4.5 Article

Low rates of patients meeting return to sport criteria 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective longitudinal study

期刊

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
卷 26, 期 12, 页码 3636-3644

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-4916-4

关键词

Anterior cruciate ligament; Return to sport; Strength; Hop tests; Movement analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of the current prospective study was to assess the changes over time in patients tested at 6 months and 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a return to sport (RTS) test battery. It was hypothesized that more patients passed RTS criteria at 9 months compared to 6 months. Methods Sixty-two ACLR patients performed a test battery at an average of 6.5 +/- 0.7 and 9.5 +/- 0.9 months after ACLR. All patients underwent a standardized rehabilitation protocol. The test battery consisted of the following tests: a jump-landing task assessed with the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS), three single-leg hop tasks (single-leg hop test, triple-leg hop test, side hop test), isokinetic quadriceps and hamstring strength at 60, 180 and 300 degrees/s and two questionnaires (IKDC and ACL-RSI). Cut off criteria were set as Limb Symmetry Index (LSI)>90% (for isokinetic strength and for single-leg hop tasks), LESS<5, IKDC score within 15th percentage of healthy subjects and ACL-RSI>56 respectively. Results At 6 months, two patients (3.2%) passed all criteria. At 9 months, seven patients (11.3%) passed all criteria. Patients improved in all RTS criteria over time except for the IKDC score. Twenty-nine patients (46.8%) did not pass the strength criterion at 60 degrees/s at 9 months after ACLR. Conclusions The percentages of patients passing all RTS criteria were low at both 6 and 9 months after ACLR. Quadriceps strength revealed persistent deficits and the lack of improvement in the IKDC score questionnaires shows insufficient self-reported knee function for RTS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据