How Much Time Is Needed Between Serial “Return to Play” Assessments to Achieve Clinically Important Strength Gains in Patients Recovering From Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?
Authors: Bodkin Stephan G. , Rutherford Margaret H. , Diduch David R. , Brockmeier Stephen F. , Hart Joe M. 
Published: November 2019

Background:

Pass rates for return-to-play evaluations are alarmingly low for patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Since timing of return to play is a complicated decision, it is important that patients be given optimal time to realize meaningful improvements in strength that warrant additional testing.

Purpose:

To (1) compare outcomes among patients assessed at different time points after ACLR, (2) determine strength gains indicative of improvements in subjective function, and (3) determine the amount of time necessary to achieve meaningful strength gains.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional/case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 293 patients participated in the study after ACLR (mean ± SD, 23.2 ± 10.1 years old; n = 142 female participants; 6.4 ± 0.9 months after ACLR). Participants were stratified on the month of their evaluation after ACLR: 5 to 6 months (n = 122), 6 to 7 months (n = 102), 7 to 8 months (n = 43), and 8 to 9 months (n = 26). The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form and knee extensor and flexor torque and symmetry, as assessed through an isokinetic dynamometer, were compared among groups. Forty patients (20 female participants, 20.4 ± 7.1 years old) were referred for subsequent testing (2.14 ± 0.78 months after initial visit). Subjective improvement between visits was defined as a ≥9-point change of the IKDC score. Thresholds of knee extensor torque and symmetry indicative of subjective improvement and the time between assessments needed to achieve these strength improvements were determined.

Results:

Patients between 5 and 6 months (IKDC, 79.7; interquartile range [IQR], 70.1-88.5) had lower subjective function compared to patients between 6 and 7 months (IKDC, 83.9; IQR, 74.5-92.0; P = .019) and 8 and 9 months after ACLR (IKDC, 89.1; IQR 75.8-92.3; P = .026). Patients between 5 and 6 months (1.41 N·m/kg; IQR, 1.16-1.73 N·m/kg]) had lower knee extensor torque compared to patients 6 and 7 months (1.59 N·m/kg; IQR, 1.23-1.95 N·m/kg; P = .013) and 7 and 8 months after ACLR (1.62 N·m/kg; IQR, 1.30-1.86 N·m/kg; P = .046). Patients between 5 and 6 months (66.4%; IQR, 54.2-78.6) had lower symmetry compared to patients between 6 and 7 months (71.8%; IQR,61.1-82.9; P = .019) and 8 and 9 months afterACLR (75.2%; IQR, 66.6-87.7; P = .014). Of the 40 patients that completed follow-up assessments, an increase in knee extensor torque of 0.22 N·m/kg and symmetry of 5.75% discriminated patients that achieved subjective improvement. A period of 1.97 months between assessments discriminated those that achieved the established symmetry threshold.

Conclusion:

Patients demonstrate increasing subjective and quadriceps function when tested at later time points from surgery; however, the observed values are low, suggesting that at 9 months patients are demonstrating deficits that may be improving. Approximately 2 months is needed to observe clinically meaningful improvements.