According to the research, there is a
significant variance in what is reported as risk with return to sport. In 2007, Wright et al published
a retrospective study that showed only 6% of patients sustained a 2nd
ACL injury within 2 years post ACLR. Wright’s
study contradicts a 2005 study by Salmon et al in
which they showed 12% of patients suffered a 2nd ACL injury in a 5
year retrospective case study. This
issue is further confused by a 2012 study by Leys et al
which showed 29-34% of patients suffered a 2nd ACL reconstruction in
their 15 year follow-up study. This is further
complicated by the way that the information is reported. The above mentioned studies reported
incidence proportion estimates instead of incidence rates of patients at
risk. What is the difference?
Reporting incidence rate is a more sensitive
measure (closer to actual) because it adjusts for the actual extent of athletic
participation. Since sports
participation after ACLR may vary, if you have a lot of subjects who do not
return to sport or participate in sport post ACLR, then this would significantly
alter your reported percentages. In 2010, Paterno
et al published a study that looked at incidence rate and found that
25% of athletes suffered a 2nd ACL injury to either their ACLR knee
or the contralateral knee within the first 12 months of RTSport. In
2014, Paterno et al had a
follow up study to investigate what the incidence rate was beyond the first
year after RTSport and ACLR.
In this latest study, the authors looked at 78
athletes who underwent ACLR and were ready to return to pivoting/cutting sport
and compared them to controls. Each was
followed for injury as well as athletic exposures (AE) for a 24 month
period. What the results showed was that
incidence rate was 6 times greater for ACL injury when compared to
controls. ACLR female athletes were
almost 5 times greater risk for ACL injury when compared to control female
athletes. Female athletes were also more
likely to injure their contralateral knee versus the ACLR knee. Overall, 29.5% of athletes suffered a 2nd
ACL injury within 24 months of RTSport.
These are some alarming statistics. This is even more alarming if you consider
the previous work by Rugg
et al. In this study, they showed
that those athletes who had prior knee (not ACL) surgery and ACL surgery were
6.8 and 19.6 fold more likely to sustain a knee injury and 14.4 and 892.9 fold
more likely to undergo a knee surgery during their collegiate athletic
career. These same athletes consumed 50%
more days on the DL than athletes without prior knee or ACL surgery. In times in which scholarship dollars are under
scrutiny, pressures of producing winning teams is up in combination with high health
care expenses and tight budgets, these combined results will mean kids will
loose opportunities if they have prior injury.
So, why the high rate of reinjury?
Simple, you don’t ever know if you have
addressed the root cause if you don’t assess.
Pure and simple. What is the root
cause? Some will say genetics, bony
structure, hormones and gender. But are these
things that we can change? No. What can we change? Proprioception, strength and endurance.
Does movement like this occur because of poor
genetics or bony structure? No. This is an athlete being assessed for
RTSport. This athlete is clearly
shifting his weight to his contralateral limb which will clearly put him at
risk for a 2nd ACL injury of the contralateral limb. This the result of poor training which if it
was never assessed prior to return to sport, may not have been identified. Did he do this prior to his injury? That part is unknown but you would assume he
did not have this shift or at least not to this degree. Do we see it uninjured athletes? Definitely!
What we do know is the larger the shift, the more the impact it has on
performance and the more of an impact it has on risk.
Does movement like this occur because of poor
genetics, bony structure or hormones?
No. Some would say, how can you
say that? Simple. If this were genetics
or any of the other factors, we would not have seen this change with simple
implementation of exercises geared to address the root cause. But they did improve and when we saw changes
in these movements across the entire team, we saw dramatic decreases in injury
and improvements in performance.
The research is clear. Injury rates are rising and when athletes
return to sport, they are at a higher risk of a second injury. The impact on future joint health is
significant, future performance is profound and the impact on potential
opportunities is devastating. It is time
to do something about! We can make
speculations about, assume we are addressing but unless you thoroughly assess
you never know if you are truly impacting the root cause. In the coming months, ACL, LLC will have a
fully automated system using the most advanced research and latest in 3D
technology. The automated Dynamic
Movement Assessment™ will provide you with a cost effective way to
assess movement in mass that will result in real performance improvement and significant
reductions in injury rates. Know if you are truly changing movement by
assessing movement. For more information or introductory pricing, you can email
us at drtrent@aclprogram.com. #DMAOnTheMove
Build
Athletes to Perform…Build Athletes to Last!™
About
the author: Trent Nessler, PT, DPT, MPT is
CEO of A.C.L., LLC and is a practicing physical therapist with 15 years in
sports medicine and orthopedics. He has masters in physical therapy and doctorate
with focus in biomechanics and motor learning. He is the founder/developer of
the Dynamic Movement Assessment™,
Fatigue Dynamic Movement Assessment™ and author of a textbook “Dynamic
Movement Assessment™: Prevent Injury and Enhance Performance”. Trent is
also associate editor of the International Journal of Athletic Therapy and
Training and Member of the USA Cheer Safety Council. For more information, please see our website
at www.aclprogram.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment