Cargando…

The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND: The application of continuous passive motion (CPM) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) was popularized in the 1990s, but advancements in the understanding of ACLR rehabilitation have made the application of CPM controversial. Many sports medicine fellowship–trained sur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: D’Amore, Taylor, Rao, Somnath, Corvi, John, Jack, Robert A., Tjoumakaris, Fotios P., Ciccotti, Michael G., Freedman, Kevin B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8246506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34262979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211013841
_version_ 1783716327523876864
author D’Amore, Taylor
Rao, Somnath
Corvi, John
Jack, Robert A.
Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.
Ciccotti, Michael G.
Freedman, Kevin B.
author_facet D’Amore, Taylor
Rao, Somnath
Corvi, John
Jack, Robert A.
Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.
Ciccotti, Michael G.
Freedman, Kevin B.
author_sort D’Amore, Taylor
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The application of continuous passive motion (CPM) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) was popularized in the 1990s, but advancements in the understanding of ACLR rehabilitation have made the application of CPM controversial. Many sports medicine fellowship–trained surgeons report using CPM machines postoperatively. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of CPM use for recovery after ACLR with respect to knee range of motion (ROM), knee swelling, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index of Nursing, and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2020, for studies with evidence levels 1 to 3 on the use of CPM for ACLR rehabilitation. Included studies were those that comparatively evaluated postoperative outcomes after ACLR between at least 2 groups of patients, with 1 having received CPM rehabilitation and the other not having received CPM. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies from 1989 to 2019 met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 808 patients who underwent ACLR. There was no evidence of CPM improving knee stability, final postoperative ROM, or subjective pain scores. Additionally, CPM did not lead to decreased muscle atrophy or improved International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Regarding pain medication intake during postoperative hospitalization, 2 studies found that the CPM group used less pain medication, 1 study found the CPM group used more pain medication, and 1 study found that there was no difference between the 2 groups. Complications varied widely, with 2 of 12 studies reporting complications that required a return to the operating room. CONCLUSION: A clinical benefit of postoperative CPM use after ACLR was not identified in this review. While our systematic review identified a number of studies that suggest CPM use may be associated with lower usage of pain medication in hospitalized patients, this cannot be confirmed without further investigation with standardized CPM protocols and larger sample sizes. Routine CPM use after ACLR was not supported by this systematic review.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8246506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82465062021-07-13 The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies D’Amore, Taylor Rao, Somnath Corvi, John Jack, Robert A. Tjoumakaris, Fotios P. Ciccotti, Michael G. Freedman, Kevin B. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: The application of continuous passive motion (CPM) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) was popularized in the 1990s, but advancements in the understanding of ACLR rehabilitation have made the application of CPM controversial. Many sports medicine fellowship–trained surgeons report using CPM machines postoperatively. PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of CPM use for recovery after ACLR with respect to knee range of motion (ROM), knee swelling, postoperative pain, and postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index of Nursing, and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2020, for studies with evidence levels 1 to 3 on the use of CPM for ACLR rehabilitation. Included studies were those that comparatively evaluated postoperative outcomes after ACLR between at least 2 groups of patients, with 1 having received CPM rehabilitation and the other not having received CPM. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies from 1989 to 2019 met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 808 patients who underwent ACLR. There was no evidence of CPM improving knee stability, final postoperative ROM, or subjective pain scores. Additionally, CPM did not lead to decreased muscle atrophy or improved International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Regarding pain medication intake during postoperative hospitalization, 2 studies found that the CPM group used less pain medication, 1 study found the CPM group used more pain medication, and 1 study found that there was no difference between the 2 groups. Complications varied widely, with 2 of 12 studies reporting complications that required a return to the operating room. CONCLUSION: A clinical benefit of postoperative CPM use after ACLR was not identified in this review. While our systematic review identified a number of studies that suggest CPM use may be associated with lower usage of pain medication in hospitalized patients, this cannot be confirmed without further investigation with standardized CPM protocols and larger sample sizes. Routine CPM use after ACLR was not supported by this systematic review. SAGE Publications 2021-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8246506/ /pubmed/34262979 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211013841 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Article
D’Amore, Taylor
Rao, Somnath
Corvi, John
Jack, Robert A.
Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.
Ciccotti, Michael G.
Freedman, Kevin B.
The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_full The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_fullStr The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_full_unstemmed The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_short The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies
title_sort utility of continuous passive motion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of comparative studies
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8246506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34262979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211013841
work_keys_str_mv AT damoretaylor theutilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT raosomnath theutilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT corvijohn theutilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT jackroberta theutilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT tjoumakarisfotiosp theutilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT ciccottimichaelg theutilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT freedmankevinb theutilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT damoretaylor utilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT raosomnath utilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT corvijohn utilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT jackroberta utilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT tjoumakarisfotiosp utilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT ciccottimichaelg utilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies
AT freedmankevinb utilityofcontinuouspassivemotionafteranteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionasystematicreviewofcomparativestudies