Cargando…

Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery

INTRODUCTION: Ankle sprains are one of the most common athletic injuries. If a patient fails to improve through conservative management, surgery is an option to restore ankle stability. The purpose of this study was to analyze and assess the variability across different rehabilitation protocols for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hermanns, Christina, Coda, Reed, Cheema, Sana, Vopat, Matthew L., Bechtold, Megan, Tarakemeh, Armin, Mullen, Scott, Schroeppel, John Paul, Vopat, Bryan G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University of Kansas Medical Center 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7324062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32612748
_version_ 1783551873175781376
author Hermanns, Christina
Coda, Reed
Cheema, Sana
Vopat, Matthew L.
Bechtold, Megan
Tarakemeh, Armin
Mullen, Scott
Schroeppel, John Paul
Vopat, Bryan G.
author_facet Hermanns, Christina
Coda, Reed
Cheema, Sana
Vopat, Matthew L.
Bechtold, Megan
Tarakemeh, Armin
Mullen, Scott
Schroeppel, John Paul
Vopat, Bryan G.
author_sort Hermanns, Christina
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Ankle sprains are one of the most common athletic injuries. If a patient fails to improve through conservative management, surgery is an option to restore ankle stability. The purpose of this study was to analyze and assess the variability across different rehabilitation protocols for patients undergoing either lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation. METHODS: Using a web-based search for published rehabilitation protocols after lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation, a total of 26 protocols were found. Inclusion criteria were protocols for post-operative care after an ankle ligament surgery (repair, reconstruction, or suture tape augmentation). Protocols for multi-ligament surgeries and non-operative care were excluded. A scoring rubric was created to analyze different inclusion, exclusion, and timing of protocols such as weight-bearing, range of motion (ROM), immobilization with brace, single leg exercises, return to running, and return to sport (RTS). Protocols inclusion of different recommendations was recorded along with the time frame that activities were suggested in each protocol. RESULTS: Twenty-six protocols were analyzed. There was variability across rehabilitation protocols for lateral ankle ligament operative patients especially in the type of immobilizing brace, time to partial and full weigh bearing, time to plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion and inversion movements of the ankle, and return to single leg exercise and running. For repair and reconstruction, none of these categories had greater than 60% agreement between protocols. All (12/12) repair, internal brace, and unspecified protocols and 86% (12/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no ROM immediately postoperatively. Eighty-six percent (6/7) of repair and 78% (11/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no weight-bearing immediately after surgery, making post-operative ROM and weight-bearing status the most consistent aspects across protocols. Five protocols allowed post-operative weight-bearing in a cast to keep ROM restricted. Sixty-six percent (2/3) of suture tape augmentation protocols allowed full weight-bearing immediately post-operatively. Suture tape augmentation protocols generally allowed rehabilitation to occur on a quicker time-line with full weight-bearing by week 4–6 in 100% (3/3) of protocols and full ROM by week 8–10 in 66% (2/3) protocols. RTS was consistent in repair protocols (100% at week 12–16) but varied more in reconstruction. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the post-operative protocols after surgery for ankle instability. ROM was highly variable across protocols and did not always match-up with supporting literature for early mobilization of the ankle. Return to sport was most likely to correlate between protocols and the literature. Weight-bearing was consistent between most protocols but requires further research to determine the best practice. Overall, the variability between programs demonstrated the need for standardization of rehabilitation protocols.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7324062
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher University of Kansas Medical Center
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73240622020-06-30 Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery Hermanns, Christina Coda, Reed Cheema, Sana Vopat, Matthew L. Bechtold, Megan Tarakemeh, Armin Mullen, Scott Schroeppel, John Paul Vopat, Bryan G. Kans J Med Original Research INTRODUCTION: Ankle sprains are one of the most common athletic injuries. If a patient fails to improve through conservative management, surgery is an option to restore ankle stability. The purpose of this study was to analyze and assess the variability across different rehabilitation protocols for patients undergoing either lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation. METHODS: Using a web-based search for published rehabilitation protocols after lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation, a total of 26 protocols were found. Inclusion criteria were protocols for post-operative care after an ankle ligament surgery (repair, reconstruction, or suture tape augmentation). Protocols for multi-ligament surgeries and non-operative care were excluded. A scoring rubric was created to analyze different inclusion, exclusion, and timing of protocols such as weight-bearing, range of motion (ROM), immobilization with brace, single leg exercises, return to running, and return to sport (RTS). Protocols inclusion of different recommendations was recorded along with the time frame that activities were suggested in each protocol. RESULTS: Twenty-six protocols were analyzed. There was variability across rehabilitation protocols for lateral ankle ligament operative patients especially in the type of immobilizing brace, time to partial and full weigh bearing, time to plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion and inversion movements of the ankle, and return to single leg exercise and running. For repair and reconstruction, none of these categories had greater than 60% agreement between protocols. All (12/12) repair, internal brace, and unspecified protocols and 86% (12/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no ROM immediately postoperatively. Eighty-six percent (6/7) of repair and 78% (11/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no weight-bearing immediately after surgery, making post-operative ROM and weight-bearing status the most consistent aspects across protocols. Five protocols allowed post-operative weight-bearing in a cast to keep ROM restricted. Sixty-six percent (2/3) of suture tape augmentation protocols allowed full weight-bearing immediately post-operatively. Suture tape augmentation protocols generally allowed rehabilitation to occur on a quicker time-line with full weight-bearing by week 4–6 in 100% (3/3) of protocols and full ROM by week 8–10 in 66% (2/3) protocols. RTS was consistent in repair protocols (100% at week 12–16) but varied more in reconstruction. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the post-operative protocols after surgery for ankle instability. ROM was highly variable across protocols and did not always match-up with supporting literature for early mobilization of the ankle. Return to sport was most likely to correlate between protocols and the literature. Weight-bearing was consistent between most protocols but requires further research to determine the best practice. Overall, the variability between programs demonstrated the need for standardization of rehabilitation protocols. University of Kansas Medical Center 2020-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7324062/ /pubmed/32612748 Text en © 2020 The University of Kansas Medical Center This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd) License. (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Research
Hermanns, Christina
Coda, Reed
Cheema, Sana
Vopat, Matthew L.
Bechtold, Megan
Tarakemeh, Armin
Mullen, Scott
Schroeppel, John Paul
Vopat, Bryan G.
Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery
title Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery
title_full Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery
title_fullStr Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery
title_full_unstemmed Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery
title_short Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery
title_sort review of variability in rehabilitation protocols after lateral ankle ligament surgery
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7324062/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32612748
work_keys_str_mv AT hermannschristina reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT codareed reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT cheemasana reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT vopatmatthewl reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT bechtoldmegan reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT tarakemeharmin reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT mullenscott reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT schroeppeljohnpaul reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery
AT vopatbryang reviewofvariabilityinrehabilitationprotocolsafterlateralankleligamentsurgery