header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_13 | Pages 16 - 16
1 Dec 2022
Hornestam JF Abraham A Girard C Del Bel M Romanchuk N Carsen S Benoit D
Full Access

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and re-injury rates are high and continue to rise in adolescents. After surgical reconstruction, less than 50% of patients return to their pre-injury level of physical activity. Clearance for return-to-play and rehabilitation progression typically requires assessment of performance during functional tests. Pain may impact this performance. However, the patient's level of pain is often overlooked during these assessments.

Purpose: To investigate the level of pain during functional tests in adolescents with ACL injury.

Fifty-nine adolescents with ACL injury (ACLi; female n=43; 15 ± 1 yrs; 167.6 ± 8.4 cm; 67.8 ± 19.9 kg) and sixty-nine uninjured (CON; female n=38; 14 ± 2 yrs; 165.0 ± 10.8 cm; 54.2 ± 11.5 kg) performed a series of functional tests. These tests included: maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and isokinetic knee flexion-extension strength tests, single-limb hop tests, double-limb squats, countermovement jumps (CMJ), lunges, drop-vertical jumps (DVJ), and side-cuts. Pain was reported on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating no pain and 5 indicating extreme pain for the injured limb of the ACLi group and non-dominant limb for the CON group, after completion of each test. Chi-Square test was used to compare groups for the level of pain in each test. Analysis of the level of pain within and between groups was performed using descriptive statistics.

The distribution of the level of pain was different between groups for all functional tests (p≤0.008), except for ankle plantar flexion and hip abduction MVICs (Table 1). The percentage of participants reporting pain was higher in the ACLi group in all tests compared to the CON group (Figure 1). Participants most often reported pain during the strength tests involving the knee joint, followed by the hop tests and dynamic tasks, respectively. More specifically, the knee extension MVIC was the test most frequently reported as painful (70% of the ACLi group), followed by the isokinetic knee flexion-extension test, with 65% of ACLi group. In addition, among all hop tests, pain was most often reported during the timed 6m hop (53% of ACLi), and, among all dynamic tasks, during the side-cut (40% of ACLi) test (Figure 1). Furthermore, the tests that led to the higher levels of pain (severe or extreme) were the cross-hop (9.8% of ACLi), CMJ (7.1% of ACLi), and the isokinetic knee flexion-extension test (11.5% of ACLi) (Table 1).

Adolescents with and without ACL injury reported different levels of pain for all functional tasks, except for ankle and hip MVICs. The isokinetic knee flexion-extension test resulted in greater rates of severe or extreme pain and was also the test most frequently reported as painful. Functional tests that frequently cause pain or severe level of pain (e.g., timed 6m and cross hops, side-cut, knee flexion/extension MVICs and isokinetic tests) might not be the first test choices to assess function in patients after ACL injury/reconstruction. Reported pain during functional tests should be considered by clinicians and rehabilitation team members when evaluating a patient's readiness to return-to-play.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_23 | Pages 9 - 9
1 May 2013
Haque AU Berber R Shoaib A Amin M Abraham A
Full Access

Statement of Purpose

To compare the functional outcome of Distal Tibial Metaphyseal fracture treated with Circular frame compared vs. Locking Plate

Methods and Results

Distal Tibial Metaphyseal fractures were retrospectively identified over an 18 month period. Each fracture was assessed individually using radiographs. All paediatric, compound, tibial plateau and intra-articular fractures were excluded from the study. Other methods of fixation including intramedullary nailing were also excluded. The remaining fractures were assigned to either the circular frame fixation or the locking plate intervention group. Outcomes were assessed using radiographs for union dates and microbiology results for evidence of infection. Patients were followed up by postal questionnaires, which included a modified American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), the Olerud and Molander Score (O&M) and a custom questionnaire. The custom questionnaire asked about co-morbidities, smoking status and work days lost following surgery. After exclusions, 30 patients (Frame=15, Plate=15), were sent out questionnaires via post. We received completed questionnaires from 21 patients (Frame=11, Plate=10) giving us a response rate of 70%. Results show no difference in infection rates, skin necrosis, non-union or re-operation rates. There was also no significant difference in patient AOFAS and O&M scores at follow up.