What is the Evidence for and Validity of Return-to-Sport Testing after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) return-to-sport (RTS) test batteries are popular and are employed to test athletes’ sport performance and help ensure a safe return to sport.
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine: (1) the proportion of patients who passed RTS test batteries after ACL reconstruction, (2) whether passing RTS test batteries increased rates of return to play, and (3) whether passing RTS test batteries reduced subsequent rates of knee and ACL injury.
Five databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus) were searched to identify relevant studies and data were extracted regarding the number of patients who passed the RTS test battery, as well as subsequent RTS rates and re-injury data when available. Results were combined using proportional and risk-ratio meta-analyses.
Eighteen studies met eligibility criteria. Proportional meta-analysis showed that only 23% of patients passed RTS test batteries. One study showed that passing an RTS test battery led to greater RTS rates. Two studies showed passing RTS test batteries did not significantly reduce the risk of a further knee injury (risk ratio (RR) = 0.28 (95% CI 0.04–0.94), p = 0.09) and five studies showed that passing RTS test batteries did not reduce the risk for all subsequent ACL injuries (RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.27–2.3), p = 0.7). However, passing an RTS test battery did significantly reduce the risk for subsequent graft rupture (RR = 0.40 (95% CI 0.23–0.69), p < 0.001], although it increased the risk for a subsequent contralateral ACL injury (RR = 3.35 (95% CI 1.52–7.37), p = 0.003].
These analyses shows that there are equivocal findings in terms of the validity of current RTS test batteries in relation to reduction of the risk of graft rupture and contralateral ACL injuries. These findings have implications for RTS advice given to patients based on the results of RTS test batteries, and further work is needed to validate the criteria currently used and determine the true value.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article
Conflicts of Interest
Kate Webster and Timothy Hewett declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.
Both authors contributed to the design, analyses and reporting for this manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final submitted manuscript.
- 2.Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Webster KE. Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(21):1543–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Wiggins AJ, Grandhi RK, Schneider DK, Stanfield D, Webster KE, Myer GD. Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(7):1861–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515621554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.van Melick N, van Cingel RE, Brooijmans F, Neeter C, van Tienen T, Hullegie W, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice update: practice guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation based on a systematic review and multidisciplinary consensus. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(24):1506–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Herbst E, Hoser C, Hildebrandt C, Raschner C, Hepperger C, Pointner H, et al. Functional assessments for decision-making regarding return to sports following ACL reconstruction. Part II: clinical application of a new test battery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(5):1283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. 2014. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort.
- 21.Logerstedt D, Di Stasi S, Grindem H, Lynch A, Eitzen I, Engebretsen L, et al. Self-reported knee function can identify athletes who fail return-to-activity criteria up to 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(12):914–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.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(6):375.Google Scholar
- 25.Welling W, Benjaminse A, Seil R, Lemmink K, Zaffagnini S, Gokeler A. Low rates of patients meeting return to sport criteria 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective longitudinal study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4916-4.Google Scholar
- 27.Graziano J, Chiaia T, de Mille P, Nawabi DH, Green DW, Cordasco FA. Return to sport for skeletally immature athletes after ACL reconstruction: preventing a second injury using a quality of movement assessment and quantitative measures to address modifiable risk factors. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(4):2325967117700599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Ebert JR, Edwards P, Yi L, Joss B, Ackland T, Carey-Smith R, et al. Strength and functional symmetry is associated with post-operative rehabilitation in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;13(3):389–400.Google Scholar
- 34.Toole AR, Ithurburn MP, Rauh MJ, Hewett TE, Paterno MV, Schmitt LC. Young athletes cleared for sports participation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how many actually meet recommended return-to-sport criterion cutoffs? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(11):825–33.Google Scholar
- 36.Losciale JM, Zdeb RM, Ledbetter L, Reiman MP, Sell TC. The association between passing return-to-sport criteria and second anterior cruciate ligament injury risk: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;2018:1–52. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2019.8190.Google Scholar