Athletes With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Were Slower to Meet Rehabilitation Milestones and Return-to-Sport Criteria Than Athletes With Hamstring Tendon Autograft or Soft Tissue Allograft : Secondary Analysis From the ACL-SPORTS Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Graft choices for athletes undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) include bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) and hamstring tendon (HT) autografts and soft tissue allografts. The objective was to assess time to meet clinical milestones by graft type in athletes who completed a return-to-sport (RTS) program after ACLR. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Seventy-nine athletes enrolled after ACLR (allograft, n = 18; BPTB, n = 24; HT, n = 37). Time from surgery to meet (1) enrollment criteria (12 or more weeks post surgery, 80% or greater isometric quadriceps strength index, minimal effusion, and full knee range of motion), and (2) RTS criteria (90% or greater quadriceps strength index, hop testing limb symmetry, and patient-reported outcomes) was calculated. Quadriceps strength, hop performance, and patient-reported outcomes were measured before and after training, and at 1 year post surgery. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and 1-way analyses of variance (α = .05) were used to analyze differences among graft types. RESULTS: On average, the BPTB group (28.5 ± 7.6 weeks) took longer to meet enrollment milestones than the HT (22.5 ± 7.6 weeks, P = .007) and allograft (18.9 ± 5.8 weeks, P<.001) groups. The BPTB group (44.7 ± 15.8 weeks) took longer from surgery to meet RTS criteria than the HT (32.5 ± 9.9 weeks, P = .001) and allograft (29.3 ± 9.0 weeks, P<.001) groups. After training, the quadriceps strength index was lower in the BPTB group (86.1% ± 11.4%) than it was in the HT (96.1% ± 12.9%, P = .004) and allograft (96.9% ± 5.9%, P = .009) groups. CONCLUSION: Athletes with a BPTB autograft may take longer than athletes with an HT autograft or a soft tissue allograft to complete postoperative rehabilitation, recover quadriceps strength, and meet RTS criteria. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(5):259-266. Epub 27 Nov 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9111.

On-Ice Return-to-Hockey Progression After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Synopsis The literature pertaining to the rehabilitation of ice hockey players seeking to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is currently limited. The purpose of this clinical commentary was to present a criterion-based progression for return to ice hockey for athletes after ACLR. First, we review pertinent literature and provide previously published guidelines on general rehabilitation after ACLR. Then, we present a 4-phase, on-ice skating progression with objective criteria to initiate each phase. During the early on-ice phase, the athlete is reintroduced to specific demands, including graded exposure to forward, backward, and crossover skating. In the intermediate on-ice phase, the emphasis shifts to developing power and introducing anticipated changes of direction within a controlled environment. During the late on-ice phase, the focus progresses to developing anaerobic endurance and introducing unanticipated changes of direction, but still without other players or contact. Finally, once objective return-to-sport criteria are met, noncontact team drills, outnumbered and even-numbered drills, practices, scrimmages, and games are progressively reintroduced during the return-to-sport phase. Recommendations for off-ice strength and conditioning exercises complement the on-ice progression. Additionally, we apply the return-to-hockey progression framework to a case report of a female collegiate defensive ice hockey player who returned to sport successfully after ACLR. This criterion-based return-to-hockey progression may guide rehabilitation specialists managing athletes returning to ice hockey after ACLR. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(5):324-333. Epub 29 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7245.