 2022Despite the restoration of the mechanical stability of the knee joint after ACL reconstruction (ACLR), patients often experience postoperative limitations. To our... (Review)
Review
Despite the restoration of the mechanical stability of the knee joint after ACL reconstruction (ACLR), patients often experience postoperative limitations. To our knowledge, there are no systematic reviews analyzing additional physiotherapy interventions implementing standard rehabilitation programs in the early postoperative phase after ACLR. The objective of this study was to analyze the additional physiotherapy interventions implemented in standard rehabilitation programs that improve early-stage ACLR rehabilitation. For this systematic review, we followed the PRISMA guidelines. In March 2022 we conducted a literature review using electronic databases. Primary outcomes were pain, edema, muscle strength, ROM, and knee function. The risk of bias and scientific quality of included studies were assessed with the RoB 2, ROBINS-I and PEDro scale. For the review, we included 10 studies that met the inclusion criteria (total = 3271). The included studies evaluated the effectiveness of Kinesio Taping, Whole-body vibration, Local Vibration Training, Trigger Point Dry Needling, High Tone Power Therapy, alternating magnetic field, and App-Based Active Muscle Training Program. Most of the additional physiotherapy interventions improved pain, edema, ROM, knee muscle strength, or knee function in early-stage postoperative ACL rehabilitation. Except for one study, no adverse events occurred in the included studies, which demonstrates the safety of the discussed physiotherapy interventions. Further in-depth research is needed in this area.
Topics: Humans; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Knee Joint; Pain
PubMed: 36497965
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192315893