Quality and Variability of Online Available Physical Therapy Protocols From Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Programs for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.

knee ligaments physical therapy rehabilitation

Journal

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Historique:
entrez: 17 7 2019
pubmed: 17 7 2019
medline: 17 7 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Unlike the literature on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, studies on medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction lack evidence-based guidelines regarding postoperative rehabilitation. An effective postoperative protocol may contribute greatly to a successful outcome following MPFL reconstruction, yet the quality and variability of these published protocols remain unknown. To assess the quality and variability of MPFL rehabilitation protocols publicly available on the internet and associated with US academic orthopaedic programs. Systematic review. All available isolated MPFL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols from US academic orthopaedic programs participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service were collected and included in this review. These protocols were evaluated for inclusion of various rehabilitation components, the timing of suggested initiation of these activities, and whether the protocol used evaluation-based guidelines. A total of 27 protocols were included. Of these, 25 (93%) recommended immediate postoperative bracing. Time to initiation of full weightbearing ranged from 2 to 8 weeks. The most common strengthening exercises endorsed were quadriceps sets (89%), straight-legged raise (85%), and leg press (81%). The most common proprioception exercises endorsed were balance board (41%), single-legged balance (41%), and TheraBand control (33%). The median time suggested to return to play was 17 weeks. No functional test appeared in the majority of the protocols. Of the 27 protocols, 20 (74%) used evaluation-based guidelines. There is substantial variability in content and timing across rehabilitation protocols following MPFL reconstruction. This lack of clear guidelines can cause confusion among patients, therapists, and surgeons, leading to suboptimal patient outcomes and making it difficult to compare outcomes across the literature.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Unlike the literature on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, studies on medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction lack evidence-based guidelines regarding postoperative rehabilitation. An effective postoperative protocol may contribute greatly to a successful outcome following MPFL reconstruction, yet the quality and variability of these published protocols remain unknown.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To assess the quality and variability of MPFL rehabilitation protocols publicly available on the internet and associated with US academic orthopaedic programs.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
Systematic review.
METHODS METHODS
All available isolated MPFL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols from US academic orthopaedic programs participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service were collected and included in this review. These protocols were evaluated for inclusion of various rehabilitation components, the timing of suggested initiation of these activities, and whether the protocol used evaluation-based guidelines.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 27 protocols were included. Of these, 25 (93%) recommended immediate postoperative bracing. Time to initiation of full weightbearing ranged from 2 to 8 weeks. The most common strengthening exercises endorsed were quadriceps sets (89%), straight-legged raise (85%), and leg press (81%). The most common proprioception exercises endorsed were balance board (41%), single-legged balance (41%), and TheraBand control (33%). The median time suggested to return to play was 17 weeks. No functional test appeared in the majority of the protocols. Of the 27 protocols, 20 (74%) used evaluation-based guidelines.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
There is substantial variability in content and timing across rehabilitation protocols following MPFL reconstruction. This lack of clear guidelines can cause confusion among patients, therapists, and surgeons, leading to suboptimal patient outcomes and making it difficult to compare outcomes across the literature.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31309124
doi: 10.1177/2325967119855991
pii: 10.1177_2325967119855991
pmc: PMC6607570
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

2325967119855991

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: S.M.S. has received consulting fees from Medical Device Business Services and Pfizer and has received hospitality payments from Stryker. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Références

J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(5):283-9
pubmed: 12396857
Br J Sports Med. 2004 Feb;38(1):74-7
pubmed: 14751951
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Aug;34(8):1254-61
pubmed: 16567459
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006 Jun;36(6):385-402
pubmed: 16776488
Am J Health Behav. 2007 Sep-Oct;31 Suppl 1:S85-95
pubmed: 17931142
Knee. 2009 Jun;16(3):171-5
pubmed: 18851916
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 9;361(2):109-12
pubmed: 19494209
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Oct;37(10):2021-7
pubmed: 19546481
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Jul;38(7):1389-94
pubmed: 20360607
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2477-81
pubmed: 21142528
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Jul;19(7):1158-67
pubmed: 21267543
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Jun;45(7):596-606
pubmed: 21398310
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Apr;470(4):1004-5
pubmed: 22302657
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Apr;21(4):880-7
pubmed: 22543515
Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol. 2012 Nov 06;4(1):41
pubmed: 23126601
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb;471(2):368-70
pubmed: 23208120
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Apr;41(4):788-94
pubmed: 23423316
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Apr;41(4):804-14
pubmed: 23460328
Br Med Bull. 2013;108:55-72
pubmed: 23690452
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 May;22(5):1156-62
pubmed: 23807029
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Sep;41(9):2117-27
pubmed: 23845398
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1530-7
pubmed: 25125693
J Phys Ther Sci. 2014 Oct;26(10):1531-6
pubmed: 25364104
Arthroscopy. 2016 Aug;32(8):1612-21
pubmed: 27032604
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016 Jun;11(3):423-35
pubmed: 27274428
Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2017 Jun;25(2):105-113
pubmed: 28459754
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Nov;98(11):2253-2264
pubmed: 28506775
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Jun;12(3):494-511
pubmed: 28593102
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Aug;46(10):2530-2539
pubmed: 28678520
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 1997 Jan;26(1):25-9
pubmed: 9021031
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997 Dec;26(6):332-9
pubmed: 9402570

Auteurs

Adam C Lieber (AC)

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.

Michael E Steinhaus (ME)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.

Joseph N Liu (JN)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University Health Center, Loma Linda, California, USA.

Daniel Hurwit (D)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.

Theresa Chiaia (T)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.

Sabrina M Strickland (SM)

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.

Classifications MeSH