Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction–rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisons

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

A systematic review and world region comparison of combined ACL reconstruction–rehabilitation studies was performed.

Methods

Studies that combined ACL surgical-rehabilitative management published between January 1990 and June 2014 were evaluated. The combined terms “rehabilitation” and “anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction” or “ACL reconstruction” were used to search the CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PEDro, and PubMed databases. A total of 5920 studies were initially identified. Inclusion criteria reduced this total to 299 studies that underwent abstract review. Following this, 155 studies underwent full text review and 109 met all inclusion criteria for Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) evaluation.

Results

Overall, MCMS were 74.0 ± 17 (mean ± standard deviation). Europe had slightly greater MCMS than North America (P = 0.041). Specific MCMS components that displayed significant world region differences included use of an independent investigator (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.047), including a patient-completed written assessment (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), allowing the patient to complete the assessment without medical, surgical, or rehabilitation personnel intervention (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), and use of well-described subject selection or inclusion criteria (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.004). Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.042) and VAS-Pain Scale (P = 0.007) use was greater in Europe compared with other world regions. Primary rehabilitation theme frequency was comparable between world regions (n.s.).

Conclusion

Regional research methodological quality differences were observed. Europe displayed a slightly greater MCMS for combined ACL reconstruction–rehabilitation studies. With this information, research groups can design better team-based approaches to ensure that study findings provide sufficient significance to foster meaningful patient care improvements.

Level of evidence

Systematic review, Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N, Cook JL, Wark JD (2000) Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Scand J Med Sci Sports 10:2–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Crawford C, Nyland J, Landes S, Jackson R, Chang HC, Nawab A, Caborn DN (2007) Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction: a literature review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:946–964

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cvetanovich GL, Mascarenhas R, Saccomanno MF, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR (2014) Hamstring autograft versus soft-tissue allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 30:1616–1624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Frank RM, Mascarenhas R, Haro M, Verma NN, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR Jr (2015) Closure of patellar tendon defect in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 31:329–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gokeler A, Bisschop M, Benjaminse A, Myer GD, Eppinga P, Otten E (2014) Quadriceps function following ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: implications for optimization of current practices. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1163–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hewett TE, Di Stasi SL, Myer GD (2013) Current concepts for injury prevention in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 41:216–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jakobsen RB, Engebretsen L, Slauterbeck JR (2005) An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2232–2239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Papalia R, Franceschi F, D’Adamio S, Balzani LD, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2014) Hamstring tendon regeneration after harvest for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.015

    Google Scholar 

  9. Papalia R, Franceschi F, Zampogna B, Tecame A, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2014) Surgical management of partial tears of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:154–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paterno MV, Weed AM, Hewett TE (2012) A between sex comparison of anterior–posterior knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon or hamstrings autograft: a systematic review. Sports Med 42:135–152

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shelbourne KD, Klotz C (2006) What I have learned about the ACL: utilizing a progressive rehabilitation scheme to achieve total knee symmetry after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sci 11:318–325

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Song GY, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li X, Chen XZ, Li Y, Feng H (2013) The anterior cruciate ligament remnant: to leave it or not? Arthroscopy 29:1253–1262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tallon C, Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N (2001) Outcome of surgery for chronic achilles tendinopathy: a critical review. Am J Sports Med 29:315–320

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wera JC, Nyland J, Ghazi C, MacKinlay KG, Henzman RC, Givens J, Brand JC (2014) International knee documentation committee knee survey use after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 2005–2012 systematic review and world region comparison. Arthroscopy 30:1505–1512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson Street, 1st Floor, ACB, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    Artur Proniewicz, Paul Mazzone, John Nyland, Jeff Wera & Justin Givens

  2. Athletic Training Program, Kosair Charities College of Health and Natural Sciences, Spalding University, 901 South 4th Street, Louisville, KY, 40203-2188, USA

    John Nyland

Authors
  1. Artur Proniewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Mazzone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Nyland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeff Wera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Justin Givens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Nyland.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Proniewicz, A., Mazzone, P., Nyland, J. et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction–rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisons. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 2960–2965 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3588-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3588-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation