Christopher A. Schneble, Benjamin Miltenberg, Kevin Jurgensmeier, Gaston Davis, Adam J. Tagliero, Kevin B. Freedman, Aaron J. Krych, Steven B. Cohen
{"title":"前交叉韧带重建后粘连溶解的时机是否影响最终的活动范围?","authors":"Christopher A. Schneble, Benjamin Miltenberg, Kevin Jurgensmeier, Gaston Davis, Adam J. Tagliero, Kevin B. Freedman, Aaron J. Krych, Steven B. Cohen","doi":"10.1177/03635465251383162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Arthrofibrosis is seen in 1.7% to 38% of patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and has been associated with worse postoperative patient-reported outcomes. There are limited data regarding the optimal time to intervene in cases of arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Purpose: To assess if timing of arthrofibrosis treatment after ACLR affects final knee range of motion (ROM) and to help establish guidelines with regard to timing of intervention for arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Databases were retrospectively screened at 2 high-volume practices for patients who underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA; Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 29884 and 29875) with or without manipulation under anesthesia (CPT 27570) after ACLR (CPT 29888). Clinical ROM assessments were collected at multiple time points. Patients were grouped into cohorts based on timing of LOA. Comparative analysis was performed to assess for relationships between ROM and timing of intervention. Results: Seventy-nine patients underwent LOA after ACLR: 25 patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, 23 patients between 3 and 6 months, and 31 patients >6 months. Earlier LOA was associated with greater total loss of motion before LOA. The final total arc of motion was 132.7°, 133.7°, and 131.8° for patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, between 3 and 6 months, and >6 months, respectively. There were no significant differences among groups in final flexion ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic> = .8), extension ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic> = .746), or total arc of motion ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic> = .781). Linear regression modeling did not identify time from ACLR to LOA as a predictive variable ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P</jats:italic> = .982) in final ROM. Conclusion: This study failed to demonstrate a linear relationship between the timing of LOA and final ROM. Regardless of the time to intervention, ROM improved significantly; however, patients with more severe arthrofibrosis underwent LOA at earlier time points.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the Timing of Lysis of Adhesions After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Affect Final Range of Motion?\",\"authors\":\"Christopher A. Schneble, Benjamin Miltenberg, Kevin Jurgensmeier, Gaston Davis, Adam J. Tagliero, Kevin B. Freedman, Aaron J. Krych, Steven B. Cohen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03635465251383162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Arthrofibrosis is seen in 1.7% to 38% of patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and has been associated with worse postoperative patient-reported outcomes. There are limited data regarding the optimal time to intervene in cases of arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Purpose: To assess if timing of arthrofibrosis treatment after ACLR affects final knee range of motion (ROM) and to help establish guidelines with regard to timing of intervention for arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Databases were retrospectively screened at 2 high-volume practices for patients who underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA; Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 29884 and 29875) with or without manipulation under anesthesia (CPT 27570) after ACLR (CPT 29888). Clinical ROM assessments were collected at multiple time points. Patients were grouped into cohorts based on timing of LOA. Comparative analysis was performed to assess for relationships between ROM and timing of intervention. Results: Seventy-nine patients underwent LOA after ACLR: 25 patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, 23 patients between 3 and 6 months, and 31 patients >6 months. Earlier LOA was associated with greater total loss of motion before LOA. The final total arc of motion was 132.7°, 133.7°, and 131.8° for patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, between 3 and 6 months, and >6 months, respectively. There were no significant differences among groups in final flexion ( <jats:italic toggle=\\\"yes\\\">P</jats:italic> = .8), extension ( <jats:italic toggle=\\\"yes\\\">P</jats:italic> = .746), or total arc of motion ( <jats:italic toggle=\\\"yes\\\">P</jats:italic> = .781). Linear regression modeling did not identify time from ACLR to LOA as a predictive variable ( <jats:italic toggle=\\\"yes\\\">P</jats:italic> = .982) in final ROM. Conclusion: This study failed to demonstrate a linear relationship between the timing of LOA and final ROM. Regardless of the time to intervention, ROM improved significantly; however, patients with more severe arthrofibrosis underwent LOA at earlier time points.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-14\",\"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/10.1177/03635465251383162\",\"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/10.1177/03635465251383162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does the Timing of Lysis of Adhesions After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Affect Final Range of Motion?
Background: Arthrofibrosis is seen in 1.7% to 38% of patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and has been associated with worse postoperative patient-reported outcomes. There are limited data regarding the optimal time to intervene in cases of arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Purpose: To assess if timing of arthrofibrosis treatment after ACLR affects final knee range of motion (ROM) and to help establish guidelines with regard to timing of intervention for arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Databases were retrospectively screened at 2 high-volume practices for patients who underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA; Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 29884 and 29875) with or without manipulation under anesthesia (CPT 27570) after ACLR (CPT 29888). Clinical ROM assessments were collected at multiple time points. Patients were grouped into cohorts based on timing of LOA. Comparative analysis was performed to assess for relationships between ROM and timing of intervention. Results: Seventy-nine patients underwent LOA after ACLR: 25 patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, 23 patients between 3 and 6 months, and 31 patients >6 months. Earlier LOA was associated with greater total loss of motion before LOA. The final total arc of motion was 132.7°, 133.7°, and 131.8° for patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, between 3 and 6 months, and >6 months, respectively. There were no significant differences among groups in final flexion ( P = .8), extension ( P = .746), or total arc of motion ( P = .781). Linear regression modeling did not identify time from ACLR to LOA as a predictive variable ( P = .982) in final ROM. Conclusion: This study failed to demonstrate a linear relationship between the timing of LOA and final ROM. Regardless of the time to intervention, ROM improved significantly; however, patients with more severe arthrofibrosis underwent LOA at earlier time points.