足球运动员前十字韧带重建后的康复和重返赛场方案:系统回顾

McKenzie A. Mayer, Marisa Deliso, Ian S. Hong, Bryan M. Saltzman, Raphael S. Longobardi, Peter F. DeLuca, Louis Rizio
{"title":"足球运动员前十字韧带重建后的康复和重返赛场方案:系统回顾","authors":"McKenzie A. Mayer, Marisa Deliso, Ian S. Hong, Bryan M. Saltzman, Raphael S. Longobardi, Peter F. DeLuca, Louis Rizio","doi":"10.1177/03635465241233161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is crucial for safe return to play (RTP) and reducing the chances of a reinjury. Yet, there is no consensus on the ideal functional tests to assess rehabilitation progress in soccer players after ACLR.Purpose:The primary objective was to highlight the existing gap in the literature concerning the most effective standardized rehabilitation protocols and testing for facilitating successful RTP among soccer players.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A systematic review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted. Inclusion criteria encompassed original studies (level of evidence 1-4) that examined rehabilitation protocols, metrics of knee rehabilitation, and clinical outcomes after ACLR in soccer players.Results:This review incorporated 23 studies, predominantly retrospective case series, with a total number of 874 soccer players who underwent ACLR and rehabiliation. 5 (21.7%) studies utilized an accelerated rehabilitation protocol, while 7 (30.4%) of studies utilized a criterion-based rehabilitation. A wide heterogeneity of data was extracted including functional tests of rehabilitation and RTP such as strength test batteries, hop test batteries, and movement quality assessments. Of the 23 selected studies, 2 (8.7%) used all 3 test batteries, 8 (34.8%) used 2 test batteries, 12 (52.2%) used 1 test battery, and 1 (4.3%) used 0 of the test batteries. The mean time between surgery and RTP ranged from 3 to 8 months with only 2 (8.7%) studies reporting complications after ACLR. Lastly, out of the total studies examined, 9 (39.1%) assessed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), all of which demonstrated significant improvement from the initial assessment to the final follow up.Conclusion:Soccer-specific rehabilitation after ACLR lacks standardization. Even though many studies have assessed protocols for optimal RTP and reduced secondary ACL injuries, there is a gap in the literature regarding the most effective protocols and RTP testing. The methodology reported by Kyritsis et al could serve as a foundation for future prospective randomized multicenter studies to establish a standard rehabilitation protocol and enable a successful return to soccer.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rehabilitation and Return to Play Protocols After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Soccer Players: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"McKenzie A. Mayer, Marisa Deliso, Ian S. Hong, Bryan M. Saltzman, Raphael S. Longobardi, Peter F. DeLuca, Louis Rizio\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03635465241233161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is crucial for safe return to play (RTP) and reducing the chances of a reinjury. Yet, there is no consensus on the ideal functional tests to assess rehabilitation progress in soccer players after ACLR.Purpose:The primary objective was to highlight the existing gap in the literature concerning the most effective standardized rehabilitation protocols and testing for facilitating successful RTP among soccer players.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A systematic review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted. Inclusion criteria encompassed original studies (level of evidence 1-4) that examined rehabilitation protocols, metrics of knee rehabilitation, and clinical outcomes after ACLR in soccer players.Results:This review incorporated 23 studies, predominantly retrospective case series, with a total number of 874 soccer players who underwent ACLR and rehabiliation. 5 (21.7%) studies utilized an accelerated rehabilitation protocol, while 7 (30.4%) of studies utilized a criterion-based rehabilitation. A wide heterogeneity of data was extracted including functional tests of rehabilitation and RTP such as strength test batteries, hop test batteries, and movement quality assessments. Of the 23 selected studies, 2 (8.7%) used all 3 test batteries, 8 (34.8%) used 2 test batteries, 12 (52.2%) used 1 test battery, and 1 (4.3%) used 0 of the test batteries. The mean time between surgery and RTP ranged from 3 to 8 months with only 2 (8.7%) studies reporting complications after ACLR. Lastly, out of the total studies examined, 9 (39.1%) assessed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), all of which demonstrated significant improvement from the initial assessment to the final follow up.Conclusion:Soccer-specific rehabilitation after ACLR lacks standardization. Even though many studies have assessed protocols for optimal RTP and reduced secondary ACL injuries, there is a gap in the literature regarding the most effective protocols and RTP testing. The methodology reported by Kyritsis et al could serve as a foundation for future prospective randomized multicenter studies to establish a standard rehabilitation protocol and enable a successful return to soccer.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241233161\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241233161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:前交叉韧带重建术(ACLR)后的康复对于安全重返赛场(RTP)和减少再次受伤的机会至关重要。研究设计:系统综述;证据等级,4。方法:使用 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册 (CENTRAL) 进行了系统综述。纳入标准包括对足球运动员 ACLR 后的康复方案、膝关节康复指标和临床结果进行研究的原创性研究(证据等级 1-4)。结果:该综述纳入了 23 项研究,主要是回顾性病例系列,共有 874 名足球运动员接受了 ACLR 和康复治疗。5项(21.7%)研究采用了加速康复方案,7项(30.4%)研究采用了基于标准的康复方案。研究提取的数据具有广泛的异质性,包括康复和 RTP 的功能测试,如力量测试、跳跃测试和运动质量评估。在 23 项选定的研究中,2 项(8.7%)使用了全部 3 个测试电池,8 项(34.8%)使用了 2 个测试电池,12 项(52.2%)使用了 1 个测试电池,1 项(4.3%)未使用任何测试电池。从手术到 RTP 的平均时间为 3 至 8 个月,只有 2 项(8.7%)研究报告了 ACLR 术后并发症。最后,在所有研究中,有 9 项(39.1%)研究评估了患者报告的结果指标(PROMs),所有这些指标都显示,从最初的评估到最后的随访,患者的康复情况都有显著改善。结论:前交叉韧带损伤后的足球专项康复缺乏标准化,尽管许多研究都评估了最佳 RTP 和减少前交叉韧带继发性损伤的方案,但关于最有效的方案和 RTP 测试的文献还是空白。Kyritsis 等人报告的方法可作为未来前瞻性随机多中心研究的基础,以制定标准康复方案,使患者成功重返足球场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rehabilitation and Return to Play Protocols After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Soccer Players: A Systematic Review
Background:Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is crucial for safe return to play (RTP) and reducing the chances of a reinjury. Yet, there is no consensus on the ideal functional tests to assess rehabilitation progress in soccer players after ACLR.Purpose:The primary objective was to highlight the existing gap in the literature concerning the most effective standardized rehabilitation protocols and testing for facilitating successful RTP among soccer players.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A systematic review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted. Inclusion criteria encompassed original studies (level of evidence 1-4) that examined rehabilitation protocols, metrics of knee rehabilitation, and clinical outcomes after ACLR in soccer players.Results:This review incorporated 23 studies, predominantly retrospective case series, with a total number of 874 soccer players who underwent ACLR and rehabiliation. 5 (21.7%) studies utilized an accelerated rehabilitation protocol, while 7 (30.4%) of studies utilized a criterion-based rehabilitation. A wide heterogeneity of data was extracted including functional tests of rehabilitation and RTP such as strength test batteries, hop test batteries, and movement quality assessments. Of the 23 selected studies, 2 (8.7%) used all 3 test batteries, 8 (34.8%) used 2 test batteries, 12 (52.2%) used 1 test battery, and 1 (4.3%) used 0 of the test batteries. The mean time between surgery and RTP ranged from 3 to 8 months with only 2 (8.7%) studies reporting complications after ACLR. Lastly, out of the total studies examined, 9 (39.1%) assessed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), all of which demonstrated significant improvement from the initial assessment to the final follow up.Conclusion:Soccer-specific rehabilitation after ACLR lacks standardization. Even though many studies have assessed protocols for optimal RTP and reduced secondary ACL injuries, there is a gap in the literature regarding the most effective protocols and RTP testing. The methodology reported by Kyritsis et al could serve as a foundation for future prospective randomized multicenter studies to establish a standard rehabilitation protocol and enable a successful return to soccer.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信