Knee Bracing After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Influence of neoprene ankle orthoses on dynamic balance during a vertical jump in healthy individuals and with sprain history: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

A sprain describes an excessive amount of force or strain on a ligament, which may or may not lead to its rupture. Orthoses are among the most common modalities prescribed as a conservative treatment for ankle instability and sprain.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to analyse the effect of neoprene orthosis on the balance and functionality of healthy individuals and volunteers with lateral ankle sprains METHODS: We evaluated 12 healthy volunteers (control group) and 12 volunteers diagnosed with a sprain and/or instability (patient group). A total of 14 men and 10 women participated in the study, with an average age of 26.15 (± 4.40) years. The volunteers' tasks consisted of performing vertical bipodal and unipodal jumps on a force platform, which were recorded in a video from the lateral view of the lower limb for posterior evaluation of the knee and ankle angles. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests were used for comparisons, considering p < 0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS

The control group presented a decrease in ground reaction force when using Orthosis during the bipodal jump (p < 0.05). A decrease in anteroposterior force displacement was also observed in the left unipodal jump (p < 0.01). The patient group presented an increase in force and moment of medial-lateral displacement for both bipodal (p < 0.02) and left unipodal jumps with Orthosis (p < 0.02). A kinematic analysis showed that the control group presented the smallest knee flexion angle (p < 0.01), while the patient group presented the smallest dorsiflexion ankle angle in the bipodal jump when using orthosis (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We concluded that orthosis had influence on individuals' balance and joint angles. In healthy individuals presented better balance with and without orthosis and greater flexion with orthosis in the bipodal jump, regarding to the patient group presented smaller oscillations in the unipodal jump with orthosis and showed smaller knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion.

Physiotherapy After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction a Literature Review

Introduction: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is the main stabiliser that inhibits excessive anterior translation of the tibia and prevents excessive rotational movements of the knee joint. ACL injuries occur at a frequency of 30 to 78 per 100,000 people a year, leading to instability and impaired function of the knee joint. Continuous development of knowledge on the anatomy and functions of the anterior cruciate ligament, along with the improvement of surgical and physiotherapeutic techniques, allowed for the development of satisfactory modern methods for treating ACL lesions.Objective: The aim of the study is to review literature on modern methods of physiotherapy after the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament.Material and methods: Pubmed, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect scientific databases were searched using a combination of keywords: anterior cruciate ligament, ACL, reconstruction, physiotherapy, protocol. The inclusion criteria were: publication date from the last 10 years and a detailed description of the physiotherapy protocol included.Results: Six publications meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Selected physiotherapy protocols consisted of 3 to 5 phases. Phase 1 was focused on reducing pain and swelling in all cases. The purpose of the following phases was to increase the range of motion and to strengthen muscle strength as well as neuromuscular coordination. The final stage consisted of dynamic exercises allowing to prepare for a chosen sports activity.Conclusion: Contemporary protocols for physiotherapy after ACL reconstruction are based on early recovery of range of motion in the knee joint, early increase in load on the operated limb as well as shortening (or excluding) the period of immobilisation and the use of orthoses.

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Objectives: This study aims to compare the clinical results of patients rehabilitated with or without a rehabilitative knee brace (RKB) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Patients and methods: This retrospective, comparative study was conducted at between January 2013 and December 2017. A total of 119 patients (112 males, 7 females; mean age: 32.0±8.6 years; range, 18 to 45 years) with acute ACL ruptures treated with arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and rehabilitated with (n=56) or without RKB (n=63) participated in the study. The minimum follow-up time was 24 months. The ACL quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Tegner Activity Level Scale were used for the evaluation of the QoL, knee function, and activity level, respectively. The time to return to sports was recorded. The side-to-side difference in the anterior translation of the tibia was measured using a KT-1000 arthrometer.

Results: The mean follow-up time was 38.4±9.1 (range, 24 to 56) months. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Regarding QoL, knee function, and activity level, no significant difference was observed between patients who used RKB and those who did not use it at the postoperative 12th month (p=0.95, p=0.56, p=0.98, respectively) and the latest follow-up (p=0.21, p=0.73, p=0.99, respectively). The mean time to return to sports (nearly 11 months for both groups) and side-to-side difference in the anterior tibial translation at the latest follow-up was also similar between groups (p=0.15 and p=0.15, respectively). There was no graft rupture during the follow-up in both groups. The complication rates were 7.9% and 7.1% for no brace and brace groups, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (p=0.87).

Conclusion: According to the results of this study, there was no significant difference between the rehabilitative brace and no brace groups in clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction.

Current Standards of Early Rehabilitation after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in German Speaking Countries-Differentiation Based on Tendon Graft and Concomitant Injuries

Background: Although anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a well-established procedure and is standardly performed by orthopedic surgeons all over the world, there does not seem to be a standard protocol for early rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to give answers to the following questions: (i) Does (a) the use of a specific tendon graft, and (b) potentially additional therapy of concomitant pathologies influence surgeons’ choice of a distinct postoperative rehabilitation protocol after ACLR? (ii) To what extent do these rehabilitation recommendations differ? Methods: Retrospective analysis of currently used early rehabilitation protocols after ACLR in German-speaking countries (GER, AUT and SUI) was conducted. Rehabilitation criteria included weight bearing, range of motion (ROM), the utilization of braces, continuous passive/active motion therapy (CPM/CAM), rehabilitation training and sport-specific training. Tendon grafts were differentiated as hamstring (HAM) and bone−patellar tendon−bone grafts (BTB). Concomitant pathologies included meniscus injuries (+M) and unhappy triad injuries (+UTI). Results: Most of the surveyed protocols were differentiated according to the used tendon graft or additional therapy of concomitant injuries (ACLR-differentiated, n = 147 vs. ACLR without graft differentiation, n = 58). When comparing ACLR-HAM and ACLR-BTB, significant differences were found regarding weight bearing (p = 0.01), ROM (p = 0.05) and the utilization of braces (p = 0.03). Regarding ACLR+M, an overall significant decelerated rehabilitation could be detected. After ACLR+UTI-therapy, a significant delayed start to full weight bearing (p = 0.002) and ROM (p < 0.001) was found. Conclusions: Most orthopedic surgeons from German-speaking countries differentiate early rehabilitation after ACLR according to the tendon graft used and therapy of concomitant pathologies. No consensus about early rehabilitation after ACLR is available. However, tendencies for an accelerated rehabilitation after ACLR-BTB and a more restrained rehabilitation of multiple injured knees were detected.

The effect of knee bracing on the knee function and stability following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Knee brace has been commonly used as a device to protect the graft after reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Studies have focused on the effects of braces after ACL reconstruction, and controversial results were reported. The current meta-analysis was conducted to identify whether knee braces could provide superior clinical outcomes on knee functional scores and stability evaluations.

HYPOTHESIS

Knee braces could not provide superior clinical outcomes on knee functional scores and stability evaluations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers independently retrieved the literature on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Data related to the knee functional scores and stability evaluations, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation, Lachman test, manual anterior drawer test, single leg hop test, pivot shift test, side-to-side difference, Lysholm score and Tegner score, were extracted and pooled using meta-analysis with fixed or random- effect models when applicable.

RESULTS

A total of 7 studies with 440 participants were finally included. The IKDC objective score was pooled using the odds ratio (OR) as effect size, which was demonstrated to be non-significantly different between the brace and no brace groups. All of the other clinical outcomes, including Lysholm score, Tegner score, side-to-side difference, single-leg hop test and VAS pain score, were pooled using the standard mean difference (SMD) as effect size. At final follow up, the aforementioned clinical outcomes were demonstrated to be similar between the brace and non-brace groups.

DISCUSSION

Knee bracing does not appear to improve the clinical outcomes on the function and stability for ACL-reconstructed knees. Thus, bracing for patients treated with ACL reconstruction should not be recommended routinely.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, Meta-analysis.

Avoid post operative bracing to reduce ACL rerupture rates

PURPOSE

It has been quoted that the graft is more prone to injury in the early stages of ligamentization between 3 and 6 months when the muscles are weak and compliance with post-op protocol is waning. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of avoiding postoperative bracing following ACL reconstruction and early enhanced recovery protocol on the reinjuries of graft.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon in the same specialist center between October 2015 and May 2017 were included in the study. All the patients were educated regarding rehabilitation before the index surgery and preoperative quadriceps exercises had been initiated. Rehabilitation was undertaken as per a standard protocol with emphasis on early mobilization. No brace was used. Patients were followed up between 3 months and 1 year. Lysholm knee scores were evaluated at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

No failures were noted (failure defined as instability, stiffness or persistent pain). The average Lysholm knee score at 6 months was 88 and at 12 months period was 91. No statistical significance (P > 0.00001) was noted in the scores between braced and unbraced at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

ACL rehabilitation without a knee brace can indirectly prevent rerupture and is a cheaper as well as a safer method with better outcomes.

Does the Powers™ strap influence the lower limb biomechanics during running?

Previous research has reported a prevalence of running related injuries in 25.9% to 72% of all runners. A greater hip internal rotation and adduction during the stance phase in running has been associated with many running related injuries, such as patellofemoral pain. Researchers in the USA designed a treatment device 'the Powers™ strap' to facilitate an external rotation of the femur and to thereby control abnormal hip and knee motion during leisure and sport activities. However, to date no literature exists to demonstrate whether the Powers™ strap is able to reduce hip internal rotation during running. 22 healthy participants, 11 males and 11 females (age: 27.45±4.43 years, height: 1.73±0.06m, mass: 66.77±9.24kg) were asked to run on a 22m track under two conditions: without and with the Powers™ strap. Three-dimensional motion analysis was conducted using ten Qualisys OQUS 7 cameras (Qualisys AB, Sweden) and force data was captured with three AMTI force plates (BP600900, Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc.USA). Paired sample t-tests were performed at the 95% confidence interval on all lower limb kinematic and kinetic data. The Powers™ strap significantly reduced hip and knee internal rotation throughout the stance phase of running. These results showed that the Powers™ strap has the potential to influence hip motion during running related activities, in doing so this might be beneficial for patients with lower limb injuries. Future research should investigate the influence of the Powers™ strap in subjects who suffer from running related injuries, such as patellofemoral pain.

Functional Brace in ACL Surgery: Force Quantification in an In Vivo Study

Background:

A need exists for a functional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) brace that dynamically supports the knee joint to match the angle-dependent forces of a native ACL, especially in the early postoperative period.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to quantify the posteriorly directed external forces applied to the anterior proximal tibia by both a static and a dynamic force ACL brace. The proximal strap forces applied by the static force brace were hypothesized to remain relatively constant regardless of knee flexion angle compared with those of the dynamic force brace.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

Seven healthy adult males (mean age, 27.4 ± 3.4 years; mean height, 1.8 ± 0.1 m; mean body mass, 84.1 ± 11.3 kg) were fitted with both a static and a dynamic force ACL brace. Participants completed 3 functional activities: unloaded extension, sit-to-stand, and stair ascent. Kinematic data were collected using traditional motion-capture techniques while posteriorly directed forces applied to the anterior aspect of both the proximal and distal tibia were simultaneously collected using a customized pressure-mapping technique.

Results:

The mean posteriorly directed forces applied to the proximal tibia at 30° of flexion by the dynamic force brace during unloaded extension (80.2 N), sit-to-stand (57.5 N), and stair ascent (56.3 N) activities were significantly larger, regardless of force setting, than those applied by the static force brace (10.1 N, 9.5 N, and 11.9 N, respectively; P < .001).

Conclusion:

The dynamic force ACL brace, compared with the static force brace, applied significantly larger posteriorly directed forces to the anterior proximal tibia in extension, where the ACL is known to experience larger in vivo forces. Further studies are required to determine whether the physiological behavior of the brace will reduce anterior knee laxity and improve long-term patient outcomes.

Clinical Relevance:

ACL braces that dynamically restrain the proximal tibia in a manner similar to physiological ACL function may improve pre- and postoperative treatment.