Loading…

The majority of athletes fail to return to play following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction due to reasons other than the operated knee

Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reasons why athletes do not return to play (RTP) following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction from a large single-centre database. Methods The institutional ACL registry was screened for patients that had undergone a primary ACLR and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021-11, Vol.29 (11), p.3877-3882
Main Authors: Toale, James P., Hurley, Eoghan T., Hughes, Andrew J., Withers, Daniel, King, Enda, Jackson, Mark, Moran, Ray
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reasons why athletes do not return to play (RTP) following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction from a large single-centre database. Methods The institutional ACL registry was screened for patients that had undergone a primary ACLR and had RTP status reported at 24-month follow-up. The reasons that patients were unable to RTP at 24 months were evaluated. The ACL-Return to Sport Index (ACL-RSI) was evaluated at baseline and 24-month follow-up to evaluate psychological ability to RTP. Results At 2 years, 1140 patients returned to play, and 222 had not returned to play. The most common reasons athletes were unable to return was fear of reinjury (27.5%), lack of confidence in performance on return (19.4%) and external life factors (16.6%), i.e. work commitments and family reasons. Other reasons for athletes not returning to play were residual knee pain (10%) and subsequent injury (5%). The ACL-RSI score was significantly lower at diagnosis (40.3 vs. 49.3; p  = 0.003) and 2 years (41.8 vs. 78.7; p  
ISSN:0942-2056
1433-7347
DOI:10.1007/s00167-020-06407-5