Rehabilitation results following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a hard brace compared to a fluid-filled soft brace

The effect of orthosis management on joint instability in knee joint disease: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Joint instability is a common finding of clinical importance in patients with knee disease. This literature review aimed to examine the evidence regarding the effect of orthosis management on joint instability in knee joint disease.

METHODS

The detailed protocol for this study was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews in the field of health and social welfare (CRD 42022335360). A literature search was conducted on May 2023, using the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore. A secondary search was manually conducted using Google Scholar to address publication bias. Each database search strategy was described, and the search was conducted by independent reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of 281 studies were retrieved, 11 articles were included in the systematic review. Of the 11 articles selected, the number of included diseases was 2 for osteoarthritis, 7 for anterior cruciate ligament injuries, and 3 for posterior cruciate ligament injuries. In result, orthosis management may improve self-reported instability and functional assessment in patients with osteoarthritis, anterior cruciate ligament injury, and posterior cruciate ligament injury. However, an objective evaluation of anatomical instability did not indicate an improvement in joint instability.

CONCLUSION

The effects of orthosis management on knee instability might improve physical function and self-reported instability.

Rehabilitation and Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Rehabilitation after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction requires patience, devotion, and discipline. Rehabilitation should be individualized to each patient's specific need and sport. Return to sport is a continuum throughout the rehabilitation, and patients should not return to performance before passing a battery of muscle function tests and patient-reported outcomes, as well as change of direction-specific tests. Return to full participation should be an agreement between the patient, physical therapist, surgeon, and coach. For minimal risk for second ACL injury, patients should continue with maintenance and prevention training even after returning to sport.

Brace-Free Rehabilitation after Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Tendon Autograft Is Not Inferior to Brace-Based Rehabilitation-A Randomised Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The postoperative use of a rehabilitative knee brace after isolated primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) using a hamstring tendon (HT) autograft is controversial. A knee brace may provide subjective safety but can cause damage if applied incorrectly. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a knee brace on clinical outcomes following isolated ACLR using HT autograft.

METHODS

In this prospective randomised trial, 114 adults (32.4 ± 11.5 years, 35.1% women) underwent isolated ACLR using HT autograft after primary ACL rupture. Patients were randomly assigned to wear either a knee brace (n = 58) or no brace (n = 56) for 6 weeks postoperatively. An initial examination was performed preoperatively, and at 6 weeks and 4, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score to measure participants' subjective perceptions. Secondary endpoints included objective knee function assessed by IKDC, instrumented knee laxity measurements, isokinetic strength tests of the knee extensors and flexors, Lysholm Knee Score, Tegner Activity Score, Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury Score, and quality of life determined by Short Form-36 (SF36).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in IKDC scores between the two study groups (3.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.39 to 7.97, p = 0.03 for evidence of non-inferiority of brace-free compared with brace-based rehabilitation). The difference in Lysholm score was 3.20 (95% CI -2.47 to 8.87); the difference in SF36 physical component score 0.09 (95% CI -1.93 to 3.03). In addition, isokinetic testing did not reveal any clinically relevant differences between the groups (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

Brace-free rehabilitation is non-inferior to a brace-based protocol regarding physical recovery 1 year after isolated ACLR using HT autograft. Consequently, the use of a knee brace might be avoided after such a procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Persistent knee extension deficits are common after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

Knee extension deficits complicate recovery from ACL injury and reconstruction; however, the incidence of knee extension loss is not well defined. The aim of this review was to identify the incidence of loss of extension (LOE) following ACL rupture and reconstruction, explore the definitions of knee extension deficits reported and identify prognostic factors affecting LOE incidence.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Cochrane Library and PEDro for studies in publication up to November 2021, with no restrictions on publication year. References were screened and assessed for inclusion using predetermined eligibility criteria. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that quantified knee angle, loss of extension or incidence of extension deficit were included for quality assessment and data extraction. Statistical summaries were generated and meta-analyses performed in two parts to examine: (i) the probability of a datapoint being zero incidence compared to a nonzero incidence and (ii) the relationship between the predictors and nonzero LOE incidence.

RESULTS

A sample of 15,494 studies were retrieved using the search criteria, with 53 studies meeting eligibility criteria. The pooled results from 4991 participants were included for analysis, with 4891 participants who had undergone ACLR. The proportion of included studies judged at an overall low risk of bias was small (7.8%). The observed group and study were the most important predictors for whether a datapoint reported an incidence of extension deficit. Time to follow-up (P < 0.001) and graft type (P = 0.02) were found to have a significant influence on nonzero LOE incidence (%). Covariate adjusted estimates of average LOE indicated 1 in 3 patients presenting with LOE at 12 month follow-up, reducing to 1 in 4 at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This review examined the definitions for the measurement and interpretation of postoperative knee extension and established the trajectory of knee extension deficit after ACL injury and reconstruction. While factors associated with loss of extension were identified, the exact trajectory of knee extension deficits was difficult to infer due to discrepancies in measurement techniques and patient variation. On average, 1 in 3 patients may present with loss of extension of at least 3 degrees at 12-month follow-up, decreasing to 1 in 4 at 2 years. These results may be used by clinicians as an upper threshold for acceptable complication rates following ACLR. Future work should focus on LOE as a clinically relevant complication of ACL injury and treatment with appropriate attention to standardisation of definitions, measurements and better understanding of natural history.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018092295.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Current trends in the anterior cruciate ligament part II: evaluation, surgical technique, prevention, and rehabilitation

Clinical evaluation and management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is one of the most widely researched topics in orthopedic sports medicine, giving providers ample data on which to base their practices. The ACL is also the most commonly treated knee ligament. This study reports on current topics and research in clinical management of ACL injury, starting with evaluation, operative versus nonoperative management, and considerations in unique populations. Discussion of graft selection and associated procedures follows. Areas of uncertainty, rehabilitation, and prevention are the final topics before a reflection on the current state of ACL research and clinical management of ACL injury. Level of evidence V.

Effectiveness of bilateral single-hinged knee bracing in osteoarthritis: A finite element study

Effectiveness of knee braces remains to be identified. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of bilateral single-hinged knee bracing in knee osteoarthritis (OA) using finite element (FE) method. A three-dimensional FE model consisted of main model (knee-brace structure) and submodel (strap-muscle system) was developed. The submodel was used to convert the elastic strap-muscle interaction into an equivalent stiffness value required by the main model. Adding 100 N · mm/rad torsion spring to the brace with 5 kPa strap pressure lowered maximum von Mises stress in the knee OA components at a flexion angle greater than or equal to 90°. Separately, employing 10% brace pre-tension to the brace with 5 kPa strap pressure started to reduce stresses at a flexion angle of 70°. The configuration involving a combination of 10% brace pre-tension and 300 N · mm/rad torsion spring with 30 kPa strap tightness produced stress reduction over the entire range from 0° to 100° flexion angle. The basic bilateral single-hinged knee brace has shown to reduce stresses in the knee OA at high flexion angles only. Compared to the torsion spring, the brace pre-tension has shown to provide more significant benefits (i.e. stress reduction at lower flexion angles). The most sophisticated effects were achieved when the torsion spring was used in combination with the brace pre-tension. These two features can be potentially used for the development of an active knee brace if they can be modulated at different flexion angles or during the gait cycle.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Progen, a Nutritional Supplement Based on Innovative Plasma Proteins, in ACL Reconstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

New biologic strategies are arising to enhance healing and improve the clinical outcome of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Purpose:

To evaluate the efficacy of a new oral nutritional supplement (Progen) that contains hydrolyzed collagen peptides and plasma proteins, a hyaluronic acid–chondroitin sulfate complex, and vitamin C.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

The study included patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with hamstring autografts using the same fixation method. All patients received the same analgesia and physical therapy (PT) protocol and were randomized to receive either the nutritional supplement (supplemented group) or no additional therapy (control group). Patients were followed up at days 7, 30, 60, and 90. Pain was assessed by use of a visual analog scale (VAS) and by analgesic consumption. Clinical outcome was assessed via International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and the number of PT sessions. Perceived efficacy and tolerability were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Graft maturation was assessed by a blinded musculoskeletal radiologist using magnetic resonance imaging. The number of adverse events (AEs) was recorded.

Results:

The intention-to-treat analysis included 72 patients, 36 allocated to the supplemented group and 36 to the control group, with no significant differences regarding demographic and preoperative characteristics. Both groups showed significant improvement in pain and function (measured by VAS and IKDC scores) during the 90-day follow-up period (P < .001 for both), without significant differences between groups. The supplemented group had fewer patients that needed analgesics (8.5% vs 50.0%; P < .05) and attended fewer PT sessions (38.0 vs 48.4 sessions; P < .001) at 90 days and had a higher IKDC score at 60 days (62.5 vs 55.5; P = .029) compared with the control group. Patient- and physician-perceived efficacy was considered significantly higher in the supplemented group at 60 and 90 days (P < .05). Perceived tolerability of the overall intervention was better in the supplemented group at 30, 60, and 90 days (P < .05). Graft maturation showed more advanced degrees (grades 3 and 4) in the supplemented group at 90 days (61.8% vs 38.2%; P < .01). No intolerance or AEs associated with the nutritional supplement treatment were reported.

Conclusion:

The combination of the nutritional supplement and PT after ACL reconstruction improved pain, clinical outcome, and graft maturation. Nutritional supplementation showed higher efficacy during the second month of recovery, without causing AEs.

Registration:

NCT03355651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions

BACKGROUND

Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions.

METHODS

Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Kinesio taping as a treatment method in the acute phase of ACL reconstruction: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed on investigating the effects of Kinesio taping (KT) in acute postoperative rehabilitation phase of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Thirty male patients (mean age: 28.1 years) with ACL reconstruction were randomly assigned to two groups: (1) an experimental group to receive a KT treatment through the muscle and lymphatic correction techniques; or (2) a control group for sham KT. Both interventions were applied twice during a 10-day period from the fourth postoperative day. All patients received the same rehabilitation program for three months. The groups were compared according to range of motion (ROM), pain, swelling and muscle strength before treatment and on the fifth and tenth treatment days. Subjective evaluations were made with the Lysholm, modified Cincinnati and Tegner scores on the first and third postoperative months.

RESULTS

Intragroup comparisons showed significant improvements in both groups on the fifth and tenth day and first and third month evaluations (p < 0.05). In comparison to the control group, the experimental group showed significant improvements in swelling around the patella, all pain measurements and hamstring muscle strength on the fifth KT day and knee flexion range of motion (ROM), night pain, all swelling measurements and hamstring muscle strength on the tenth KT day (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results revealed that KT techniques applied in addition to the acute rehabilitation program of ACL reconstruction are beneficial in treatment of pain, swelling, knee flexion ROM, and hamstring muscle strength.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, Therapeutic study.

Knee Bracing After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Although some articles in the literature are in favor of the use of a postoperative brace after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, this review found that several systematic reviews and other reports on the topic do not support the use of a postoperative brace after ACL reconstruction. There is no scientific evidence so far to support the routine use of a functional knee brace following a successful ACL reconstruction in the postoperative course. Most authors believe that bracing is not necessary. There is insufficient evidence to inform current practice. Good-quality randomized trials are required to remedy this situation. Future studies should better define the role of a brace following ACL surgery. A search of MEDLINE for articles published between January 1, 1995, and September 30, 2013, was performed. Key search terms used were ACL reconstruction and knee brace. Ninety-one articles were found, but only 28 focused on the subject of bracing after ACL reconstruction and were selected for this review. Several systematic reviews and randomized, controlled trials on the topic do not recommend the use of postoperative brace after ACL reconstruction. Postoperative bracing after ACL reconstruction does not seem to help with pain, function, rehabilitation, and stability. The literature does not support the use of a postoperative brace following ACL reconstruction. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(4):e602-e609.].

The Degree of Knee Extension Does Not Affect Postoperative Stability or Subsequent Graft Tear Rate After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Patellar Tendon Autograft

BACKGROUND

There is concern that high degrees of hyperextension may lead to an increase in graft laxity or graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

Patients with a high degree of hyperextension will have a higher rate of graft tear/failure and lower subjective scores after surgery compared with patients with less knee extension.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study, Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Of 2329 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft between 1998 and 2008, there were 625 patients who met the inclusion criteria of having primary ACL surgery, no bilateral ACL injuries, no existing osteoarthritis, and having either ≥6° of knee hyperextension before and after surgery (group A: n = 318; mean hyperextension, 8° ± 2° [range, 6°-15°]) or ≤3° of knee hyperextension before and after surgery (group B: n = 307; mean hyperextension, 0° ± 3° [range, 3° hyperextension to -4° short of 0° neutral]). KT-1000 arthrometer manual maximum difference between knees, range of motion measurements, and subjective follow-up with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Cincinnati Knee Ratings Scale (CKRS) surveys were used to evaluate results. Subsequent graft tear related to specific injury within 5 years of surgery was recorded. Graft failure was defined as a KT-1000 manual maximum difference of >5 mm.

RESULTS

Follow-up was obtained from 278 (87%) in group A and 275 (90%) in group B at a mean of 4.1 ± 1.1 years after surgery. The KT-1000 arthrometer manual maximum difference between knees was 2.0 ± 1.4 in group A and 2.1 ± 1.6 in group B (P = .701). Subsequent ACL graft tear/failure occurred in 22 patients (6.9%) in group A and 30 patients (9.8%) in group B (P = .246). Further subanalysis showed that the graft tear/failure rate was 6 of 81 (7.4%) for patients with ≥10° of hyperextension versus 16 of 237 (6.8%) for patients with 6° to 9° of hyperextension. There was no difference in IKDC or CKRS scores between groups after surgery (P = .933 and .155, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Obtaining full hyperextension that is anatomically normal for most patients does not affect objective stability, ACL graft tear/failure rates, or subjective scores after ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Rehabilitation: MOON Guidelines

Context:

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction rehabilitation has evolved over the past 20 years. This evolution has been driven by a variety of level 1 and level 2 studies.

Evidence Acquisition:

The MOON Group is a collection of orthopaedic surgeons who have developed a prospective longitudinal cohort of the ACL reconstruction patients. To standardize the management of these patients, we developed, in conjunction with our physical therapy committee, an evidence-based rehabilitation guideline.

Study Design:

Clinical review.

Level of Evidence:

Level 2.

Results:

This review was based on 2 systematic reviews of level 1 and level 2 studies. Recently, the guideline was updated by a new review. Continuous passive motion did not improve ultimate motion. Early weightbearing decreases patellofemoral pain. Postoperative rehabilitative bracing did not improve swelling, pain range of motion, or safety. Open chain quadriceps activity can begin at 6 weeks.

Conclusion:

High-level evidence exists to determine appropriate ACL rehabilitation guidelines. Utilizing this protocol follows the best available evidence.

Principles of postoperative anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation

It is known that anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction needs to be combined with detailed postoperative rehabilitation in order for patients to return to their pre-injury activity levels, and that the rehabilitation process is as important as the reconstruction surgery. Literature studies focus on how early in the postoperative ACL rehabilitation period rehabilitation modalities can be initiated. Despite the sheer number of studies on this topic, postoperative ACL rehabilitation protocols have not been standardized yet. Could common, “ossified” knowledge or modalities really prove themselves in the literature? Could questions such as “is postoperative brace use really necessary?”, “what are the benefits of early restoration of the range of motion (ROM)?”, “to what extent is neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) effective in the protection from muscular atrophy?”, “how early can proprioception training and open chain exercises begin?”, “should strengthening training start in the immediate postoperative period?” be answered for sure? My aim is to review postoperative brace use, early ROM restoration, NMES, proprioception, open/closed chain exercises and early strengthening, which are common modalities in the very comprehensive theme of postoperative ACL rehabilitation, on the basis of several studies (Level of Evidence 1 and 2) and to present the commonly accepted ways they are presently used. Moreover, I have presented the objectives of postoperative ACL rehabilitation in tables and recent miscellaneous studies in the last chapter of the paper.

Brace or no-brace after ACL graft? Four-year results of a prospective clinical trial

PURPOSE

A controversial discussion is held on using stabilizing knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. The current study investigated the influence of a stabilizing knee brace on results after ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon autografts.

METHODS

A prospective randomized study was started including 64 patients divided into two equal groups and treated with or without a stabilizing knee brace for 6 weeks post-operatively. A follow-up examination 4 years after operation comprised IKDC 2000, KT1000 measurement, a visual analogue pain scale (VAS; scores 0-10) and radiographic evaluation. The t test for independent and paired samples and the Pearson's Chi-square test were used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). The primary endpoint was the difference in IKDC classification.

RESULTS

Eighty-one per cent of the patients were examined 4 years post-operatively. IKDC 2000 subjective (brace group 90.5 ± 8.9, braceless group 93.2 ± 6.1) and objective results (brace A 30%, B 56%, C 16%; braceless A 32%, B 48%, C 20%) and instrumental measurement of anteroposterior laxity with KT1000 (brace 0.6 ± 2.4 mm, braceless 1.8 ± 3.4 mm) showed no significant differences. VAS pain results were significantly better in the braceless group at 1.0 ± 1.2 versus 1.9 ± 1.4 under sports activity or heavy physical work (p = 0.015). There were no radiographic differences concerning osteoarthritic findings and tunnel widening between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Post-operative treatment with a stabilizing knee brace after ACL replacement showed no advantage over treatment without a brace at 4-year follow-up. The use of a knee-stabilizing brace after isolated ACL reconstruction with autologous patellar tendon graft is not recommended.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Current recommendations for anterior cruciate ligament bracing: when to use

Braces are often used during various stages of recovery from an anterior cruciate ligament tear despite there being sparse definitive research supporting their use. This article reviews the literature on brace use for patients with anterior cruciate ligament tears in order to provide a guide for clinicians. There is evidence to support immediate postoperative bracing, with the goals of maintaining full extension and decreasing effusion. There may be a psychological benefit for its use in return to sport; however, this should be weighed against decreased performance. In the context of modern graft-fixation techniques and early mobilization protocols, empiric functional brace prescription is not required for successful long-term clinical outcomes and return to sport.

Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rigorous rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is necessary for a successful surgical outcome. A large number of clinical trials continue to assess aspects of this rehabilitation process. Prior systematic reviews evaluated fifty-four Level-I and II clinical trials published through 2005.

METHODS

Eighty-five articles from 2006 to 2010 were identified utilizing multiple search engines. Twenty-nine Level-I or II studies met inclusion criteria and were evaluated with use of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) criteria. Topics included in this review are postoperative bracing, accelerated strengthening, home-based rehabilitation, proprioception and neuromuscular training, and six miscellaneous topics investigated in single trials.

RESULTS

Bracing following ACL reconstruction remains neither necessary nor beneficial and adds to the cost of the procedure. Early return to sports needs further research. Home-based rehabilitation can be successful. Although neuromuscular interventions are not likely to be harmful to patients, they are also not likely to yield large improvements in outcomes or help patients return to sports faster. Thus, they should not be performed to the exclusion of strengthening and range-of-motion exercises. Vibration training may lead to faster and more complete proprioceptive recovery but further evidence is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Several new modalities for rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction may be helpful but should not be performed to the exclusion of range-of-motion, strengthening, and functional exercises. Accelerated rehabilitation does not appear to be harmful but further investigation of rehabilitation timing is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A randomized controlled trial of electrostimulation effects on effussion, swelling and pain recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rehabilitation results of electrostimulation especially on joint effusion, swelling and pain recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial; the assessor was not blinded to the group allocation.

SETTING

Orthopaedics-traumatology and physical medicine-rehabilitation departments.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-nine consecutive patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

INTERVENTIONS

Both groups began the voluntary exercise protocol one day post-surgery. The intervention group (n = 15) also received 30 sessions electrostimulation treatment protocol started four days after the operation.

MAIN MEASURES

Numerical bulge-dancing patella signs for effusion assessment; differences in circumferences of the mid-centre of the patella between operated and non-operated knees for swelling assessment. A self-report of average daily resting pain assessed by visual analogue scale; Intenational Knee Documentation Committee scoring system and Tegner Activity Scale for subjective response assessment.

RESULTS

Twenty-six subjects including 13 patients from the intervention group completed the study. Significantly less effusion and swelling were determined in the intervention group after seven days (1.8 ± 1.3 versus 2.4 ± 1.7 for effusion and 1.7 ± 1.2 versus 3.4 ± 1.5 for swelling) to 12 weeks (0.2 ± 0.7 versus 0.6 ± 0.8 for effusion and 0.2 ± 0.8 versus 0.8 ± 0.9 for swelling) postoperative (P < 0.05). Patients treated with electrostimulation had significantly lower pain scores from seven days up to 12 weeks after the operation (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Electrostimulation along with exercise therapy appears superior to exercise alone regarding knee effusion, swelling and pain recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Still, there is need for further clinical studies using a radiologic method to demonstrate this effect of electrostimulation.