Avoid post operative bracing to reduce ACL rerupture rates

Effect of knee bracing on clinical outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomised controlled study

Objectives

While there is a consensus against bracing after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the question of its potential benefits, especially in cases involving meniscus repair, as well as its routine use by the majority of clinicians, remains a topic of debate. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of bracing in relation to clinical scores after ACL reconstruction, regardless of meniscus surgery.

Methods

This randomised controlled study involved patients aged 15-55 years who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgery. All eligible patients were assigned into two groups: one group received an adjustable frame with a four-point fixation knee brace for a four-week period, while the other did not.A single experienced surgeon performed standard anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction. All patients, irrespective of whether they underwent meniscus repair, followed the same rehabilitation protocol. Knee functional questionnaires, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and examinations, were collected preoperatively, at six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. The study employed an intention-to-treat analysis and multilevel mixed-effects generalised linear models to compare continuous outcomes between the groups, adjusting for the times of follow-up.

Results

A total of 84 patients (42 patients per group) comprised of 75 males (89 %) and average age of 30 ± 9.4 years old. Patient-reported function, physical examination findings, and surgical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. (P-value >0.05) Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in IKDC and Lysholm scores at the end of the two-year follow-up period. (P-value <0.0001) In multivariate analysis, bracing was significantly associated with lower Tegner activity scale than the non-brace group after adjustment for VAS and time (coefficient -0.49, 95 % confidence interval -0.87, -0.10, P-value = 0.013). None of the graft ruptures were reported, and there was no significant difference of return to sports between the groups at the end of the follow-up.

Conclusion

The study suggests that knee bracing after ACL reconstruction, regardless of any additional meniscus procedures, fails to enhance subjective or objective outcomes and could potentially have a negative impact on the Tegner activity scale, although the difference is not clinically significant. The routine use of a postoperative brace should be discontinued.

Level of evidence

Level I, Randomised controlled trial with no negative criteria.

Various Definitions of Failure Are Used in Studies of Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

To conduct a literature review to assess the definitions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure used throughout the orthopaedic literature.

Methods

A systematic search of Embase, Ovid Medline, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science was conducted by a university librarian to identity level I-IV clinical studies on ACLR failure. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent ACLR and included a definition of failure of ACLR. Patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repairs, animal/cadaver studies, review studies, non-English language articles, and non-full text articles were excluded. Failure data were extracted from each study and categorized. Other data that were extracted included follow-up time after ACLR, failure reoperation rate, and failure reoperation procedure. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data.

Results

Out of 2,775 studies, 104 (3.75%) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. The most common definition of ACLR failure included the use of a physical examination, specifically Lachman's test (21/104 [20.2%]), anterior laxity assessment, or a Pivot-Shift test (24/104 [35.2%]) or undergoing or requiring revision ACLR (39/104 [37.5%]). Although some studies used quantitative tests or imaging to help define "failure," others simply defined it as graft rerupture that was otherwise not defined (22/104 [22.5%]). Other common definitions included: the use of imaging (magnetic resonance imaging/radiographs) to confirm graft re-rupture (37/104 [35.6%]), patient-reported outcomes (recurrent instability)/patient reported outcomes measures (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Tegner) (18/104 [17.3%]), and the use of an arthrometer (KT-1000/2000, Rollimeter, or Kneelax) (17/104 [16.3%]). The least common definitions included graft failure or rerupture confirmed by arthroscopy (13/104 [12.5%]) and nonrevision surgery (2/104 [1.0%]). The failure rate of this procedure ranged from 0% to 100% depending on the definition of "failure."

Conclusion

In this study, we found that a variety of definitions of failure are used among studies published in the orthopaedic literature. The most common criteria for failure of ACLR were the results of physical examination tests (35%), the need for undergoing a revision ACLR (36%), and the use of imaging to diagnose the failure (34%). About 17% of studies included in this review used patient-reported outcomes, specifically recurrent instability, or PROMs (IKDC, KOOS, Tegner) in their assessment of failure of ACLR. The least used definitions of "failure" of ACLR included nonrevision ACLR surgery (2%). Although some studies used similar tests or categories in their definition of failure, there were a variety of score and grade cutoff points between them.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Early postoperative practices following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in France

INTRODUCTION

The early postoperative period after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) is critical for optimal functional recovery. Despite an abundance of literature, there is no consensus regarding good practices. This period is often under-considered by orthopedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to identify early postoperative practices after ACL reconstruction in France.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis was that there was a discrepancy between validated data in the literature and the current practices of orthopedic surgeons in France.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In 2019, a questionnaire was sent to all the members of the French Arthroscopy Society to investigate their postoperative practices after ACL reconstruction. Two hundred sixty-nine members responded. Surgeons were divided into two groups of experienced (n=137) and less experienced (n=132) surgeons, according to the number of ACL reconstructions performed per year (<or≥50/year). Outpatient management, effusion prevention measures, and rehabilitation instructions and goals were collected. Overall responses were analyzed after multiple linear logistic regression and the responses of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

ACL reconstruction was performed as an outpatient procedure in 72.9% of cases. This rate increased with surgical experience (p=0.009×10^-3). Among measures to prevent effusion, cryotherapy was recommended in 97.8% of cases. The experienced group more often used compressive cryotherapy devices (p=0.004). Rehabilitation was started immediately in 75.5% of cases, with as main objective recovery of full extension (89.6%). Weight-bearing was allowed in 98.5% of cases and a brace was prescribed in 69.9% of cases. In the experienced group, braces were less frequent (p=0.02) and self-rehabilitation was preferred (p=0.0006).

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative practices after ACL reconstruction in France are related to surgical experience. The greater the surgical experience, the greater the role of joint effusion prevention and self-rehabilitation. Despite recommendations in the literature, a quarter of the French orthopedic surgeons who responded to this survey did not perform this procedure on an outpatient basis and more than two-thirds prescribed braces.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Clinical practice and postoperative rehabilitation after knee arthroscopy vary according to surgeons' expertise: a survey among polish arthroscopy society members

BACKGROUND

Meniscus repair is a challenging task in knee arthroscopy. Currently, there are a variety of arthroscopic methods available for meniscus repair. The purpose of this study was to determine a consensus in meniscus tear treatment in the environment of Polish orthopaedists.

METHODS

A total of 205 registered orthopaedic surgeons participated in the surveys. The survey consisted of 35 questions regarding general arthroscopy and postoperative management, including physicians' level of expertise, anaesthesia, postoperative treatment, rehabilitation and procedures performed. Comparisons were made between knee arthroscopy experts (> 100 arthroscopies performed per year) and non-experts (≤ 100 cases) on aspects of patient care.

RESULTS

The most important finding of this study was the agreement among almost all aspects of the knee arthroscopy approach. Consensus among Polish surgeons was noticed in choosing regional anaesthesia for knee arthroscopy, the lack of need for knee braces and knee medications, the of use of LMW heparin for thromboprophylaxis, 1-2 days of hospitalization, the recommendation of rehabilitation and the use of magnetic resonance as a diagnostic test for meniscus damage. Surgical expertise was significantly associated with the performance of meniscus suture procedures (p = 0.009). Experts recommended starting rehabilitation on the day of surgery (p = 0.007) and were more likely to use objective physical tests (p = 0.003). Non-expert surgeons recommended a longer period from meniscus suture to full-range knee motion (p = 0.001) and admitted that patient age does matter for meniscus repair qualification (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

There is consensus among almost all issues of meniscus tear treatment in the environment of Polish orthopaedists; however, the issues of rehabilitation and the use of advanced meniscus repair techniques are associated with surgical expertise.