Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 25;68(3):355-363.
doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2022.8906. eCollection 2022 Sep.

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Furkan Yapıcı  1 , Volkan Gür  1 , İlker Fatih Sarı  2 , Alper Köksal  3 , Hakan Yurten  4 , Hanifi Üçpunar  3 , Yalkın Çamurcu  5
Affiliations

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Furkan Yapıcı et al. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. .

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to compare the clinical results of patients rehabilitated with or without a rehabilitative knee brace (RKB) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Patients and methods: This retrospective, comparative study was conducted at between January 2013 and December 2017. A total of 119 patients (112 males, 7 females; mean age: 32.0±8.6 years; range, 18 to 45 years) with acute ACL ruptures treated with arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and rehabilitated with (n=56) or without RKB (n=63) participated in the study. The minimum follow-up time was 24 months. The ACL quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Tegner Activity Level Scale were used for the evaluation of the QoL, knee function, and activity level, respectively. The time to return to sports was recorded. The side-to-side difference in the anterior translation of the tibia was measured using a KT-1000 arthrometer.

Results: The mean follow-up time was 38.4±9.1 (range, 24 to 56) months. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Regarding QoL, knee function, and activity level, no significant difference was observed between patients who used RKB and those who did not use it at the postoperative 12th month (p=0.95, p=0.56, p=0.98, respectively) and the latest follow-up (p=0.21, p=0.73, p=0.99, respectively). The mean time to return to sports (nearly 11 months for both groups) and side-to-side difference in the anterior tibial translation at the latest follow-up was also similar between groups (p=0.15 and p=0.15, respectively). There was no graft rupture during the follow-up in both groups. The complication rates were 7.9% and 7.1% for no brace and brace groups, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (p=0.87).

Conclusion: According to the results of this study, there was no significant difference between the rehabilitative brace and no brace groups in clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction.

Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; knee brace; rehabilitation..

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The rehabilitative knee brace from (a) anterior, (b) lateral, and (c) medial views.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Rishiraj N, Taunton JE, Lloyd-Smith R, Woollard R, Regan W, Clement DB. The potential role of prophylactic/ functional knee bracing in preventing knee ligament injury. Sports Med. 2009;39:937–960. - PubMed
    1. Buyukkuscu MO, Misir A, Cetinkaya E, Ezici A, Ozcafer R, Gursu SS. The interposition of soft tissue between the cortical button and femoral lateral cortex significantly increases button migration but does not negatively affect knee stability and clinical outcome. Knee. 2020;27:891–898. - PubMed
    1. Campbell JD. The evolution and current treatment trends with anterior cruciate, posterior cruciate, and medial collateral ligament injuries. Am J Knee Surg. 1998;11:128–135. - PubMed
    1. Decoster LC, Vailas JC, Swartz WG. Functional ACL bracing. A survey of current opinion and practice. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 1995;24:838–843. - PubMed
    1. Delay BS, Smolinski RJ, Wind WM, Bowman DS. Current practices and opinions in ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: Results of a survey of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Am J Knee Surg. 2001;14:85–91. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources