Context:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction rehabilitation has evolved over the past 20 years. This evolution has been driven by a variety of level 1 and level 2 studies.Evidence Acquisition:The MOON Group is a collection of orthopaedic surgeons who have developed a prospective longitudinal cohort of the ACL reconstruction patients. To standardize the management of these patients, we developed, in conjunction with our physical therapy committee, an evidence-based rehabilitation guideline.Study Design:Clinical review.Level of Evidence:Level 2.Results:This review was based on 2 systematic reviews of level 1 and level 2 studies. Recently, the guideline was updated by a new review. Continuous passive motion did not improve ultimate motion. Early weightbearing decreases patellofemoral pain. Postoperative rehabilitative bracing did not improve swelling, pain range of motion, or safety. Open chain quadriceps activity can begin at 6 weeks.Conclusion:High-level evidence exists to determine appropriate ACL rehabilitation guidelines. Utilizing this protocol follows the best available evidence.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a common surgical knee procedure that requires intensive postoperative rehabilitation by the patient. A variety of randomized controlled trials have investigated aspects of ACL reconstruction rehabilitation. A systematic review of English language level 1 and 2 studies identified 54 appropriate randomized controlled trials of ACL rehabilitation. This part of the article discusses open versus closed kinetic chain exercises, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, accelerated rehabilitation, and miscellaneous topics.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a common surgical knee procedure that requires intensive postoperative rehabilitation by the patient. A variety of randomized controlled trials have investigated aspects of ACL reconstruction rehabilitation. A systematic review of English language level 1 and 2 studies identified 54 appropriate randomized controlled trials of ACL rehabilitation. Topics discussed in this part of the article include continuous passive motion, early weight bearing in motion, postoperative bracing, and home-based rehabilitation. [J Knee Surg. 2008;21:217-224.]

Purpose The hypothesis of this study was that single-legged horizontal hop test ratios would correlate with IKDC, KOOS, and Marx activity level scores in patients 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Methods Individual patient-reported outcome tools and hop test ratios on 69 ACL reconstructed patients were compared using correlations and multivariable modeling. Correlations between specific questions on the IKDC and KOOS concerning the ability to jump and hop ratios were also performed. Results The triple-hop ratio was moderately but significantly correlated with the IKDC, KOOS Sports and Recreation subscale, and the KOOS Knee Related Quality of Life subscale, as well as with the specific questions related to jumping. Similar but weaker relationship patterns were found for the single-hop ratio and timed hop. No significant correlations were found for the Marx activity level or crossover-hop ratio. Multivariable modeling showed almost no significant additional contribution to predictability of the IKDC or KOOS subscores by gender, BMI, or the number of faults on either leg. Conclusions The triple-hop test is most significantly correlated with patient-reported outcome scores. Multivariable modeling indicates that less than a quarter of the variability in outcome scores can be explained by hop test results. This indicates that neither test can serve as a direct proxy for the other; however, assessment of patient physical function by either direct report using validated outcome tools or by the hop test will provide relatively comparable data. Level of evidence II.

Background: While a primary goal of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is to reduce pathologically increased anterior and rotational knee laxity, the relationship between knee laxity after ACL reconstruction and patient-reported knee function remains unclear. Hypothesis: There would be no significant correlation between the degree of residual anterior and rotational knee laxity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: From a prospective multicenter nested cohort of patients, 433 patients younger than 36 years of age injured in sports with no history of concomitant ligament surgery, revision ACL surgery, or surgery of the contralateral knee were identified and evaluated at a minimum 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Each patient underwent Lachman and pivot-shift evaluation as well as a KT-1000 arthrometer assessment along with Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to predict each 2-year PRO score, controlling for preoperative score, age, sex, body mass index, smoking, Marx activity score, education, subsequent surgery, meniscal and cartilage status, graft type, and range of motion asymmetry. Measures of knee laxity were independently added to each model to determine correlation with PROs. Results: Side-to-side manual Lachman differences were IKDC A in 246 (57%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 4 (<1%) patients. Pivot-shift was classified as IKDC A in 209 (48%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 11 (2.5%) patients. The mean side-to-side KT-1000 difference was 2.0 ± 2.6 mm. No significant correlations were noted between pivot-shift or anterior tibial translation as assessed by Lachman or KT-1000 and any PRO. All predicted differences in PROs based on IKDC A versus B pivot-shift and anterior tibial translation were less than 4 points. Conclusion: Neither the presence of IKDC A versus B pivot-shift nor increased anterior tibial translation of up to 6 mm is associated with clinically relevant decreases in PROs 2 years after ACL reconstruction.

Objectives: The purpose of this case series was to describe the effects of a biopsychosocial approach that embeds pain neuroscience education (PNE) within physical therapy for improving foot and ankle function, pain, and psychosocial factors in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. Methods: Seven female patients (mean [SD] age = 49.0 [11.4] years) receiving physical therapy for chronic plantar fasciitis were enrolled. Along with formal physical therapy, patients received six 15-minute PNE sessions. Knowledge of pain neuroscience was assessed before and after PNE with the Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire. Patients completed questionnaires for foot and ankle function (Activities of Daily Living subscale of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia) at baseline (before treatment) and 6 and 12 weeks. Local and remote pain sensitivity was assessed using a pressure algometer at baseline and 6 weeks. Results: Patients attended a mean (range) of 8.7 (7 to 12) physical therapy sessions over a mean (range) of 46.7 (42 to 56) days. After PNE, six (86%) patients demonstrated increased knowledge of pain neuroscience. At 12 weeks, six (86%) patients met or exceeded minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for foot and ankle function and pain. Five (71%) patients met or exceeded MCID for pain catastrophizing and fear of movement. Local pain sensitivity was reduced in six (86%) patients. Conclusions: Physical therapy integrating PNE is potentially beneficial for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. Future studies should examine the efficacy of PNE in randomized trials with larger representative samples.

A documentary‐style short film exploring how people in the United States heal themselves once they leave the doctor's office. This film is based on in‐depth field research and illustrates how healing depends on the alignment between what doctors expect from patients, and what people actually do in their everyday lives. Exploring and entering the lives of three individuals, Helping People Heal reveals the ways that people put their recommended treatments into practice—and why these personalized applications achieve better health outcomes beyond simply doing what the doctor ordered.