Global knee function rating more strongly influences adolescent athletes that sustain a sports‐related surgical ACL re‐injury or contralateral ACL injury

Abstract

PurposeThis study evaluated differences between adolescent athletes who sustained a surgical anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) re‐injury, or contralateral ACL injury following return to sports bridge programme participation (Group 1) compared to those that did not (Group 2).MethodsAt 19.9 ± 7 years of age, 198 athletes participated in this study. Groups were compared for time postsurgery, preprogramme and postprogramme Knee Outcome Survey Sports Activity Scale (KOS‐SAS) and global rating of knee function (GRKF) during sports activities, postprogramme lower extremity physical function test performance and perceived sports performance compared to preinjury level.ResultsBy 6.0 ± 3.2 years postsurgery, 11 (5.6%) sustained another ACL injury. Group 1 was younger (17.3 ± 1.7 years vs. 20.1 ± 6.8 years, p < 0.001). Postprogramme re‐evaluation revealed that Group 1 had a greater GRKF compared to their programme initiation GRKF than Group 2 (32.6 ± 38 vs. 20.0 ± 23, p = 0.04). Group 1 also had a greater mean preprogramme to postprogramme GRKF change than Group 2 (51.3 ± 31 vs. 35.5 ± 21, p = 0.02) (effect size = 0.73). More Group 1 subjects also had a GRKF difference that exceeded the overall mean than Group 2 (p = 0.04). Group 1 had moderately strong relationships between preprogramme and postprogramme GRKF score change and the postprogramme GRKF score (r = 0.65, p = 0.04) and between preprogramme and postprogramme KOS‐SAS score change and postprogramme GRKF score (r = 0.60, p = 0.04).ConclusionGlobal rating scores had a stronger influence among adolescent athletes that sustained either surgical ACL re‐injury or contralateral ACL injury. Since group physical function and neuromuscular control factors were similar, clinicians need to increase their awareness and understanding of other factors that may influence surgical ACL re‐injury or contralateral ACL injury risk.Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.