Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 21, 2025
Author Spotlight: Implementing the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Concept in Rehabilitation Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Published on: March 1, 2024
Recurrent Instability Rate and Subjective Knee Function following Accelerated Rehabilitation after ACL Reconstruction
Adrian Deichsel1, Simon Oeckenpöhler1, Michael J Raschke1
1Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building W1, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Introduction:
The Purpose of the present study was to assess the outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with an accelerated rehabilitation protocol and to compare it to a conservative rehabilitation protocol. It was hypothesized that an accelerated rehabilitation protocol, including brace-free early weight bearing, would result in a higher rate of recurrent instability and revision surgery compared to a conservative rehabilitation protocol.
Methods:
From 2016 to 2017, two different rehabilitation protocols for isolated ACLR were used at a high-volume knee surgery center. A total of 65 consecutive patients with isolated hamstring ACLR, of whom n = 33 had been treated with an accelerated (AccRehab) and n = 32 with a conservative rehabilitation protocol (ConRehab), were retrospectively included in the study. Patients were evaluated for recurrent instability, revision surgery, and other complications at a mean follow-up period of 64 ± 7.4 months. In addition, Tegner Activity Scale, Lysholm Score, and IKDC-subjective Score were evaluated. Statistical comparison between the two groups was performed utilizing Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test.
Results:
Mean age (29.3 vs. 26.6 years) and preoperative Tegner Score (6.4 vs. 5.9) were comparable between both groups. At 64 ± 7.4 months after ACLR, six cases of recurrent instability were reported in the AccRehab group (18%) in comparison to three cases (9%) in the ConRehab group (p = n.s.). There was no significant difference regarding revision surgery and further complications. Furthermore, no significant difference was found between both groups regarding Tegner (5.5 ± 1.9 vs. 5.5 ± 1.2), Lysholm (93.6 ± 6.3 vs. 89.3 ± 10.7), and IKDC score (89.7 ± 7.9 vs. 86.7 ± 12.1).
Conclusion:
No significant disadvantage of an accelerated rehabilitation protocol following ACLR was found in terms of recurrent instability rate, revision surgery, or patient-reported outcome. However, a trend towards a higher reinstability rate was found for an accelerated rehabilitation protocol. Future level one trials evaluating brace-free early weight bearing following ACLR are desirable.
