Anatomic Landmarks Utilized for Physeal-Sparing, Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W Xerogeanes ◽  
Kyle E Hammond ◽  
Dane C Todd
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anatomic Landmarks ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Physeal Sparing

scholarly journals CLEARANCE BASED ON STANDARDIZED RETURN TO SPORTS ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION IN PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT PATIENTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0014
Author(s):  
Rachel Bergman ◽  
Robert Kent ◽  
Jessica Kellum ◽  
Eileen Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sports ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Adolescent Population ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Physeal Sparing

Background: Return to sports (RTS) is often the primary concern of patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Unfortunately, RTS at the preinjury level is not commonplace in pediatric patients despite advances in rehabilitation and measures of recovery, and second injury rates are highest among the young adolescent population. RTS criteria have become more rigorous in recent years. The impact of these new RTS assessments (RTSA) is still unfolding, and their application in a mixed pediatric and adolescent population is unclear. Purpose: To assess whether adolescent patients who undergo standard ACLR pass a rigorous RTSA sooner than those undergoing pediatric ACLR. Methods: This study was a retrospective chart review of patients ages >5 and <18 with primary, unilateral ACL tear who underwent ACLR from January 2017 to December 2019. Subjects were identified using current procedural terminology codes from the hospital electronic medical record then grouped based on ACL reconstruction technique: Adolescent (transphyseal approach) and Pediatric (complete or partial physeal-sparing approach). All subjects underwent a rigorous and standardized RTSA used by the operating surgeons to guide clearance to RTS. The primary outcome measure was post-operative time to clearance for RTS, with secondary analyses controlling for sex, concomitant pathology at the time of ACLR, number of RTSAs prior to clearance, and physical therapy provider. Parametric and nonparametric statistical comparisons were respectively performed via unpaired Student t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests (p<0.05). Results: Of 426 identified ACLR patients, 97 (84 Adolescent, 13 Pediatric) met the inclusion criteria for the final analysis (39 M, 58 F; Adolescent mean age 16.44 ± 1.7 years, Pediatric mean age 13.21 ± 1.4 years). There were no significant differences in gender distribution or concomitant pathology between the groups. Median post-operative time to clearance for RTS was 12.2 months in the Pediatric group (95% CI: 10.9-12.7) and 9.3 months in the Adolescent group (95% CI: 8.9-9.8) (p<0.001). This difference in time to RTS between groups remained statistically significant after adjusting for the secondary variables described above (all p≤0.002). Conclusions: When applying a rigorous and standardized RTSA to determine readiness for RTS, Pediatric subjects who underwent a partial or complete physeal-sparing technique took nearly 3 months longer to be cleared than Adolescent subjects who underwent a standard transphyseal approach. Notably, Adolescent subjects averaged more than 9 months of rehabilitation prior to RTS. These findings help inform patient expectations for a safe recovery period following ACLR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document