https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9739-6176
Figures
Abstract
Purpose
The study’s objective was to determine the optimal window for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with respect to quadriceps atrophies and clinical outcome.
Methods
For this retrospective, comparative study, 115 patients aged under 35 were included, who received an ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2016. They were divided into four groups, depending on the time to surgery, to determine the optimal window for reconstruction: (group 1: ≤21 d, group 2: <21d-56d≥, group 3: >56d-100d≥, group 4: >100d). Follow-up was performed one month postoperatively, after a mean of 4.9 (±5.3) months, and after a mean of 3.5 (±1.4) years. Primary endpoints included quadriceps muscle status, range of motion (ROM), pain, swelling, the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC), the Lysholm-Score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Tegner-Activity-Scale (TAS).
Results
Significantly more quadriceps atrophies were observed in group 1 and group 4, representing reconstructions earlier than 21 and later than 100 days (29% and 41% vs. 9%; p = 0.032). The measurements of knee extension (p = 0.082) and ROM (p = 0.123) were comparable in all groups. Group 1 showed the least pain (0% vs. 15%; p = 0.285) and swelling (0% vs. 23%; p = 0.077) compared to all other groups one month postoperatively. A comparison of postoperative clinical scores revealed no significant differences, with group 1 exhibiting the lowest TAS levels.
Conclusion
In patients who underwent ACL reconstruction within three weeks or after more than 100 days, a significantly higher incidence of quadriceps atrophy was observed, possibly attributable to the initial inflammatory phase or the delayed reconstruction affecting quadriceps function. However, this impairment may not be observable in elite athletes who undergo reconstruction within hours of the injury.
Citation: Widhalm HK, Draschl A, Horns J, Rilk S, Leitgeb J, Hajdu S, et al. (2024) The optimal window for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) with respect to quadriceps atrophies lies within 21 to 100 days. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0296943. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296943
Editor: Filippo Migliorini, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen: Universitatsklinikum Aachen, GERMANY
Received: August 15, 2023; Accepted: December 21, 2023; Published: February 1, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Widhalm et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Patrick Sadoghi receives industry grants from Depuy Synthes, Alphamed Medizintechnik Fischer GmbH, and Medacta International SA not related to the submitted work. All other authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest related to the study authors and corresponding organizations, and publication of the paper. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Abbreviations: ACL, Anterior cruciate ligament; BMI, Body-Mass-Index; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; PROM, Patient-reported outcome measures; ROM, Range of motion; TAS, Tegner-Activity-Scale
Introduction
Ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are common injuries of the knee with an incidence of 1:3300 to 1:5000 [1–4]. An ACL reconstruction is supposed to restore the knee´s functional stability and ability to participate in sports [5,6]. In addition, it is supposed to prevent the knee from consecutive injuries caused by giving way symptoms [5,7–11].
The time interval from ACL injury to reconstruction and the time to surgery is debatable concerning the postoperative outcome [7,12–16]. However, despite many studies performed to identify the optimal timing of ACL reconstruction, there is no consensus in the literature yet [12,17]. Unfortunately, these studies vary in outcome measurements and surgical technics and have various definitions of early and delayed reconstruction [7,12–17].
One of the most interesting factors that might be affected by the time to surgery and affects the postoperative outcome is the condition of the thigh muscles, especially the quadriceps muscles of the ACL-reconstructed knee. Little is known about the influence of the time to surgery on these muscles, but previous studies revealed a correlation between quadriceps strength and patient satisfaction after ACL-reconstruction [18].
In addition, a superiority of early reconstructions in terms of speed of rehabilitation, the extent of movement, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) could be observed in previous investigations [12,19,20]. On the other hand, a potential correlation between early reconstructions and the occurrence of arthrofibrosis joint stiffness and persistent, terminal extension deficits was discussed [15,21–24].
Other outcome parameters of previous studies included knee pain, swelling [12,19,20], and the condition of the cartilage and menisci due to abnormal joint load of unstable knee joints [7,15,23,25–30]. The resulting recommendations regarding the optimal time-to-surgery differ strongly but agree on its influence on the outcome [8,15,20,23,29–31]. Furthermore, additional factors affecting the functional result after ACL reconstruction, such as the patient´s age, Body-Mass-Index (BMI), and sex, were identified [10,31,32].
To elucidate the optimal time-to-surgery, this study aimed to determine the optimal window for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) with respect to quadriceps atrophies and clinical outcome.
Materials and methods
This retrospective, monocentric study was performed upon approval of the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Vienna (EK1117/2016). Written informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study. Parental/guardian consent was not obtained as minors were not included in the study. The patient data were retrieved from the hospital’s electronic health records (EHR) system, with the authors having access to information that could identify individual participants during the initial data collection. The data were accessed on May 12, 2018, for research purposes. To ensure the confidentiality and privacy of patients, each individual was assigned a unique ID, and the data was securely stored in an encrypted Excel file. This approach ensured the pseudonymization of patient data, separating it from any identifiable information after data collection.
A total of 639 patients presented to our institute due to ruptures of their ACL between January 2011 and April 2016. After excluding patients who did not undergo ACL reconstruction, 115 remained and met the inclusion criteria for our study (Fig 1). Exclusion criteria were defined as combined injuries of the knee ligaments, both knees injured, age <18 years, age >35 years, chondral damage of Outerbridge level 3 and 4 [33], re-ruptures, and revision surgeries of the ACL.
Indication for the reconstruction of an ACL rupture was given based on the patient’s complaints, clinical symptoms, resulting limitations in everyday life, athletic requirement profile, and personal wishes according to previous investigations [34,35]. They were all treated with an autograft of the hamstring tendon in a single-bundle technique using the all-Inside technique, which has been standard at our division since 2011 [36]. All patients received standardized physical therapy and pain medication at follow-up according to a predefined protocol [37].
In our study, an impartial allocation coordinator, not involved in data collection or analysis, categorized the included patients into four groups to ensure that the investigators remained blinded to the assignment. To maintain homogeneity in terms of gender, BMI, graft choice, and age, patients were stratified based on these criteria. In the first group, patients were treated within 21 days, patients of group 2 from 22 to 56 days, those of group 3 from 57 until 100 days, and those of group 4 after more than 100 days. The definition of 3 weeks as an early reconstruction was common in previous studies [16,20,22,38,39]. The other groups were chosen regarding the quartiles of the patient count for having a comparable number of patients suitable for statistical analysis. From the data of the included patients, the time-to-surgery, sex, age, BMI, leg side, graft choice, and outcome parameters were listed. From the data of the patients, who were not suitable for inclusion in the study, the respective reasons for exclusion were collected and summed up.
Outcome evaluations
For quantifying the postoperative outcome, it was subclassified into an objective and a subjective part. The objective outcome measures comprised several parameters, including the assessment of quadriceps muscle atrophy through two thigh circumference measurements of the affected and contralateral leg conducted preoperatively and at the final follow-up, both taken 10 cm proximal to the patellar base. Moreover, postoperative assessments were conducted twice for Range-of-Motion (ROM), extension deficits, knee pain, swelling, and effusion: first, one month after surgery, and then again during the final follow-up. The ROM was measured by independent investigators using a goniometer, with the patient in a supine position. Since the retrospective data rarely provided information concerning the ROMs of the contralateral knees, absolute degree values of the injured knees had to be used. A ROM of >120° was considered an excellent result, 90 to 120° an average result, and <90° was defined as a poor result. The extension values were also analyzed individually, as some studies described an association between early reconstructions and postoperative extension deficits [15,22–24].
Since the objective result measurements of ROM and stability do not necessarily correspond to the subjective functionality of a knee joint after cruciate ligament reconstruction [40], the subjective outcome was evaluated by using four standardized questionnaires frequently used in studies: the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) [19,40,41], the Lysholm-Score [23,42,43], the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) [12,44,45], and the Tegner-Activity-Scale (TAS) [42,46]. We opted to implement these subjective outcomes in alignment with a previous review’s suggestion, aiming to ensure the validity and reliability of the outcome measurements applied in this study for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction [47]. Additionally, the patients’ estimation of the ROM of the ACL-reconstructed knee was used for analysis.
The IKDC, Lysholm-Score, and KOOS inquired about knee function in everyday activities and specific situations. In each questionnaire, it was possible to score up to 100 points when having a perfectly functional knee. With decreasing score points, the functional limitations and symptoms of the injured knee joint increase. The TAS, as a complementary measure to the Lysholm-Score, was used to grade sports activities from 0 (sick leave or disability) to 10 (competitive sports level) [42].
Statistical analysis
All data were analyzed regarding the time-to-surgery groups. The software SPSS Version 26 and Excel were used for the statistical analysis. The distribution of ordinally scaled parameters as well as categorical parameters, were given with absolute frequencies and as percentages. For the metrical parameters, the count of valid participants (n), the arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and median values were listed in a table. This was conducted for the participants as a whole and for each group itself. For all statistical tests, the p-values were listed in a table. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of <0.05, and the statistical power was 80%.
The four groups were analyzed with Chi2-Test regarding the following nominal parameters of the objective outcome: quadriceps atrophy, extension deficits, Range-of-Motion, knee pain and -swelling, and joint effusion. If the expected count for each space of the statistical table was <5, the Likelihood-Quotient results were considered more reliable than those of the Chi2-Test.
To examine a correlation of the subjective outcomes, the metrical score points of the questionnaires were correlated with the ordinal scaled groups using the Kruskal-Wallis-Test. Post hoc power was calculated according to the magnitude of the difference of the primary endpoint quadriceps atrophy with a 5% difference set as clinically significant, according to Hoenig and Heisey [48].
Results
The patients`demographics are detailed in Table 1. The group distribution was 17 patients in group 1, 34 in group 2, 35 in group 3, and 29 in group 4.
The time interval from surgery to the last check-up varied from 1–30 months, with a mean of 4.8 months and a median of 3 months (Fig 2).
Table 2 details the comparisons between the groups and the outcome parameters. On average, 22% of all patients who underwent surgery exhibited a decrease in thigh muscle circumference compared to the contralateral leg at the final measurement point.
Quadriceps atrophy was seen most within groups 1 and 4 (Fig 3). This result was statistically significant and clinically relevant (greater than 5%). In the online questionnaire, 60% of patients noted a smaller thigh circumference in the ACL-reconstructed leg.
In total, the Range-of-Motion (ROM) stretch deficits improved from one month to the last measured date. The range of motion continued improving until the survey was conducted (Fig 4). The self-assessed general mobility of the knee joint was >120° in 95% of the cases. There was no statistically significant difference after one month and later.
In percentage terms, group 1 showed the lowest knee pain and swelling rate after one month compared to the other groups. These differences were not statistically significant.
The time interval from surgery to completing the questionnaire was at least one year, with a mean of 3.4 years (Fig 5).
In the three questionnaires, except for the mean TAS, patients of group 4 achieved the highest average scores (Table 3). There were no statistically significant differences in the results of the questionnaires between the groups. Group 1 achieved the lowest TAS levels postoperatively.
Physical therapy was provided for an average of 3.2 months, and unsupervised home exercises were practiced for an average of 6.2 months [37]. A mean of 10.3 months was needed to reach the existing knee condition (full ROM and clinical stability) when completing the questionnaire.
Post hoc power analysis, according to Hoenig and Heisey, revealed that according to the magnitude of differences in quadriceps atrophies between groups, a power greater than 80% could be reached, indicating sufficient power. In addition, both interclass as well as intraclass correlation analyses revealed excellent agreement with values greater than 0.8.
Discussion
The most important findings of the present study were that significant differences in the outcome between early or delayed reconstruction could be proven. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences were observed regarding quadriceps atrophies and noteworthy differences in the results of other outcome parameters.
Several studies reported that an ACL injury leads to differences in the strength and volume of the thigh muscles compared to the contralateral knee [26,49–52]. Possibly due to the loss of mechanoreceptor feedback from the ACL to the thigh muscles, these get less often activated and lose volume and strength [53,54]. To prevent a loss of muscle volume, intense pre- and postoperative physiotherapy focusing on the quadriceps muscle strength and proprioception is, therefore, indispensable [49,55]. As stated by Shelbourne et al. [52] the time-to-surgery had an influence on the rate of quadriceps atrophies with the least atrophies in early reconstructions. Their findings are supported by a study conducted by Wenning et al. who demonstrated an increase in loss of thigh muscle strength in delayed ACL reconstruction cases, emphasizing to seek for an early ACL reconstruction within the first 12 weeks after the injury [24].Opposite to these findings [52] in the present study, the patients of group 1 and group 4 showed the highest rate of quadriceps atrophies. This finding might be due to the fact that we did not further differentiate between reconstructions within the first hours after the injury in group 1, usually performed in elite athletes, but included all patients in the period until the first 21 days after injury. Immediate reconstruction for elite athletes could have been performed prior to the initiation of the inflammatory process and, therefore, not lead to quadriceps atrophy, as stated by Shelbourne et al. [52]. However, in our presented data, we included patients having undergone the procedure in the second and third week after the initial trauma, who were in the strong inflammatory phase. The higher rate of atrophy in group 4, having undergone the reconstruction over 100 days after trauma, is evident due to loss of muscle mass due to loss of function, which was not that evident within 21 and 100 days after the initial trauma in our study group.
The last date of check-up was in the median after 3 months, and patients stated that it took in the mean 10 months to reach the final stage of rehabilitation of their ACL-reconstructed knees. Unfortunately, no data regarding the time interval of the preoperative physiotherapy or duration of conservative rehabilitation therapy were listed, so that reasons for the high rate of quadriceps atrophies in group 4 can only be assumed, as mentioned before. The patients received their ACL reconstruction after a mean time of half a year with a maximum of one and a half years. Maybe their preoperative physiotherapy wasn’t concepted or conducted for such a long time, or they started a conservative therapy trial that failed to restore knee stability and thigh strength.
Interestingly, despite the high rates of quadriceps atrophies in groups 1 and 4, they showed at both measured times the least pain and swellings and reached the highest activity levels postoperatively. This leads to the assumption as Arangio et al. [26] noted that the measurements of the quadriceps circumference don’t correlate with its strength and function after ACL reconstruction. Nawasreh et al. [56] stated that young patients with ACL rupture and early reconstruction returned to sport more quickly and were more likely to achieve a similar level of sport as before the trauma, both in the publication of Bottoni et al. [20] and in our study, there was a tendency that early reconstruction could allow higher activity levels postoperatively. Nevertheless, in line with previous studies [20,57,58], no statistically significant difference between all groups was found.
Bottoni et al. [20] additionally found a superiority of early reconstructions within 17 days regarding the speed of rehabilitation and extent of movement. On the contrary, there is evidence that an early ACL reconstruction can lead to arthrofibrosis [15,59]. Conversely, Agarwal et al. [60] found that postponing ACL reconstruction by a minimum of 6 weeks in patients below 40 years of age is linked to a 65% decrease in the likelihood of requiring surgical intervention for arthrofibrosis. Moreover, delaying the procedure by at least 10 weeks in patients aged 40 years and above is associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of surgical intervention for arthrofibrosis [60]. In line with other studies [20,21,38], we noted no differences between the groups regarding extension deficits and Range-of-Motion after one month and at the last measurement date. The ROM improved with time, and when the questionnaire was conducted, almost all patients estimated their knees’ movement as over 120°.
In the survey of the subjective outcome, most patients reported that their ACL-reconstructed knee joint would not represent any impairment in everyday life. In the standardized questionnaires, the results of all groups were comparable with the best scores in group 4. This corresponded to the results of Ranjan et al. [61] and Petersen et al. [23], where the patients who received a delayed ACL reconstruction also showed better results in the IKDC and Lysholm-Score. As in the present study, other investigations didn’t reveal any statistically significant differences in the score values of the questionnaires IKDC, Lysholm-Score, and KOOS [57,62,63].
This study’s strengths were the different follow-up times, a homogenous patient collective regarding BMI, age, and graft choice owing to stratified sampling, the many different outcome parameters collected, and the combination of subjective and objective variables. However, there were some limiting factors in the presented study. First, it was a retrospective study, suffering from the possible influence of selection bias, as there were strict exclusion criteria such as age <18 and age >35 years, severe cartilage damage, combined ligament injuries, etc. Next, the choice of time-to-surgery was not made according to a standardized procedure but rather on a patient-specific basis and after consultation with different surgeons with possibly different experiences, who also influenced the surgical method, graft selection, surgical procedure, postoperative procedure, and thus the reconstruction result. Furthermore, we want to point out that there is a difference in patient count regarding quadriceps atrophy and functional outcome assessments at the final follow-up, which is evident due to the fact that 17 patients did not complete both, the final evaluation and the survey. In addition, the retrospective outcome evaluations are dependent on the examiner. However, we took measures to blind the examiner conducting measurements, and an independent examiner was employed to assess the measurements independently to minimize potential bias and enhance the reliability of our study results. Finally, when the patients assessed their ROM in the questionnaire, there was a risk for them to either significantly overestimate or underestimate their ROM based on their subjective judgment.
Conclusions
The occurrence of quadriceps atrophy was significantly higher in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction within 3 weeks or after more than 100 days, possibly due to the initial inflammatory phase or delayed reconstruction impairing quadriceps function. Further research into the specific mechanisms underlying quadriceps atrophy in patients with ACL reconstruction should be emphasized. Studying postoperative inflammation’s effects on early muscle function and assessing the long-term impact of delayed reconstruction could optimize rehabilitation protocols, and prospective studies with larger samples and extended follow-up may further clarify factors influencing quadriceps atrophy in ACL reconstruction patients.
References
- 1. Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M, Tanaka MJ, Cole BJ, Bach BR, et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42: 2363–2370. pmid:25086064
- 2. Nielsen AB, Yde J. Epidemiology of acute knee injuries: a prospective hospital investigation. J Trauma. 1991;31: 1644–1648. pmid:1749037
- 3. Sanders TL, Maradit Kremers H, Bryan AJ, Larson DR, Dahm DL, Levy BA, et al. Incidence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears and Reconstruction: A 21-Year Population-Based Study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44: 1502–1507. pmid:26920430
- 4. Costa LA, Foni NO, Antonioli E, Teixeira de Carvalho R, Paião ID, Lenza M, et al. Analysis of 500 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from a private institutional register. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0191414. pmid:29351558
- 5. Shelton WR, Barrett GR, Dukes A. Early season anterior cruciate ligament tears. A treatment dilemma. Am J Sports Med. 1997;25: 656–658. pmid:9302471
- 6. Liew BXW, Feller JA, Webster KE. Understanding the psychological mechanisms of return to sports readiness after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. PLoS One. 2022;17: e0266029. pmid:35325002
- 7. Brambilla L, Pulici L, Carimati G, Quaglia A, Prospero E, Bait C, et al. Prevalence of Associated Lesions in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Correlation With Surgical Timing and With Patient Age, Sex, and Body Mass Index. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43: 2966–2973. pmid:26473010
- 8. Chhadia AM, Inacio MCS, Maletis GB, Csintalan RP, Davis BR, Funahashi TT. Are meniscus and cartilage injuries related to time to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Am J Sports Med. 2011;39: 1894–1899. pmid:21705649
- 9. Richmond JC, Lubowitz JH, Poehling GG. Prompt operative intervention reduces long-term osteoarthritis after knee anterior cruciate ligament tear. Arthroscopy. 2011;27: 149–152. pmid:21266273
- 10. Tandogan RN, Taşer O, Kayaalp A, Taşkiran E, Pinar H, Alparslan B, et al. Analysis of meniscal and chondral lesions accompanying anterior cruciate ligament tears: relationship with age, time from injury, and level of sport. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004;12: 262–270. pmid:14504718
- 11. Chantrelle M, Menu P, Crenn V, Grondin J, Daley P, Louguet B, et al. Consequences of anterior knee pain after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A 2015–2020 cohort study. PLoS One. 2023;18: e0280146. pmid:36603016
- 12. Andernord D, Karlsson J, Musahl V, Bhandari M, Fu FH, Samuelsson K. Timing of surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy. 2013;29: 1863–1871. pmid:24053890
- 13. Granan L-P, Bahr R, Lie SA, Engebretsen L. Timing of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructive surgery and risk of cartilage lesions and meniscal tears: a cohort study based on the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37: 955–961. pmid:19251674
- 14. Kwok CS, Harrison T, Servant C. The optimal timing for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with respect to the risk of postoperative stiffness. Arthroscopy. 2013;29: 556–565. pmid:23317564
- 15. Shelbourne KD, Wilckens JH, Mollabashy A, DeCarlo M. Arthrofibrosis in acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The effect of timing of reconstruction and rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19: 332–336. pmid:1897645
- 16. Smith TO, Davies L, Hing CB. Early versus delayed surgery for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18: 304–311. pmid:19838672
- 17. Wittig U, Hauer G, Vielgut I, Reinbacher P, Leithner A, Sadoghi P. Application and Surgical Technique of ACL Reconstruction Using Worldwide Registry Datasets: What Can We Extract? J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2021;7: 2. pmid:35076508
- 18. Hohmann E, Bryant A, Tetsworth K. Strength does not influence knee function in the ACL-deficient knee but is a correlate of knee function in the and ACL-reconstructed knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136: 477–483. pmid:26718352
- 19. Meighan A a. S, Keating JF, Will E. Outcome after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in athletic patients. A comparison of early versus delayed surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85: 521–524. pmid:12793556
- 20. Bottoni CR, Liddell TR, Trainor TJ, Freccero DM, Lindell KK. Postoperative range of motion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autograft hamstrings: a prospective, randomized clinical trial of early versus delayed reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36: 656–662. pmid:18212347
- 21. Eriksson K, von Essen C, Jönhagen S, Barenius B. No risk of arthrofibrosis after acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26: 2875–2882. pmid:29188336
- 22. Ferguson D, Palmer A, Khan S, Oduoza U, Atkinson H. Early or delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Is one superior? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29: 1277–1289. pmid:31093753
- 23. Petersen W, Laprell H. Combined injuries of the medial collateral ligament and the anterior cruciate ligament. Early ACL reconstruction versus late ACL reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119: 258–262. pmid:10447618
- 24. Wenning M, Mauch M, Heitner AH, Bode G, Sofack G, Ritzmann R. Early ACL reconstruction shows an improved recovery of isokinetic thigh muscle strength compared to delayed or chronic cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023. pmid:37052664
- 25. Anderson AF, Anderson CN. Correlation of meniscal and articular cartilage injuries in children and adolescents with timing of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43: 275–281. pmid:25497145
- 26. Arangio GA, Chen C, Kalady M, Reed JF. Thigh muscle size and strength after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997;26: 238–243. pmid:9353686
- 27. Hagmeijer MH, Hevesi M, Desai VS, Sanders TL, Camp CL, Hewett TE, et al. Secondary Meniscal Tears in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Relationship Among Operative Management, Osteoarthritis, and Arthroplasty at 18-Year Mean Follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47: 1583–1590. pmid:31145668
- 28. Kiapour AM, Murray MM. Basic science of anterior cruciate ligament injury and repair. Bone Joint Res. 2014;3: 20–31. pmid:24497504
- 29. Ralles S, Agel J, Obermeier M, Tompkins M. Incidence of Secondary Intra-articular Injuries With Time to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43: 1373–1379. pmid:25767266
- 30. de Valk EJ, Moen MH, Winters M, Bakker EWP, Tamminga R, van der Hoeven H. Preoperative patient and injury factors of successful rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with single-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy. 2013;29: 1879–1895. pmid:24209682
- 31. Kluczynski MA, Marzo JM, Bisson LJ. Factors associated with meniscal tears and chondral lesions in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41: 2759–2765. pmid:24044906
- 32. Collins JE, Katz JN, Donnell-Fink LA, Martin SD, Losina E. Cumulative incidence of ACL reconstruction after ACL injury in adults: role of age, sex, and race. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41: 544–549. pmid:23302260
- 33. Slattery C, Kweon CY. Classifications in Brief: Outerbridge Classification of Chondral Lesions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476: 2101–2104. pmid:29533246
- 34. Sadoghi P, Kröpfl A, Jansson V, Müller PE, Pietschmann MF, Fischmeister MF. Impact of Tibial and Femoral Tunnel Position on Clinical Results After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2011;27: 355–364. pmid:21144694
- 35. Sadoghi P, Müller PE, Jansson V, Van Griensven M, Kröpfl A, Fischmeister MF. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a clinical comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone single bundle versus semitendinosus and gracilis double bundle technique. International Orthopaedics (SICOT). 2011;35: 127–133. pmid:20442994
- 36. Nuelle CW, Balldin BC, Slone HS. All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2022;38: 2368–2369. pmid:35940736
- 37. Shelbourne KD, Nitz P. Accelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18: 292–299. pmid:2372081
- 38. Deabate L, Previtali D, Grassi A, Filardo G, Candrian C, Delcogliano M. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Within 3 Weeks Does Not Increase Stiffness and Complications Compared With Delayed Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48: 1263–1272. pmid:31381374
- 39. Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, Neri MP, Petitto A. Early versus late reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Results after five years of followup. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23: 690–693. pmid:8600736
- 40. Hyder N, Bollen SR, Sefton G, Swann AC. Correlation between Arthrometric evaluation of knees using KT 1000 and Telos stress radiography and functional outcome following ACL reconstruction. The Knee. 1997;4: 121–124.
- 41. Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Roe J, Linklater J. A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35: 564–574. pmid:17261567
- 42. Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985; 43–49. pmid:4028566
- 43. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10: 150–154. pmid:6896798
- 44. Hambly K, Griva K. IKDC or KOOS: which one captures symptoms and disabilities most important to patients who have undergone initial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Am J Sports Med. 2010;38: 1395–1404. pmid:20351201
- 45. Kessler S, Lang S, Puhl W, Stöve J. [The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—a multifunctional questionnaire to measure outcome in knee arthroplasty]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2003;141: 277–282. pmid:12822074
- 46. Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, Rodkey WG, Kocher MS, Steadman JR. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37: 890–897. pmid:19261899
- 47. Meta F, Lizzio VA, Jildeh TR, Makhni EC. Which patient reported outcomes to collect after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Annals of Joint. 2017;2.
- 48. Hoenig JM, Heisey DM. The Abuse of Power: The Pervasive Fallacy of Power Calculations for Data Analysis. The American Statistician. 2001;55: 19–24.
- 49. Eitzen I, Holm I, Risberg MA. Preoperative quadriceps strength is a significant predictor of knee function two years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43: 371–376. pmid:19224907
- 50. de Jong SN, van Caspel DR, van Haeff MJ, Saris DBF. Functional assessment and muscle strength before and after reconstruction of chronic anterior cruciate ligament lesions. Arthroscopy. 2007;23: 21–28, 28.e1–3. pmid:17210423
- 51. Palmieri-Smith RM, Thomas AC, Wojtys EM. Maximizing quadriceps strength after ACL reconstruction. Clin Sports Med. 2008;27: 405–424, vii–ix. pmid:18503875
- 52. Shelbourne KD, Foulk DA. Timing of surgery in acute anterior cruciate ligament tears on the return of quadriceps muscle strength after reconstruction using an autogenous patellar tendon graft. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23: 686–689. pmid:8600735
- 53. Tsuda E, Okamura Y, Otsuka H, Komatsu T, Tokuya S. Direct evidence of the anterior cruciate ligament-hamstring reflex arc in humans. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29: 83–87. pmid:11206261
- 54. Williams GN, Buchanan TS, Barrance PJ, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Quadriceps weakness, atrophy, and activation failure in predicted noncopers after anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33: 402–407. pmid:15716256
- 55. Hanada M, Yoshikura T, Matsuyama Y. Muscle recovery at 1 year after the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery is associated with preoperative and early postoperative muscular strength of the knee extension. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29: 1759–1764. pmid:31240385
- 56. Nawasreh Z, Logerstedt D, Cummer K, Axe M, Risberg MA, Snyder-Mackler L. Functional performance 6 months after ACL reconstruction can predict return to participation in the same preinjury activity level 12 and 24 months after surgery. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52: 375. pmid:28954801
- 57. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363: 331–342. pmid:20660401
- 58. Raviraj A, Anand A, Kodikal G, Chandrashekar M, Pai S. A comparison of early and delayed arthroscopically-assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring autograft. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92: 521–526. pmid:20357328
- 59. Ekhtiari S, Horner NS, de Sa D, Simunovic N, Hirschmann MT, Ogilvie R, et al. Arthrofibrosis after ACL reconstruction is best treated in a step-wise approach with early recognition and intervention: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25: 3929–3937. pmid:28260199
- 60. Agarwal AR, Harris AB, Tarawneh O, Malyavko A, Kreulen RT, Thakkar SC, et al. Delay of Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Associated With Lower Risk of Arthrofibrosis Requiring Intervention. Arthroscopy. 2023;39: 1682–1689.e2. pmid:36774969
- 61. Ranjan R, Asif N, Khan MJ, Jilani LZ. Anterior cruciate ligament tear: does early reconstruction affect the functional outcome a prospective study of 76 patients with 2 years follow up. Indian journal of medical research and pharmaceutical research. 3: 71.
- 62. Schenck RC, Blaschak MJ, Lance ED, Turturro TC, Holmes CF. A prospective outcome study of rehabilitation programs and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 1997;13: 285–290. pmid:9195022
- 63. Wright R. Rehabilitation plus early ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation plus delayed reconstruction were similar at 5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95: 1516. pmid:23965704