Yapıcı Furkan, Gür Volkan, Sarı İlker Fatih, Köksal Alper, Yurten Hakan, Üçpunar Hanifi, Çamurcu Yalkın
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Erzincan University Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan, Türkiye.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Giresun University Faculty of Medicine, Giresun, Türkiye.
Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Aug 25;68(3):355-363. doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2022.8906. eCollection 2022 Sep.
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.
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.
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 12 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).
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.
本研究旨在比较前交叉韧带(ACL)重建术后使用或不使用康复膝关节支具(RKB)进行康复治疗的患者的临床结果。
本回顾性比较研究于2013年1月至2017年12月进行。共有119例急性ACL断裂患者(112例男性,7例女性;平均年龄:32.0±8.6岁;范围18至45岁)接受了关节镜下ACL重建治疗,并分为使用RKB康复组(n=56)和不使用RKB康复组(n=63)参与本研究。最短随访时间为24个月。分别使用ACL生活质量(QoL)问卷、Lysholm膝关节评分量表和Tegner活动水平量表对生活质量、膝关节功能和活动水平进行评估。记录恢复运动的时间。使用KT-1000关节测量仪测量胫骨前向平移的左右侧差异。
平均随访时间为38.4±9.1(范围24至56)个月。两组间基线人口统计学和临床特征相似。在生活质量、膝关节功能和活动水平方面,术后12个月时使用RKB的患者与未使用RKB的患者之间未观察到显著差异(分别为p=0.95、p=0.56、p=0.98),在最近一次随访时也无显著差异(分别为p=0.21、p=0.73、p=0.99)。两组恢复运动的平均时间(两组均近11个月)以及最近一次随访时胫骨前向平移的左右侧差异也相似(分别为p=0.15和p=0.15)。两组在随访期间均未发生移植物破裂。无支具组和支具组的并发症发生率分别为7.9%和7.1%,无统计学显著差异(p=0.87)。
根据本研究结果,ACL重建术后康复支具组和无支具组在临床结果上无显著差异。