Research Article

ligament reconstruction

Orthopaedic Journal of MP Chapter

Publisher: Madhya Pradesh Orthopaedic Association www.mpioa.com
E-ISSN:2582-7243, P-ISSN:2320-6993
2022 Volume 28 Number 1 Jan-Jun

A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes in cases of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Butala R1, Parelkar K2, Syal A3, Chandiramani V4

1 RP Butala, Department of Orthopaedics, DY Patil Hospital and research centre Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

2 Kedar Parelkar, Department of Orthopaedics, DY Patil Hospital and research centre Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

3 AD Syal, Department of Orthopaedics, DY Patil Hospital and research centre Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

4 V Chandiramani, Department of Orthopaedics, DY Patil Hospital and research centre Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Background: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is responsible for maintaining stability of the knee joint, particularly in activities involving pivoting or kicking. The knee loses its stability if the ACL is ruptured and the joint may become more damaged over time. ACL reconstruction is the surgical treatment of choice. Aim of this study is to analyze the rate of return to sports after 9 months in cases of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Material and Methods: All cases operated for ACL reconstruction between the year 2017- 2020 were studied .This group included 80 patients with traumatic twisting, pivoting injury while playing sports, diagnosed with ACl tear, with instability at the knee joint .Exclusion criteria included avulsion injuries, meniscus involvement, posterior collateral ligament involvement, collateral involvement and any fracture of either femur or tibia involvement. The Scoring system used is ACL RSI (anterior cruciate ligament return to sport and injury scale).

Results: Total eighty athletes were included in this study. There was no association of symmetrical muscle function or quadriceps strength .The patients with a lower ACL RSI (anterior cruciate ligament –return to sport and injury scale) score had a lower rate of return to sports after 9 months post ACL reconstruction as well as a higher rate of secondary ACL injury.

Conclusion: Athletes operated for ACL reconstruction showed a low rate of return to their sports after 9 months. One of the potential concerns was with returning to sports the re-injury rate to the reconstructed ACL or to the other structures (cartilage, menisci or other ligaments) (1-3). Approximately 1 in 4 patients who are 25 years of age or younger and return to high-risk sport after primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction sustain a second ACL injury (4).

Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, return to sport activity

Corresponding Author How to Cite this Article To Browse
Butala R, Parelkar K, Syal A, Chandiramani V, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes in cases of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. ojmpc. 2022;28(1):27-35.
Available From
https://ojmpc.com/index.php/ojmpc/article/view/151
Manuscript Received Review Round 1 Review Round 2 Review Round 3 Accepted
2022-06-06 2022-06-12 2022-06-18 2022-06-24 2022-06-30
Conflict of Interest Funding Ethical Approval Plagiarism X-checker Note
Authors state no conflict of interest. Non Funded. The conducted research is not related to either human or animals use. 13.78 All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

© 2022by Butala R, Parelkar K, Syal A, Chandiramani Vand Published by Madhya Pradesh Orthopaedic Association. This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ unported [CC BY NC 4.0].

ojmpc 2022;28(1)27
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

Introduction

The ACL is extra synovial collagenous structure which is intra-articular with limited healing capacity that originates at the posteromedial aspect of the lateral femoral condyle and crosses anteromedially to insert anterior to the intercondylar eminence of tibial articular surface. It is constituted by two functional bundles: the anteromedial (tight in flexion, 60-900) and the posterolateral (tight in full extension) (5, 6).

It receives innervation from the posterior articular nerve, a branch of the tibial nerve, which supplies mechanoreceptors that play a vital role in proprioception. Hence, an ACL injury causes partial deafferentation and alters spinal and supraspinal motor control, thus affecting proprioception (7, 8).

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are amongst the most common and significant knee ligament injuries occurring in athletes and evaluated by sports medicine practitioners. One of the most common mechanisms that affects females is called ‘‘position of no return,’’ in which the athlete lands with an extended hip and knee, knee in valgus, internally rotated tibia, and a pronated foot (9, 10).

Women who participate in athletics are two to eight times more likely to sustain ACL injury than male counterparts in the same landing and pivoting sports (11, 12). Anterior cruciate ligament tear can occur due to both noncontact and contact mechanisms. Approximately 70% to 80% of the ACL tears occur due to noncontact mechanisms associated to landing from a jump, changing direction, or sudden deceleration. Acute management after ACL tear consists of ligament reconstruction predominantly in young high-level athletes participating in high-demand sports and those with persistent functional knee instability(13,14).

The primary function of the ACL is to prevent the excessive anterior tibial translation .This function is carried out mainly by the anteromedial fibers of the ACL .The other important function includes limiting the varus / valgus stress when the knee is in full extension and the rotatory movements which is the function of the posterolateral fibers (15). Significant stress upon the ACL is observed in the last 30 degrees of extension and hyperextension, along with valgus and internal rotation forces (16, 17).

Although not clearly established in many studies (18), several factors need to be evaluated when determining if the patient should return to play (return to sports) after injury or anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The first and most important question that the athlete will want answered is “When can I return to the sport?” after an ACL injury.

Recently published literature has established that return to sports could be slower than was previously reported, and that better results are obtained after 9 months after reconstruction surgery (19,20).

The objective of this article is to analyze and evaluate the rate of return to sports by athletes after 9 months of ACL reconstruction surgery.

Materials and method

All cases admitted to tertiary care center with a diagnosis of post traumatic ACL tear and above were studied. Exclusion criteria included ACL avulsion injuries, meniscus involvement, posterior collateral ligament involvement, collateral involvement and any fracture of either femur or tibia involvement. Analysis of the number of athletes who returned to sports after their ACL reconstruction surgery was done. All procedures were performed by surgeons with a similar level of training.

The study done after following guidelines laid down by the department of orthopedics and all required consents were taken as per the criteria set forth by the declaration of good clinical practice by Helsinki.Pre-operative data such as age, sex, weight, pre-operative deformity, pre-operative knee function (pre injury level of activity/sport) and quadriceps strength and the absence of effusion was collected.

TABLE 1: Profile of patients included (n=50)

Age(yrs.)Statistic
Median30
Mean28.56
SD7.38
95% C.I. for mean26.46 to 30.66
Min.18
Max.47
No.%
Gender
·  Male3876.0%
·  Female1224.0%
Side
·  Left2040.0%
·  Right3060.0%

Pre-operative intervention:- Goals of pre-operative rehabilitation program included reducing the pain, inflammation, swelling, normal range of motion and gait. All patients in the study received prehabilitation with a good pre-operative protocol which included immobilization/stabilizing the knee joint post knee injury with long knee brace, pain management with IV/oral analgesics and chymotrypsin/trypsin to reduce the swelling.


ojmpc 2022;28(1)28
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

After the pain and swelling subsided the focus of prehabilitation was shifted to regaining full range of movement at knee joint. Quadriceps strength was also given due importance pre-operatively. A 20% deficit in quadriceps strength before surgery, can predict a significant strength deficiency 2 years after surgery (21, 22).

MedianMeanSD95% CIMin.Max.
Emotions
1. Are you afraid of accidentally injuring your knee by playing your sport5049.8017.9044.71 to 54.891090
2. Are you confident about your ability to perform well at your sport5049.4019.2143.94 to 54.8610100
3. Are you confident about your knee holding up under pressure5051.8020.9745.84 to 57.7610100
4. Are you confident that you can perform at your previous level of sport participation5048.8017.8043.74 to 53.8610100
5. Are you confident that you could play your sport without concern for your knee4047.8017.6542.79 to 52.822090
Confidence in performance
6. Are you confident that your knee will not give way by playing your sport5051.0021.7844.81 to 57.1920100
7. Are you fearful of reinjuring your knee by playing your sport5051.4020.7045.52 to 57.2820100
8. Are you nervous about playing your sport5050.6021.8044.41 to 56.8010100
9. Do thoughts of having to go through surgery and rehabilitation again prevent you from playing your sport5051.8018.3746.58 to 57.0210100
10. Do you feel relaxed about playing your sport5050.8020.1945.06 to 56.5420100
Risk appraisal
11. Do you find it frustrating to have to consider your knee with respect to your sport5050.2018.4644.95 to 55.452090
12. Do you think you are likely to re injure your knee by participating in your sport5046.0022.3239.66 to 52.341090

MedianMeanSD95% CIMin.Max.
Emotions4548.8417.7743.79 to 53.892088
Confidence in performance4651.0016.6546.27 to 55.732280
Risk appraisal4550.1018.3644.88 to 55.3215100
ACL-RSI totalscore46.6749.9516.7545.19 to 54.712585.83

Operative management:-The factors that influenced the outcome of ACL reconstruction surgery were anatomical position, tensioning, tunnel position and graft choice (23,24,25). Two grafts are commonly used for such a procedure either an auto-graft or an allograft .

Less failure rates have been reported in auto-grafts as compared to all- grafts in young athletes. Among the most commonly used auto-grafts are the bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) and hamstring tendon (HT) (26).

BTB auto-graft allows for bone-to-bone healing, while achieving better graft strength and stable positioning relative to screw fixation (27).

Recent literature suggests that the tunnel placement preferred by surgeons is the 11 o’clock position on the frontal view of the knee. Biomechanical studies have suggested that this femoral tunnel placement could not satisfactorily achieve the needed rotatory knee stability, whereas a more lateral placement towards the footprint of the PL bundle, i.e., the 10 o'clock position yielded better results (28).

All tunnel placement in the athletes operated were at the 10 o’clock position. Still, it has been shown that there is no single position that could produce the rotatory knee stability close to that of the intact knee (28).

Post-operative factors:-The factors that play an important role in successful rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction surgery are a participation in a good rehabilitation program, psychological readiness and time from surgery.

Progressively, emphasis was given on strengthening programs including closed and open kinetic chain (OKC) exercises, neuromuscular control, balance/proprioceptive exercises, and subsequent sport-specific training ( 29, 30, 31, 32).

Physiotherapy:

Goals post-operatively:

  1. Control pain and swellings
  2. Care for the knee and dressing
  3. Early range of motion exercises
  4. Achieve and maintain full passive extension
  5. Prevent shutdown of the quadriceps muscles
  6. Gait training

Weight bearing status: This applies to all ACL reconstruction unless otherwise specified.

  1. Day 1-7 = 50% body weight (2 crutches).
  2. Day 8-14 = 50-75% body weight (1 crutch).
  3. End of week 2 = full weight bearing.

After 2 weeks postoperatively after 2 weeks:


ojmpc 2022;28(1)29
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

Goals:

  1. Maintain full extension
  2. Achieve 100 - 120 degrees of flexion
  3. Develop enough muscular control to wean off knee immobilizer
  4. Control swelling in the knee

After 4-6 weeks of surgery:

Goals:

  1. 125 degrees of flexion pushing toward full flexion
  2. Continued strength building

Complication: Amongst our limited study group we found 2 cases of post-operative stiffness which presented as lack of full ROM in extension within 2 weeks, one of the reasons for such a complication may have been placement of femoral and tibial tunnel or tensioning of graft at near terminal extension.

These patients were advised aggressive post-operative rehabilitation which showed good results and the athletes regained full extension. Such complications can also be managed by drop out casting or in severe cases arthroscopic adhesiolysis specifically in refractory cases. In cases where full flexion isn’t achieved manipulation under anesthesia may help to regain lost flexion (33).

Statistical analysis-The return to sports was calculated based on a follow up kept over a time of 9 months to analyze the number of athletes who return to their sports after 9 months .A total of 80 athletes were considered for this study, out of which based on the exclusion criteria 25 patients were eliminated due other associated injuries along with ACL injury, from the 55 athletes included 5 where lost during follow up .

The final analysis group included 50 patients. Scoring system used is ACL RSI (anterior cruciate ligament return to sport and injury scale).

The ACL-RSI comprises 12 questions where patients grade their answers on a Likert scale ranging from zero to 100 with ten-point increments (34). Higher scores indicate greater psychological readiness towards RTS (35).

Results

Eighty athletes were considered in this study, from which fifty athletes completed the study. The main reason for exclusion was other ligament and/or meniscus involvement. The athletes had an average age (mean age =28.56) . Only 55% athletes returned to strenuous sports between a time of 6 to 12 months.

After returning to sports and answering the questionnaire, time ranged from 5 days to 2 months.

The study also suggested that athletes who returned to sports at 9 months showed a lower rate of re-injury as compared to those who returned earlier. Based on the results of the questionnaire, it can be suggested that athletes who scored low on the questionnaire were higher in number as compared to those who scored higher.The study also showed a direct correlation between a low ACL-RSI score and a low rate of return to sports by athletes.

These findings can be attributed to various reasons such as decreased level of confidence, fear of re-injury, increased level of frustration having to consider the knee while playing, fear of having to under-go rehabilitation again, increased level of nervousness while playing the sport, worry about the knee holding up under pressure while playing and lastly fear of suffering through similar pain which occurred after the first injury.

Discussion

The most important finding of the present study was Psychological and physical readiness to RTS does not necessarily coincide. Studies based on evaluating the physiological readiness are hence both warranted as well as necessary. This assessment with the ACL-RTI was performed approximately 9 months after surgery with help of a valid and easy to answer questionnaire.

Various studies demonstrate that patients who receive prehabilitation are able to recover full ROM, have lower risk of developing knee stiffness and arthrofibrosis after surgery, improve quadriceps activation, and reduce muscle atrophy caused by loss of neuromuscular control (36, 37) . It was also noted that loss of ROM, particularly knee extension pre-operatively, leads to unfavorable results after ACLR (38).

Laboratory studies have found that an initial graft tension of 88 N resulted in an overly constrained knee, while a lower initial graft tension of 44 N would be more suitable (39). On the contrary, an in vivo study on goats found no significant differences in knee kinematics and in situ forces, between high (35 N) and low (5 N) initial tension groups at 6 weeks after surgery (40).

Thus, the literature is confusing and definitive answers on initial graft tension remain unknown (41). There are advocates of early and aggressive postoperative rehabilitation as well as neuromuscular training to help athletes return to sports as early as possible (42).


ojmpc 2022;28(1)30
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

On the other hand some studies suggest that RTP is more dependent on the postoperative rehabilitation program than the graft selection and tensioning (43, 44).

As traditional single bundle ACL reconstruction could not fully restore rotatory knee stability, investigators have explored anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction for ACL replacement (45, 46, 47, 48).

Biomechanical studies have revealed that an anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction has clear advantages in terms of achieving kinematics at the level of the intact knee with concomitant improvement of the in situ forces in the ACL graft closer to those of the intact ACL, even when the knee is subjected to rotatory loads (49).

Many rehabilitation protocols have been described such as the accelerated program that was initially described by shelbourne and nitz(50). A subsequent study demonstrated no difference in subjective or objective outcomes after ACLR between accelerated and traditional rehabilitation programs (19 vs 32 wk) in patients with BTB autografts (51).

In addition to physical readiness, fear of re-injury due to the physiological state of the patient also plays an important role in returning to sports participation. Although not routinely used, there are several scoring systems available to address the psychological state after ACLR (52). For example, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (53) and ACL Return to Sport after Injury Scale (54).

There are multiple causative factors for symptom recurrence, including but not limited to repeat trauma, infections, technical errors, lack of biologic healing or fixation, or some combination of these causes (55, 56).

The percentage of graft failures and contralateral tears has been reported to occur in between 4% and 27% of reconstructed patients, with a higher percentage occurring in the first year (57, 58).

A young athlete returning to sport within 1 year of surgery is 15 times more likely to suffer a second ACL tear when compared with a healthy athlete (59). Among the technical factors that can influence and increase the amount of recurrent injuries, tunnel malposition should be highlighted, with the femoral insertion being the primary cause (60).

Ideally, proper tension should avoid the laxity caused by the insufficient ligament; without causing overt constriction that may lead to increased joint contact pressures and resultant collagen myxoid degeneration and intra-substance graft necrosis (61).

Various studies have shown that using allografts in patients under 25 years of age have a higher likelihood of failing, particularly those allografts that have been irradiated (62, 63). When comparing auto-grafts, multiple systematic reviews have been published with mixed results, leading some surgeons to select the harvest site depending on surgeon comfort or based on anatomy and sport-specific demand (64, 65). The MARS group reported that 7% of failures may be attributed to biologic causes (66).

Conclusion

The study results support the clinical observation that the patients who score poorly on the ACL-RSI score system performed poorly and also showed a lower rate of return to their sport. Hence for the current athletes as well as young and active population it is acceptable to infer that the ability of a post ACL reconstruction patient to active life style or their sport is closely related to the ACL-RSI score.

In the above study out of a total of 38 male athletes and 12 female athletes (table-1) the ones who returned to pre-injury activity scored significantly higher on ACL-RSI score as compared to those who scored low on the ACL-RSI score. Based on the questionnaire (table-2) it was noted that (mean=48.80) athletes only had the confidence that they would be able perform at their pre-injury level in their sport.

It was also taken into account that (mean= 51.50) athletes had a fear of re-injury. A mean of the total ACL-RSI score of this study was only 49.95 (table-3), which also indicates a low rate of return to sports after 9 month of ACL reconstruction amongst athletes.

These findings are in coherence with growing evidence that suggests the validity of the ACL-RSI score and also implies that surgeons need to use both physiological and physical tests in their evaluation of the readiness to return to sports after ACL reconstruction surgery in athletes.

Abbreviations

  1. ACL- anterior cruciate ligament.
  2. ACL RSI - anterior cruciate ligament return to sport and injury scale.
  3. ACLR - anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
  4. BTB - bone-patellar tendon-bone.
  5. HT-hamstring tendon.
  6. OKC - open kinetic chain.

ojmpc 2022;28(1)31
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

References

1. Sandberg R, Balkfors B. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A 5-year follow-up of 89 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1988;59:288–93. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

2. Otto D, Pinczewski LA, Clingeleffer A, et al. Fiveyear results of single-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med 1998;26:181–8. . [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

3. Bak K, Scavenius M, Hansen S, et al. Isolated partial rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Long-term follow-up of 56 cases. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1997;5:66–71. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

4. Wiggins AJ, , Grandhi RK, , Schneider DK, , Stanfield D, , Webster KE, , Myer GD. and Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44: 1861– 1876. Medline Google Scholar [Article][Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

5. Gabriel MT, Wong EK, Woo SL, et al. Distribution of in situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament in response to rotatory loads. J. Orthop. Res. 2004; 22:85Y9 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

6. Miller MD. The Knee and Lower Leg: Essential Orthopaedics. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2010. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

7. van Melick N, van Cingel RE, Brooijmans F, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice update: practice guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation based on a systematic review and multidisciplinary consensus. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016; 50:1506Y15 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

8. Zimny ML, Schutte M, Dabezies E. Mechanoreceptors in the human anterior cruciate ligament. Anat. Rec. 1986; 214:204Y9 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

9. Boden BP, Dean GS, Feagin JA, Garrett WE. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Orthopedics. 2000; 23:573Y8. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

10. Hewett TE, Myer GD. The mechanistic connection between the trunk, hip, knee, and anterior cruciate ligament injury. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2011; 39:161Y6 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

11. Arendt E, Dick R. Knee injury patterns among men and women in collegiate basketball and soccer. NCAA data and review of literature. Am. J. Sports Med. 1995; 23:694Y701 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

12. Hewett TE, Ford KR, Myer GD. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes: part 2, a meta-analysis of neuromuscular interventions aimed at injury prevention. Am. J. Sports Med. 2006; 34:490Y8 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

13. Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML, et al. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am. J. Sports Med. 2005; 33:335Y46 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

14. Fu FH, Schulte KR. Anterior cruciate ligament surgery 1996. State of the art? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1996:19Y24 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

15. Chhabra A, Starman JS, Ferretti M, et al. Anatomic, radiographic, biomechanical, and kinematic evaluation of the anterior cruciate ligament and its two functional bundles. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2006; 88(Suppl. 4):2Y10 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

16. Li G, DeFrate LE, Sun H, Gill TJ. In vivo elongation of the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament during knee flexion. Am. J. Sports Med. 2004; 32:1415Y20 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

17. Quatman CE, Kiapour AM, Demetropoulos CK, et al. Preferential loading of the ACL compared with the MCL during landing: a novel in sim approach yields the multiplanar mechanism of dynamic valgus during ACL injuries. Am. J. Sports Med. 2014; 42:177Y86.Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR. Factors used to determine return to unrestricted sports activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011; 27:1697Y705 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

18. Grindem H, Snyder-Mackler L, Moksnes H, et al. Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016; 50:804Y8 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

19. Nagelli CV, Hewett TE. Should return to sport be delayed until 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Biological and functional considerations. Sports Med. 2017; 47:221Y32. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]


ojmpc 2022;28(1)32
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

20. de Jong SN, van Caspel DR, van Haeff MJ, Saris DB. Functional assessment and muscle strength before and after reconstruction of chronic anterior cruciate ligament lesions. Arthroscopy. 2007; 23:21Y8, 28. e1-3 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

21. Shaarani SR, O’Hare C, Quinn A, et al. Effect of prehabilitation on the outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am. J. Sports Med. 2013; 41:2117Y27 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

22. Amiel D, Kleiner JB, Roux RD, et al. The phenomenon of ‘‘ligamentization’’: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar tendon. J. Orthop. Res. 1986; 4:162Y72 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

23. Arnoczky SP, Tarvin GB, Marshall JL. Anterior cruciate ligament replacement using patellar tendon. An evaluation of graft revascularization in the dog. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1982; 64:217Y24 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

24. Fernandes TL, Fregni F, Weaver K, et al. The influence of femoral tunnel position in single-bundle ACL reconstruction on functional outcomes and return to sports. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2014; 22:97Y103 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

25. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861. Volume 14, Issue 12 Ver. VI (Dec. 2015), PP 59-62 www. iosrjournals.org [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

26. Pauzenberger L, Syre´ S, Schurz M. ‘‘Ligamentization’’ in hamstring tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of the literature and a glimpse into the future. Arthroscopy. 2013; 29:1712Y21. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

27. Mehta VM, Mandala C, Foster D, Petsche TS. Comparison of revision rates in bone-patella tendon-bone auto-graft and allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopedics. 2010; 33:12. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

28. Myer GD, Ford KR, Barber Foss KD, et al. The relationship of hamstrings and quadriceps strength to anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2009; 19:3Y8 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

29. Nagelli CV, Hewett TE. Should return to sport be delayed until 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Biological and functional considerations. Sports Med. 2017; 47:221Y32. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

30. Sugimoto D, Myer GD, Foss KD, Hewett TE. Specific exercise effects of preventive neuromuscular training intervention on anterior cruciate ligament injury risk reduction in young females: meta-analysis and subgroup analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015; 49:282Y9 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

31. Wilk KE, Reinold MM, Hooks TR. Recent advances in the rehabilitation of isolated and combined anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Orthop. Clin. North Am. 2003; 34:107Y37 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

32. Petsche TS, Hutchinson MR. Loss of extension after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1999. 7:119–127 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

33. Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C (2008). Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport 9:9–15. . [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

34. Webster KE, Feller JA (2018). Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) Scale. Orthop J Sports Med 6:1–7. . [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

35. Magit D, Wolff A, Sutton K, Medvecky MJ. Arthrofibrosis of the knee. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2007; 15:682Y94 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

36. Strum GM, Friedman MJ, Fox JM, et al. Acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Analysis of complications. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1990: 184Y9 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

37. Fernandes TL, Fregni F, Weaver K, et al. The influence of femoral tunnel position in single-bundle ACL reconstruction on functional outcomes and return to sports. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2014; 22:97Y103 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

38. Mae T, Shino K, Miyama T, Shinjo H, Ochi T, Yoshikawa H, Fujie H. Single- versus two-femoral socket anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique. Biomechanical analysis using a robotic simulator. Arthroscopy 2001, 17:708-716. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

39. Abramowitch SD, Papageorgiou CD, Withrow JD, Gilbert TW, Woo SL. The effect of initial graft tension on the biomechanical properties of a healing ACL replacement graft. a study in goats. J Orthop Res 2003. 21:708-715 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]


ojmpc 2022;28(1)33
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

40. Nicholas SJ, D'Amato MJ, Mullaney MJ, Tyler TF, Kolstad K, McHugh MP. A prospectively randomized double-blind study on the effect of initial graft tension on knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2004. 32:1881-1886. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

41. . Shelbourne KD, Nitz P. Accelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1990, 18(3):292-299. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

42. Cascio BM, Culp L, Cosgarea AJ. Return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin. Sports Med. 2004. 23:395Y408. ix [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

43. Delay BS, Smolinski RJ, Wind WM, Bowman DS. Current practices and opinions in ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: results of a survey of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Am. J. Knee Surg. 2001.14:85Y91 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

44. Adachi N, Ochi M, Uchio Y, Iwasa J, Kuriwaka M, Ito Y. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Single- versus doublebundle multistranded hamstring tendons. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004. 86:515-520 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

45. Bellier G, Christel P, Colombet P, Djian P, Franceschi JP, Sbihi A. Double-stranded hamstring graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction7. Arthroscopy 2004. 20:890-894. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

46. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Kitamura N, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H, Minami A. Anatomic reconstruction of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring tendon grafts. Arthroscopy 2004. 20:1015-1025. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

47. Zelle BA, Brucker PU, Feng MT, Fu FH. Anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med 2006. 36:99-108. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

48. Yagi M, Wong EK, Kanamori A, Debski RE, Fu FH, Woo SL. Biomechanical analysis of an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2002. 30:660-666. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

49. Shelbourne KD, Nitz P. Accelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 1992; 15:256Y64 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

50. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Abate JA, et al. Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries, part I. Am. J. Sports Med. 2005; 33:1579Y602 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

51. Schilaty ND, Nagelli C, Hewett TE. Use of objective neurocognitive measures to assess the psychological states that influence return to sport following injury. Sports Med. 2016; 46:299Y303. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

52. Kvist J, Ek A, Sporrstedt K, Good L. Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2005; 13:393Y7 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

53. Webster KE, Feller JA, Lambros C. Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys. Ther. Sport. 2008; 9:9Y15 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

54. MARS Group; Wright RW, Huston LJ, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am. J. Sports Med. 2010; 38:1979Y86 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

55. Whitehead TS. Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin. Sports Med. 2013; 32:177Y204 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

56. Nagelli CV, Hewett TE. Should return to sport be delayed until 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Biological and functional considerations. Sports Med. 2017; 47:221Y32. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

57. Whitehead TS. Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin. Sports Med. 2013; 32:177Y204 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

58. Nagelli CV, Hewett TE. Should return to sport be delayed until 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Biological and functional considerations. Sports Med. 2017; 47:221Y32. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

59. MARS Group; Wright RW, Huston LJ, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am. J. Sports Med. 2010; 38:1979Y86 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

60. Whitehead TS. Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin. Sports Med. 2013; 32:177Y204 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

61. Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, et al. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health. 2011; 3:73Y81. [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]


ojmpc 2022;28(1)34
Parelkar et al, A retrospective analysis of return to sports after 9 months in athletes

62. Whitehead TS. Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin. Sports Med. 2013; 32:177Y204 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

63. Walde´n M, Ha¨gglund M, Magnusson H, Ekstrand J. ACL injuries in men’s professional football: a 15-year prospective study on time trends and returnto-play rates reveals only 65% of players still play at the top level 3 years after ACL rupture. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016; 50:744Y50 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

64. Whitehead TS. Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin. Sports Med. 2013; 32:177Y204 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

65. MARS Group; Wright RW, Huston LJ, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am. J. Sports Med. 2010; 38:1979Y86 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

66. Nishimori M, Deie M, Adachi N, et al. Articular cartilage injury of the posterior lateral tibial plateau associated with acute anterior cruciate ligament injury. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2008; 16:270Y4 [Crossref][PubMed][Google Scholar]

Disclaimer / Publisher's Note

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of Journals and/or the editor(s). Journals and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.


ojmpc 2022;28(1)35