Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine [The]. 2017; 68 (1): 853-864
em En
| IMEMR
| ID: emr-189920
Biblioteca responsável:
EMRO
Background: Anterior Cruciate Ligament [ACL] reconstruction is a well-known surgical knee procedure performed by orthopaedic surgeons. There is a general consensus for the effectiveness of a postoperative ACL reconstruction rehabilitation program, however there is little consensus regarding the optimal components of a program
Objective of the Study: to assess the merits and demerits of current ACL reconstruction rehabilitation programs and interventions based on the evidence supported by previously conducted systematic reviews
Methods: a Systematic search in the scientific database [Medline, Scopus, EMBASE , and Google Scholer] between 1970 and 2017 was conducted for all relevant Systematic reviews discussing the primary endpoint [ ACL reconstruction rehabilitation ] studies were analyzed and included based on the preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study screening and quality was assessed against PRISMA guidelines and a best evidence synthesis was performed
Results: the search results yielded five studies which evaluated eight rehabilitation components [bracing, Continuous passive motion [CPM], neuromuscular electrical stimulation [NMES], open kinetic chain [OKC] versus closed kinetic chain [CKC] exercise, progressive eccentric exercise, home versus supervised rehabilitation, accelerated rehabilitation and water based rehabilitation]. A strong evidence suggested no added benefit of short term bracing [0-6 weeks post-surgery] compared to standard treatment. Whilst a moderate evidence reinforced no added advantage of continuous passive motion to standard treatment for boosting motion range. Furthermore, a moderate evidence of equal effectiveness of closed versus open kinetic chain exercise and home versus clinic based rehabilitation, on a range of short term outcomes. There was inconsistent or limited evidence for some interventions including: the use of NMES and exercise, accelerated and non-accelerated rehabilitation, early and delayed rehabilitation, and eccentric resistance programs after ACL reconstruction
Conclusion: short term post-operative bracing and continuous passive motion [CPM] introduce no benefit over standard treatment and thus not recommended. A moderate evidence suggested equal efficiency for 1] CKC and OKC are equally effective for knee laxity, pain and function, at least in the short term [6-14 weeks] after ACL reconstruction and 2] home based and clinic based rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the degree of physiotherapy input remains unclear
Objective of the Study: to assess the merits and demerits of current ACL reconstruction rehabilitation programs and interventions based on the evidence supported by previously conducted systematic reviews
Methods: a Systematic search in the scientific database [Medline, Scopus, EMBASE , and Google Scholer] between 1970 and 2017 was conducted for all relevant Systematic reviews discussing the primary endpoint [ ACL reconstruction rehabilitation ] studies were analyzed and included based on the preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study screening and quality was assessed against PRISMA guidelines and a best evidence synthesis was performed
Results: the search results yielded five studies which evaluated eight rehabilitation components [bracing, Continuous passive motion [CPM], neuromuscular electrical stimulation [NMES], open kinetic chain [OKC] versus closed kinetic chain [CKC] exercise, progressive eccentric exercise, home versus supervised rehabilitation, accelerated rehabilitation and water based rehabilitation]. A strong evidence suggested no added benefit of short term bracing [0-6 weeks post-surgery] compared to standard treatment. Whilst a moderate evidence reinforced no added advantage of continuous passive motion to standard treatment for boosting motion range. Furthermore, a moderate evidence of equal effectiveness of closed versus open kinetic chain exercise and home versus clinic based rehabilitation, on a range of short term outcomes. There was inconsistent or limited evidence for some interventions including: the use of NMES and exercise, accelerated and non-accelerated rehabilitation, early and delayed rehabilitation, and eccentric resistance programs after ACL reconstruction
Conclusion: short term post-operative bracing and continuous passive motion [CPM] introduce no benefit over standard treatment and thus not recommended. A moderate evidence suggested equal efficiency for 1] CKC and OKC are equally effective for knee laxity, pain and function, at least in the short term [6-14 weeks] after ACL reconstruction and 2] home based and clinic based rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the degree of physiotherapy input remains unclear
Buscar no Google
Índice:
IMEMR
Tipo de estudo:
Guideline
/
Systematic_reviews
Idioma:
En
Revista:
Egypt. J. Hosp. Med.
Ano de publicação:
2017