Weightbearing Protocols After Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
PLC
guidelines
nonoperative rehabilitation
postoperative 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:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
24
08
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
entrez:
2
4
2021
pubmed:
3
4
2021
medline:
3
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiligamentous knee injuries with a posterolateral corner injury represent a devastating insult to the knee. To evaluate multiligamentous knee reconstruction rehabilitation programs and recommend a rehabilitation program based on a review of published outcomes studies. Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. A MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, and Embase database search was conducted using the terms "posterolateral corner" and "rehabilitation." All articles obtained were examined to confirm their rehabilitation programs for multiligamentous knee injuries. These injuries included a posterolateral corner injury plus an isolated anterior or posterior cruciate ligament injury or a combined cruciate injury. Ten publications representing 245 patients with multiligamentous knee reconstruction were analyzed. Rehabilitation protocols were divided by weightbearing (WB) status: in 2 studies, patients were non-WB until postoperative 4 weeks (delayed WB; n = 61); 5 studies permitted progressive WB until postoperative 6 weeks (progressive WB; n = 123); and 3 studies allowed WB immediately after surgery (immediate WB; n = 61). No significant difference in outcome scores among the 3 WB groups was found. Arthrofibrosis requiring manipulation under anesthesia was the most common complication (11%) in the delayed WB group, followed by the immediate WB group (3%) and the progressive WB group (0%; This review revealed no significant difference in outcome scores when comparing immediate, progressive, and delayed WB protocols. Time to permitted return to sport was not significantly different among the groups, but there existed a trend toward earlier return in the progressive WB group. Patients in the delayed and immediate WB groups experienced a higher overall complication rate. Progressive WB postoperative protocols may decrease the risk of complications without compromising outcomes; however, more research is needed to identify the optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol, given the significant data heterogeneity currently available in the literature.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Multiligamentous knee injuries with a posterolateral corner injury represent a devastating insult to the knee.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate multiligamentous knee reconstruction rehabilitation programs and recommend a rehabilitation program based on a review of published outcomes studies.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
METHODS
A MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, and Embase database search was conducted using the terms "posterolateral corner" and "rehabilitation." All articles obtained were examined to confirm their rehabilitation programs for multiligamentous knee injuries. These injuries included a posterolateral corner injury plus an isolated anterior or posterior cruciate ligament injury or a combined cruciate injury.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Ten publications representing 245 patients with multiligamentous knee reconstruction were analyzed. Rehabilitation protocols were divided by weightbearing (WB) status: in 2 studies, patients were non-WB until postoperative 4 weeks (delayed WB; n = 61); 5 studies permitted progressive WB until postoperative 6 weeks (progressive WB; n = 123); and 3 studies allowed WB immediately after surgery (immediate WB; n = 61). No significant difference in outcome scores among the 3 WB groups was found. Arthrofibrosis requiring manipulation under anesthesia was the most common complication (11%) in the delayed WB group, followed by the immediate WB group (3%) and the progressive WB group (0%;
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This review revealed no significant difference in outcome scores when comparing immediate, progressive, and delayed WB protocols. Time to permitted return to sport was not significantly different among the groups, but there existed a trend toward earlier return in the progressive WB group. Patients in the delayed and immediate WB groups experienced a higher overall complication rate. Progressive WB postoperative protocols may decrease the risk of complications without compromising outcomes; however, more research is needed to identify the optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol, given the significant data heterogeneity currently available in the literature.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33796586
doi: 10.1177/2325967120988274
pii: 10.1177_2325967120988274
pmc: PMC7975581
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967120988274Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: B.L.M. has received educational support from Zimmer Biomet. B.B. has received educational support from Titan Surgical. P.S. has received educational support from Arthrex and Titan Surgical and hospitality payments from Arthrex. S.M. has received grant support from DePuy, educational support from Arthrex, and hospitality payments from Stryker and Zimmer Biomet. B.G.V. has received grant support from DePuy and educational support from Smith & Nephew and Titan Surgical. 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
Arthroscopy. 2013 Apr;29(4):733-41
pubmed: 23395116
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020 Jun 15;28(12):e493-e500
pubmed: 31609881
Arthroscopy. 2004 Apr;20(4):339-45
pubmed: 15067271
Arthroscopy. 2005 Sep;21(9):1051-9
pubmed: 16171629
Am J Sports Med. 1997 Jul-Aug;25(4):433-8
pubmed: 9240974
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 Sep;16(9):506-18
pubmed: 18768708
J Orthop Res. 2014 Apr;32(4):485-91
pubmed: 24391078
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Mar;67(3):351-9
pubmed: 3972861
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Mar;58(2):159-72
pubmed: 1254619
Int Orthop. 2015 Mar;39(3):543-8
pubmed: 25376657
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008 Mar;16(3):239-48
pubmed: 18183366
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Feb 1;94(3):253-9
pubmed: 22298058
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 May;21(5):1036-42
pubmed: 22105977
Clin Sports Med. 1994 Jul;13(3):599-614
pubmed: 7954886
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Aug;42(8):1822-31
pubmed: 24944294
Knee. 2020 Jan;27(1):124-131
pubmed: 31883859
Am J Sports Med. 1983 Jul-Aug;11(4):199-207
pubmed: 6614287
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Mar;58(2):173-9
pubmed: 1254620
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Jun;65(5):614-8
pubmed: 6853566
Arthroscopy. 2006 Feb;22(2):182-92
pubmed: 16458804
Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2010 Dec;18(4):254-62
pubmed: 21079505
Arthrosc Tech. 2016 Jun 06;5(3):e563-72
pubmed: 27656379
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Sep;88(9):1169-72
pubmed: 16943466