|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare patients' appraisal of the rehabilitation and adherence to the rehabilitation program after acute ACL injury treated with (ACLR) or without (non-ACLR) reconstruction.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 275 patients (143 females; mean age 25 ± 7 years) with acute ACL injury, of whom 166 patients had ACLR within 24 months. MAIN OUTCOME: Adherence to rehabilitation was assessed using the modified Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale (SIRAS).
RESULTS: Appraisal of rehabilitation was higher in the post-ACLR group compared to the non-ACLR group at 3 months (91% compared to 70% scored rehabilitation as necessary, p = 0.025) and at 6 months (87% compared to 70% scored it as necessary, p = 0.017). SIRAS score did not differ between 3 and 6 months for the non-ACLR group (median (IQR) 13 (2) vs 13 (2)) or the post-ACLR group (14 (1) vs 14 (2), p > 0.05). The post-ACLR group had a higher SIRAS score than the non-ACLR group at 3 and 6 months (p ≤ 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Patients treated with ACLR reported valuing their rehabilitation more and rated greater adherence to the rehabilitation programme than non-surgically treated patients. As rehabilitation is essential for good knee function, strategies to improve adherence after non-ACLR treatment should be implemented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective cohort study, level II.
Language: en |