Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the variability of postoperative rehabilitation protocols used by orthopedic surgery residency programs for microfracture of femoral condyle and patellofemoral lesions of the knee.

Design:

Online postoperative microfracture rehabilitation protocols from US orthopedic programs and the scientific literature were reviewed. A custom scoring rubric was developed to analyze each protocol for the presence of discrete rehabilitation modalities and the timing of each intervention.

Results:

A total of 18 programs (11.6%) from 155 US academic orthopedic programs’ published online protocols and a total of 44 protocols were analyzed. Seventeen protocols (56.7%) recommended immediate postoperative bracing for femoral condyle lesions and 17 (89.5%) recommended immediate postoperative bracing for patellofemoral lesions. The average time to permitting weight-bearing as tolerated (WBAT) was 6.1 weeks (range, 0-8) for femoral condyle lesions and 3.7 weeks (range, 0-8 weeks) for patellofemoral lesions. There was considerable variation in the inclusion and timing of strength, proprioception, agility, and pivoting exercises. For femoral condyle lesions, 10 protocols (33.3%) recommended functional testing prior to return to sport at an average of 23.3 weeks postoperatively (range, 12-32 weeks). For patellofemoral lesions, 4 protocols (20.0%) recommended functional testing for return to sport at an average of 21.0 weeks postoperatively (range, 12-32 weeks).

Conclusion:

A minority of US academic orthopedic programs publish microfracture rehabilitation protocols online. Among the protocols currently available, there is significant variability in the inclusion of specific rehabilitation components and timing of many modalities. Evidence-based standardization of elements of postoperative rehabilitation may help improve patient care and subsequent outcomes.

Keywords

microfracture osteochondral defects knee rehabilitation

Introduction

Chondral defects of the knee are common sources of pain and loss of function that affect approximately 900,000 Americans each year and result in more than 200,000 surgical procedures.^1,2 The exact incidence of cartilage defects is unknown, but several studies note the presence of articular lesions in nearly 60% to 66% of patients undergoing knee arthoscopy.^2-4 Although many procedures exist to manage these injuries, microfracture remains one of the most commonly used surgical techniques due to its procedural simplicity, short surgical time, and low cost.^5-7

Postoperatively, microfracture has led to favorable outcomes as evidenced by improvements in Lysholm, Tegener, SF-36 (Short Form-36), and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) scores across several studies.^1,8-12 In addition to the technical aspects of microfracture, postoperative success is predicated on the completion of an appropriate and effective rehabilitation program geared toward restoring range of motion (ROM), strength, and facilitating a return to baseline function. Currently, differences in rehabilitation guidelines for femoral condyle versus patellofemoral defects have not been clearly assessed. The distinction is important given the kinematics of the knee joint as modifications in variables such as weight-bearing, ROM, or exercise progression may be necessary to protect the healing lesion from compressive and shear forces during the recovery process.^13-15

Several past studies have examined microfracture rehabilitation guidelines^8,12,16-18 with general recommendations provided on the phases of rehabilitation. For example, Reinold et al. propose a rehabilitation progression with 4 phases based on the biological phases of cartilage maturation.¹⁶ Mithoefer et al. propose a similar approach to rehabilitation after cartilage procedures consisting of an initial protection and joint activation phase, a progressive loading phase followed by a functional restoration phase, and ending with an activity restoration phase.¹⁹ However, standardization of the frequency, type of exercises, timing, and inclusion of therapeutic modalities remains limited in the literature.¹⁹ To date, minimal effort has been directed toward developing a standardized postoperative rehabilitation protocol specific to microfracture surgery. As evidenced by the literature seen across other orthopedic subspecialties, standardization of rehabilitation protocols has been correlated with improved patient outcomes as therapeutic approaches and adjunctive therapies would be presumably optimized.^20-22 In addition, increased variability can have the unfortunate effects on a patient by increasing confusion.²³ Furthermore, as patients begin to utilize more online resources, the standardization of publicly available online rehabilitation protocols can help positively influence patient understanding and expectations.^24,25 However, although there are general guidelines present in the literature on how rehabilitation should proceed following microfracture, distinctions on how therapeutic elements should be instituted, what, and when, modalities should be incorporated or initiated and how they differ between lesion location are yet to be elucidated. Presently, there is a paucity of research on the aforementioned subject that has precluded standardization of practice at this time.²⁶

The quality and variability of postoperative rehabilitation protocols for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction,²³ medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction,²⁷ meniscal repair,²⁸ proximal hamstring repair,²⁹ Achilles tendon repair,³⁰ and ulnar collateral ligament³¹ reconstruction have been previously assessed with significant heterogeneity found between recommended rehabilitation protocols. Similarly, the present investigation sought to assess the variability of online postoperative patellofemoral and femoral condyle microfracture rehabilitation protocols published by academic orthopedic surgery programs in the United States. We hypothesized that considerable variability will be present among all published protocols, with several deviations in protocol from what is present in the current literature.

Methods

Using a methodology previously outlined by several studies on variability in rehabilitation protocols,^23,27-31 publicly available online rehabilitation protocols from academic orthopedic surgery programs in the United States were reviewed. Programs were identified from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). ERAS is an online, centralized application service used in the residency application process. Academically focused protocols were specifically selected to minimize potential bias and variability obtained through online search engines. A web-based query was performed (www.Google.com) using the search term “[Program/affiliate hospital/affiliate medical school name] microfracture rehabilitation protocol.”^27-29,31 Protocols designed for pediatric patients, those pertaining to concomitant procedures (ACL reconstruction, meniscal repair or debridement, osteochondral autograft and osteochondral allograft transfer system), protocols not associated with academic orthopedic surgery programs and those lacking details about specific elements of the rehabilitation, such as time points for the initiation and progression of protocol elements, were excluded from final review. Protocols that did not provide specifics on the type of articular cartilage restoration procedure performed were also excluded.

A custom rubric ( Table 1 ) was created following review of all collected protocols. The following general categories were noted in the rubric: prehabilitation, postoperative adjunct therapy, ROM and weight-bearing, strengthening, proprioception, and return to basic activities and sports. Each protocol was evaluated for the presence or absence of modalities pertaining to the aforementioned categories contained within the rubric. Timing and range for the initiation of specific modalities contained within each protocol were extracted and averaged across all reviewed protocols containing comparable modalities for the respective articular lesion investigated. The documented time of initiation of each modality was based on the earliest documented start time in the protocol. Each protocol was assessed and reviewed by the primary author (DPT) and confirmed independently by the coauthors (SGC, HWS).

Table 1.

Femoral Condyle and Patellofemoral Microfracture Postoperative Rehabilitation Rubric Categories.

Rehabilitation Categories	Activity/Exercise
Prehabilitation	Range of motion, quadriceps strengthening, cryotherapy
Postoperative adjunct therapy	Bracing, continuous passive motion, neuromuscular electric stimulation, cryotherapy, compression, elevation, ultrasound therapy, thermotherapy
Range of motion and weight-bearing	Flexion/extension goals, progression to weight-bearing as tolerated, full weight-bearing
Strengthening	Straight-leg raise, patellar mobilization, quad/hamstring sets, ankle pumps, hip abduction/adduction, hip flexion, heel slides, hamstring curl, open chain exercise (active knee extension), closed chain exercise (wall-sits, mini squat, full squat, toe raises), lumbopelvic stabilization, leg press, core exercises, step-up/down
Proprioception	Nonspecific exercise, weight shifting, one-leg balance, balance training, unilateral stance activities
Activity/sports	Stationary bike, backwards walking, normal gait, elliptical, stair climber, aqua therapy, backwards running, straight-line running/jogging, jumping/plyometrics, cutting/pivoting, agility, sports-specific drills, return to practice/sport, return to competition
Functional testing	Single hop test, 4-hop test, isokinetic quad/hamstring strength, squat, forward step-down test, nonspecific functional test

Collected information was recorded and analyzed in Microsoft Excel (Excel v16.42, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Descriptive analyses such as the mean and range of reported initiation times for adjunctive therapies, immobilization, ROM, and strengthening were performed. Additionally, percentages of protocols that provided this information were performed.

Results

Of the 155 ERAS institutions reviewed, 18 institutions (11.6%) provided online rehabilitation protocols that met eligibility criteria. Thirteen institutions provided individual, separate protocols for femoral condyle and patellofemoral lesions (26 total protocols), 5 institutions provided protocols for femoral condyle lesions only (5 protocols total), and 5 institutions provided multiple additional, but unique protocols each attributed to different authors (7 protocols for femoral condyle lesions, 1 protocol for patellofemoral lesions, 5 protocols with mixed protocols for both patellofemoral and femoral condyle lesions), producing a total of 44 protocols available for analysis. Of the 44 protocols, 25 pertained explicitly to femoral condyle lesions, 14 pertained explicitly to patellofemoral lesions, and 5 were inclusive of both types of lesions ( Fig. 1 ).

Figure 1.

Collection of online postoperative rehabilitation protocols following microfracture of the knee.

Prehabilitation

For femoral condyle lesions, 2 protocols (6.7%) recommended a preoperative rehabilitation program including stationary cycling to maintain or improve ROM while 1 protocol (3.3%) provided recommendations on methods to decrease swelling with cryotherapy.

For patellofemoral lesions, 2 protocols (10.5%) recommended a preoperative rehabilitation program involving stationary cycling while 1 protocol (5.3%) included recommendations for cryotherapy use. No information on the timing, progression criteria, or treatment endpoints were indicated in any protocol for the use of stationary cycling or cryotherapy.

Postoperative Adjunct Therapy

The 8 types of postoperative adjunct therapies assessed were bracing, continuous passive motion (CPM), neuromuscular electric stimulation (NMES), cryotherapy, compression, elevation, ultrasound therapy, and thermotherapy. For femoral condyle lesions, 29 protocols recommended CPM (96.7%), 3 recommended electrical stimulation (10.0%), 5 recommended cryotherapy (16.7%), 4 recommended compression (13.3%), and 3 recommended elevation (10.0%), while ultrasound therapy and thermotherapy were recommended in 1 protocol each (3.3%). All aforementioned modalities began in the immediate postoperative period. In terms of bracing, 17 (56.7%) protocols recommended immediate postoperative bracing for an average of 7.5 weeks (range, 2-12; median 8 weeks) of brace use. Fifteen protocols (50.0%) specifically mentioned locking the brace during ambulation. In the protocols that did not recommend bracing, there were no explicit recommendations for or against bracing. Unlocking the brace during ambulation was recommended in 12 protocols (40.0%) at an average of 4.8 weeks (range, 0-8; median 6 weeks), postoperatively.

Six protocols (20.0%) specified when to discontinue brace use. The most common criterion for brace removal was the ability to perform a straight-leg raise (SLR) without extension lag at the knee (10.0%). Other recommended criteria for brace removal included the ability to perform 20 repetitions of an SLR without extensor lag (3.3%), the achievement of “full quadriceps control” (3.3%), and per individual surgeon evaluation (3.3%).

Following microfracture of patellofemoral lesions, 18 protocols recommended CPM (94.7%), 4 recommended immediate cryotherapy (21.1%), 3 recommended compression (15.8%), while electrical stimulation and elevation was recommended in 2 protocols (10.5%) each. In terms of bracing, 17 (89.5%) protocols recommended immediate postoperative bracing with an average of 7.1 weeks (range, 1-12; median 8 weeks) of brace use. Thirteen protocols (68.4%) mentioned locking the brace in full extension during ambulation. Unlocking of the brace during ambulation was suggested in 15 protocols (78.9%), at an average of 4.2 weeks (range, 0-8; median 6 weeks) postoperatively.

Five protocols related to patellofemoral lesions (26.3%) offered criteria for when to discontinue brace wear, with the most common parameter being the ability to perform an SLR without extensor lag (15.8%). Additional protocols cited the ability to perform 20 repetitions of SLR without lag (5.3%), and the presence of “full quadriceps control” (5.3%) as indicators of when brace wear can be discontinued.

Range of Motion and Weight-Bearing

Of the 30 protocols specific to femoral condyle lesions, 21 (70.0%) restricted any flexion of the knee immediately postoperatively, 5 (16.7%) permitted 90° of flexion at an average of 1.6 weeks (range, 0-6; median 1 week) postoperatively, 4 (13.3%) allowed 120° of knee flexion at an average of 4.0 weeks postoperatively (range, 2-6; median 4 weeks), and 25 (83.3%) protocols allowed full knee flexion at a mean of 6.8 weeks (range, 0-8; median 8 weeks). A weight-bearing progression, transitioning from non-weight-bearing, to weight-bearing as tolerated (WBAT) and “full weight bearing” (FWB) was clearly described in 18 out of the 30 protocols (60.0%) specific to femoral condyle lesions. In the analyzed protocols, WBAT was defined as the ability to support at least 50% of their body weight during ambulation, while FWB was defined as a patient’s ability to support 100% of their bodyweight.³² Immediate weight-bearing was permitted in 11 protocols (36.7%), while 18 (60%) suggested WBAT with full knee ROM at an average of 7.3 weeks (range, 4-12; median 8 weeks) postoperatively. The average time to the initiation of WBAT across all femoral condyle-based protocols was 6.1 weeks (range, 0-8; median 8 weeks). The average time to expected FWB was 9.0 weeks (range, 4-16; median 8 weeks) postoperatively ( Fig. 2 ).

Figure 2.

Range of motion and weight-bearing. The numbered line within each range represents the mean of the data set. WBAT = weight-bearing as tolerated; FWB = full weight-bearing.

Of the 19 protocols for patellofemoral lesions, 17 (89.5%) restricted any flexion of the knee in the immediate postoperative period, 5 (26.3%) permitted 90° of flexion at a mean of 2.4 weeks (range, 0-6; median 1 week), 2 (10.5%) allowed 120° of flexion at a mean of 5.0 weeks (range, 4-6; median 5 weeks), and 15 (78.9%) recommended full flexion at an average of 6.9 weeks (range, 4-8; median 8 weeks) postoperatively. A weight-bearing progression was clearly outlined in 9 (47.4%) protocols. Immediate weight-bearing was permitted in 10 protocols (52.6%), while WBAT with full knee ROM was recommended in 18 protocols (94.7%) at an average of 7.2 weeks (range, 4-12; median 8 weeks) postoperatively. The average time to WBAT was 3.7 weeks (range, 0-8; median 8 weeks) postoperatively while the average time to FWB was 7.7 weeks (range, 0-12; median 8 weeks; Fig. 2 ).

Strengthening

Eighteen different strengthening exercises were included in our custom rubric. Closed chain exercises, quadriceps and hamstring sets, and SLRs were recommended in more than 50% of all femoral condyle protocols. Time to initiation of strengthening exercises varied over a range of 12 weeks. The timing of hip abduction exercises occurred at an average of 4.8 weeks postoperatively (median 6 weeks), hip adduction at an average of 6.3 weeks (median 6 weeks), hamstring curls at an average 4.8 weeks (median 8 weeks), and open chain exercises at 7.4 weeks over the 12-week range (median 6 weeks; Fig. 3 ).

Figure 3.

Strengthening exercises. (A) Significant variation was found with regard to types of exercises included in rehabilitation protocols. (B) Significant variation was also found with regard to recommended start times. The numbered line within each range represents the mean of the data set.

Quadriceps and hamstring sets, closed chain exercises, SLRs, and patellar mobilization exercises were recommended in more than 50% of patellofemoral specific protocols. Similar to femoral condyle lesions, there was variation in the time to initiation of strengthening exercises over a 12-week range. The largest ranges were found in the timing of hip adduction (average 4.7 weeks; median 6 weeks) and hamstring curl (average 5.8 weeks; median 8 weeks) over a 12-week time range. On average, hip abduction exercises occurred at 4.0 weeks (median 6 weeks) postoperatively and started over a 10-week time range ( Fig. 3 ).

Proprioception and Functional Testing

Four different proprioceptive exercises were found within the reviewed protocols: unilateral stance activities, balance training, “weight shifting” exercises, and unspecified proprioceptive drills. For femoral condyle lesions, at least one proprioceptive exercise was recommended in 24 protocols (80%), and the average number of proprioceptive drills recommended was 1.4 per protocol. Balance training was recommended in 21 protocols (70.0%), unspecified proprioceptive drills were recommended in 15 protocols (50.0%), unilateral stance activities were recommended in 7 protocols (23.3%), and “weight shifting exercises” was recommended in 3 protocols (10.0%; Fig. 4 ).

Figure 4.

Proprioception exercises. (A) Proprioception exercises. Significant variation was found with regard to the inclusion of certain exercises. The findings show that 50% of femoral condyle and 37% of patellofemoral rehabilitation protocols recommended late-stage proprioceptive activities but did not specify exercises, represented in the chart as “Proprioceptive Drills—Not specified.” (B) Exercise start dates were marked by substantial variation. The numbered line within each range represents the mean of the data set.

For patellofemoral lesions, at least one proprioceptive exercise was recommended by 15 protocols (78.9%), and the average number of proprioceptive drills recommended was 1.5 per protocol. Balance training was recommended in 13 protocols (68.4%), unspecified proprioceptive drills were recommended in 7 protocols (36.8%), unilateral stance activities were recommended in 6 protocols (31.6%), and “weight shifting” exercises were recommended in 2 protocols (10.5%; Fig. 4 ).

“Weight shifting” exercises were recommended at an earlier time postoperatively for patellofemoral lesions (range, 1-6; median 6 weeks) compared to femoral condyle lesions (range, 4-6; median 3.5 weeks). However, there was a similar start time for the remaining proprioceptive exercises (i.e., unilateral stance training, balance training, and unspecified proprioceptive drills) for both femoral condyle and patellofemoral lesions at 6 weeks.

Return to Basic Activities and Sports

For femoral condyle lesions, higher level exercises were implemented as patients approached a return to baseline activities. Exercises included stationary bike use (90% of protocols) at an average of 5.6 weeks (range, 0-12; median 6 weeks), use of an elliptical or stair machine (73% of protocols) at an average of 9.7 weeks (range, 6-12; median 9 weeks), hydrotherapy (53% of protocols) at an average of 3.9 weeks (range, 0-12; median 3 weeks), and gait training (47% of protocols) at an average of 7.3 weeks (range, 6-10; median 6 weeks). Plyometrics were suggested in 67% of protocols starting at a mean of 14.3 (range, 12-20; median 12 weeks) weeks postoperatively. Agility and cutting exercises were started at a mean of 14.2 (range, 12-16; median 15 weeks) and 14.0 (range, 12-24; median 15) weeks, respectively. Sports-specific drills were recommended in 18 protocols (60.0%) and started at an average of 14.1 (range, 12-24; median 12) weeks postoperatively. Information on return to practice or sport was presented in 8 protocols (26.7%) with projected average dates for return to sport at 23.3 (range, 12-32; median 24) weeks postoperatively. Criteria for return to sport was based on individual physician decision in 9 protocols (30.0%) and functional performance testing in 10 protocols (33.3%). No protocols explicitly discussed timing for return to competition ( Fig. 5 ). Analyzed protocols did not provide clear instructions for limitations of athletic activities or criteria-based progressions for a return to training.

Figure 5.

(A) Return to basic and athletic activity and (B) start dates. A significant variation was found regarding the composition of basic and athletic activities recommended in each protocol (A), and their timing (B). Protocols rarely provided clear instructions for athletic activities or established criteria-based progression for return to training. The numbered line within each range represents the mean of the data set.

Of the postoperative functional assessments pertaining to rehabilitation progression for microfracture of femoral condyle lesions, 6 protocols (20%) included the single hop test, 5 protocols (16.7%) included isokinetic quadriceps strength testing, 3 protocols (10%) included balance testing, and 1 protocol (3.3%) each included isokinetic hamstring strength testing, squat testing, and “forward step-down testing.” Four protocols (13.3%) mentioned the use of functional assessments; however, they did not include explicit information on the testing measures included. All testing was recommended between 12 and 18 (median 14) weeks postoperatively, except for balance testing, which was recommended at an average of 6 weeks (range, 6; median 6 weeks).

For patellofemoral lesions, recommended exercises included the stationary bike (84% of protocols) at an average of 5.4 (range, 0-12; median 6) weeks postoperatively, elliptical or stair machine use (84% of protocols) at an average of 9.8 (range, 6-12; median 10) weeks, hydrotherapy (68% of protocols) at a mean of 3.6 (range 0-12; median 3) weeks, and gait training (63% of protocols) at an average of 7.2 (range, 6-12; median 6) weeks. Plyometrics were recommended in 58% of protocols, starting at an average of 14.3 (range, 12-20; median 12) weeks. Agility and cutting exercises were started at an average of 13.4 (range, 12-16; median 12) and 14.5 (range, 12-24; median 12) weeks, respectively. Ten protocols (52.6%) recommended sports-specific drills starting at a mean of 14.4 (range, 12-24; median 12) weeks. Six protocols (31.6%) explicitly mentioned an expected return to practice or sport at an average of 21.0 (range, 12-32; median 21) weeks. Criteria for return to sport was based on physician decision in 5 protocols (25.0%) and successful completion of a functional performance assessment in 4 protocols (20.0%). No protocols explicitly discussed timing for a return to competition ( Fig. 5 ). Of the analyzed protocols, none provided clear instructions for athletic activities or establish criteria-based progression for return to training.

Of the 4 patellofemoral protocols utilizing functional testing to assess rehabilitation progression, 4 (21.1%) included single hop testing, 2 (10.5%) utilized balance testing, and 1 (3.3%) protocol each recommended isokinetic quadriceps strength testing, squat testing, and forward step-down testing. Four protocols (21.1%) mentioned the inclusion of functional performance testing but did not explicitly discuss the individual testing measures. Similar to femoral condyle lesions, all functional performance testing was recommended between weeks 12 and 18 (median 14), postoperatively, except for balance testing which was recommended at an average of 6 weeks (range, 6 weeks; median 6).

Discussion

The results of this study show that a minority of academic orthopedic programs publish microfracture rehabilitation protocols online. Of the protocols available, there is variation within the modalities recommended and the timing of their initiation. These findings further suggest that a standardized protocol does not exist. The most consistent modalities included in the reviewed protocols were the usage of CPM following microfracture of both patellofemoral (94.7%) and condylar (96.7%) lesions, restriction of knee flexion (70.0% for condylar lesions, 89.5% for patellofemoral lesions), and brace use (56.7% for condylar lesions, 89.5% for patellofemoral lesions). While most protocols included recommendations on strength training or the inclusion of proprioceptive training, there was disagreement on the timing and inclusion of specific exercises during the rehabilitation process. Additionally, disagreement was found on postoperative weight-bearing restrictions, length of brace use, and a minority of protocols provided information on weight-bearing progressions, timing for return to sport, or functional assessments for return to sport, independent of the location of the chondral injury.

Range of Motion

Following knee surgery, flexion contractures and stiffness are common complications.²⁷ After microfracture surgery, adhesions may develop around the anterior, medial, and lateral aspects of the knee and restrict ROM.¹⁷ However, allowing ROM to prevent stiffness must be balanced with preventing excessive motion and disruption of healing. Although passive knee ROM was allowed postoperatively, immediate restrictions in active knee flexion was recommended across most postoperative protocols following microfracture of both patellofemoral and condylar lesions. To date, most investigations on early active ROM following cartilaginous procedures have been centered on mixed results of animal studies^33-35 with only minimal clinical investigations available to support early active motion.^36,37

Pervasive use of CPM postoperatively was a consistent modality found in most rehabilitation protocols as an aid to regain motion. The use of CPM has been favorably supported following articular cartilage repair in animal-based studies as it has been shown to increase synovial fluid movement and joint surface articulation during a time when patients may suffer negative effects from prolonged periods of restricted postoperative weight-bearing.^38-41 Although outcomes have been studied with CPM use following ACL reconstruction, similar to the literature done on active ROM postoperatively, relatively few clinical studies have evaluated CPM following articular cartilage repair.^42,43 Following microfracture, Rodrigo et al. noted significant improvements in cartilage lesion scores across patients who used CPM postoperatively.⁴⁴ However, the retrospective design of this study, poor matching between comparative groups, and the lack of patient-reported outcomes limit the clinical utility of this investigation. Marder et al. later found no significant differences in retrospectively collected Lysholm knee rating scores, Tegner activity scores, radiographic data, or clinical exam data such as ROM, pain, or a return to activity with CPM use.³⁷ Furthermore, variation in studies on the CPM dosing and total length of usage remains unclear.^39,45 As such, the proposed benefits of CPM usage, and potentially the rationale for their inclusion in academic rehabilitation protocols, appear to be largely based on significantly favorable data from basic science investigations although little clinical evidence has been found to support their usage clinically. In fact, CPM use following arthroscopic knee surgery was recently questioned in Gatewood et al.’s systematic review as no differences in postoperative ROM or pain relief were found postoperatively in their investigation.⁴⁶

Weight-Bearing

Postoperative weight-bearing restrictions are implemented in order to protect the fibrocartilaginous clot created by microfracture surgery. For condylar lesions, avoiding compressive forces on the weight-bearing surface of the knee is paramount, while the avoidance of shearing forces is integral for the healing of patellofemoral lesions.¹⁷ However, overly cautious limitations in weight-bearing and prolonged immobilization have been linked to reduced proteoglycan synthesis and thinning of the articular cartilage in several studies.^39,47-50 Among the publicly available rehabilitation protocols analyzed, patients were expected to achieve full-weight-bearing status at an average of 9.0 weeks postoperatively with condylar lesions; however, the suggested timing of full weight-bearing across studied protocols ranged from 4 to 16 weeks. Similarly, for patellofemoral lesions, full weight-bearing status was expected at an average of 7.7 weeks postoperatively, but timing across all patellofemoral protocols ranged from 0 to 12 weeks. Current literature suggests partial, or touch-down, weight-bearing for femoral condyle lesions for 6 to 8 weeks postoperatively, with advancement to full weight-bearing between 9 and 16 weeks.^8,12,28 For patellofemoral lesions, present literature supports partial, or touch-down, weight-bearing immediately postoperatively, weight-bearing as tolerated at 0 to 2 weeks postoperatively, and promotion to full weight-bearing between 9 and 16 weeks.^8,12,28 As it stands, the online protocols analyzed in our investigation report timelines slightly differ from those present in literature. Schmitt et al.’s systematic review on outcomes following articular cartilage surgery proposed that rather than using time as a factor for weight-bearing progression, clinical signs indicating joint overload, such as effusion or muscle strength/deficits, may serve as more reliable criteria for decision making.⁵¹ Despite their recommendation, the authors note that optimal loads to facilitate cartilaginous healing and subsequent favorable outcomes remain unknown.⁵¹ Ultimately, decisions on the optimal timing of postoperative weight-bearing still merit further investigation. However, until these data are available, academic programs should aim to provide clearly synthesized, evidence-based protocols so providers can better guide patients on when and how to progress weight-bearing in order to minimize undue stress to the healing cartilage.

Prehabilitation

Prehabilitation has been proposed in the literature as an intervention geared toward improving muscle function, muscle strength, mentally preparing patients for the postoperative follow-up period, and to decrease pain preoperatively.⁵² Our investigation found a minority of protocols prescribing a course of prehabilitation before microfracture surgery with minimal inclusion of stationary biking or recommendations for the use of cryotherapy. Although prior studies in the arthroplasty and ACL literature propose limited improvements in clinical outcomes and a faster completion of the rehabilitation process following the institution of a prehabilitation protocol, the outcomes of prehabilitation protocols prior to surgical management of articular cartilage lesions remain scarce.^52,53 Hirschmüller et al. suggest a prehabilitation protocol, based on available literature, that is geared toward improving neuromuscular control, general fitness, reducing joint effusion, and considerations toward each patient’s pain level. Yet the clinical efficacy of their proposed program remains unknown and highlights the need for further investigation.⁵²

Postoperative Adjunct Therapy

Brace use was found to be one of the most common postoperative adjuncts following both femoral condyle and patellofemoral microfracture. However, variations exist in terms of how bracing should be managed postoperatively as half of the protocols related to the femoral condyle offered no recommendations on bracing while the majority of protocols for patellofemoral lesions recommended brace use postoperatively. Furthermore, for both lesions, a minority of protocols provided criterion for when to discontinue brace use.

Locked bracing after articular cartilage surgery is theoretically intended to prevent abnormal joint arthokinematics and which can have downstream effects on patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joint contact pressures.⁵⁴ For patellofemoral lesions, Mithoefer et al. proposed a course of brace wear with the knee locked in full extension for 4 to 6 weeks; however, the authors note that there is currently no evidence-based consensus supporting this recommendation.⁵⁵ This proposed time course for bracing appears consistent with time course seen in our investigation as unlocking of the brace was allowed at an average of 4.2 weeks postoperatively, although overall, protocols recommended unlocking of the brace anywhere between 0 and 8 weeks. At this time, literature is lacking on supporting time lengths for bracing, time points for when motion is allowed with the brace for femoral condyle lesions, or outcome data suggesting optimal timing for discontinuation of bracing.

Strength, Proprioception, and Functional Testing

The inclusion of quadriceps, hamstring, and closed chain exercises was fairly consistent across most analyzed protocols following microfracture of both femoral condyle and patellofemoral lesions. Current literature has recommended the institution of strengthening exercises between 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively, which is comparable to what was found across the online protocols studied.¹⁶ Although no consensus exists on the inclusion of specific exercises for postoperative strengthening, general themes in the literature provide support toward an emphasis on correcting quadriceps-to-hamstring strength deficits as well as hip strength asymmetry. In addition to the lack of agreement on which exercises utilized in the rehabilitation process, the exact order in which these exercises should commence also remains unclear.^16,19

Balance and proprioceptive exercises were common modalities included in both protocols for both femoral and patellofemoral lesions yet specifics regarding which exercises to include and timing have not been completely elucidated in the literature. A progression from activities performed using a bilateral stance to a unilateral stance has been proposed; however, criteria for this progression varies in the literature. For now it appears that these exercise are initiated once full ROM, improved gait, and adequate quadriceps strength relative to the contralateral side has been obtained, rather than strictly based on time from surgery, which was seen in most protocols included in our analysis.^16,19

Return to Sport and Activity

Stationary bike or elliptical bike use was a very common exercises found across online rehabilitation protocols. Although protocols mention institution of such modalities at an average of 5.6 weeks, much of the variability contributing to their incorporation from 0 to 12 weeks postoperatively may have to do with the goals expected from their usage. For example, in the early postoperative period, biking and elliptical use may help improve ROM.⁵⁶ In other settings, biking and elliptical use could be considered low to moderate-impact activities geared toward improving cardiovascular health and function as patients near a return to full activity.¹⁶ For those aiming for a return to high-level sport or activity, plyometrics can be instituted; however, its efficacy following articular cartilage surgery remains largely unknown.²⁶ Despite this, plyometrics were found in a majority of protocols after microfracture and patellofemoral lesions.

Only a minority of academic orthopedic programs included functional assessments for return to play in their postoperative rehabilitation protocols. Specifically, 13.5% of protocols following microfracture of condylar lesions and 20.0% of protocols following microfracture of patellofemoral lesions. Regardless, no protocols explicitly discussed timing for return to competition for either cartilage lesion. The lack of discrete timelines for return to play may be reflective of the variability seen in current literature as reported return to play rates range from 58% to 83% over periods ranging from 8 to 9.2 months.^57-60 At the final stages of rehabilitation, patients should demonstrate readiness to return to practice/sports through functional and athletic activities, and more recent studies have supported the use of functional performance testing. Specifically, within the ACL literature, functional assessments for return to sport have largely replaced time-based decisions for return to play.^61-64 However, there is presently a paucity of data on the effectiveness of functional testing assessments in assessing readiness to return to play following microfracture of the knee.

As more attention within the orthopedic literature becomes directed at standardizing care and treatment methodologies to improve outcomes, the results of our study highlight an opportunity to improve upon patient care following a relatively common procedure for the treatment of articular cartilage injury.^60,65-68 Factors such as when to progress weight-bearing, which strength and proprioceptive exercises to implement postoperatively, and at what stages, as well as information guiding patients on return to play are necessary variables that can help patients monitor their postoperative progress while ensuring adequate recovery leading to favorable postoperative outcomes. Although elements of these variables exist in the rehabilitation protocols presented by reputable academic institutions today, there is minimal standardization and thus a need for further investigation to assess and to appropriately optimize recovery after microfracture surgery to chondral defects of the knee to ensure consistent and favorable clinical outcomes.

Limitations

This study has several limitations to note. First, only 44 protocols met qualification criteria and were included, despite all 155 academic programs being considered. This is only a microcosm of the postoperative microfracture rehabilitation protocols available online as private practice groups and individual physicians likely have personal websites where their own protocols can be found. However, our methodology followed previous investigations and specifically included protocols from academic institution as the authors suspect the information provided by these centers would be most likely evidence-based modalities and treatment approaches.^23,27-29,31 Furthermore, many orthopedic surgeons design individualized protocols for patients, based on their preoperative condition and intraoperative decisions, which are then given directly to patients or physical therapists. As such, these individualized recommendations would not be captured by our review of the data currently online. Last, many of the rehabilitation protocols differed in the level of detail included. For example, many protocols explicitly indicated a timeframe for when patients should become weight-bearing as tolerated, yet some did not use this exact phrasing and instead indicated weight-bearing as percent of body weight. It can be inferred that discrepancies arising between the patient and the provider as a result of the lack of specific information were remedied on an individualized basis; however, as more patients begin to rely on multimedia and internet-based resources to monitor and guide their postoperative progress, it further highlights a fundamental need to improve the quality of the information made available online.

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments and Funding

We thank Cherry Aung, BBA, for her help with data analysis. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Bryan M. Saltzman reports publishing royalties, financial or material support from Nova Science Publishers. Christopher S. Ahmad reports IP royalties, paid consultant and research support from Arthrex, Inc; paid consultant, research support, stock or stock options from At Peak; publishing royalties, financial or material support from Lead Player; research support from Major League Baseball; editorial or governing board at Orthopedics Today; and research support from Stryker. Charles A. Popkin reports financial or material support and research support from Arthrex, Inc.; financial or material support from Smith & Nephew; and is a Board or Committee member for USA Hockey Safety and Protective Equipment Committee. The remaining authors, Stephen G. Crowley, Hasani W. Swindell, and David P. Trofa, declare there is no conflict of interest to the prepared work.

ORCID iD

Hasani W. Swindell

References

Alford

Cole

. Cartilage restoration, part 1: basic science, historical perspective, patient evaluation, and treatment options. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(2):295-306. doi:10.1177/0363546504273510

Farr

Cole

Dhawan

Kercher

Sherman

. Clinical cartilage restoration: evolution and overview. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(10):2696-705. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1764-z

Curl

Krome

Gordon

Rushing

Smith

Poehling

. Cartilage injuries: a review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(4):456-60. doi:10.1016/S0749-8063(97)90124-9

Hjelle

Solheim

Strand

Muri

Brittberg

. Articular cartilage defects in 1000 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy. 2002;18(7):730-4. doi:10.1053/jars.2002.32839

McCormick

Harris

Abrams

, et al. Trends in the surgical treatment of articular cartilage lesions in the United States: an analysis of a large private-payer database over a period of 8 years. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(2):222-6. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.11.001

Mundi

Bedi

Chow

Crouch

Simunovic

Enselman

, et al. Cartilage restoration of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level 1 studies. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(7):1888-95. doi:10.1177/0363546515589167

Weber

Locker

Mayer

Cvetanovich

Tilton

Erickson

, et al. Clinical outcomes after microfracture of the knee: midterm follow-up. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(2):2325967117753572. doi:10.1177/2325967117753572

Hurst

Steadman

O’Brien

Rodkey

Briggs

. Rehabilitation following microfracture for chondral injury in the knee. Clin Sports Med. 2010;29(2):257-65. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2009.12.009

Irrgang

Pezzullo

. Rehabilitation following surgical procedures to address articular cartilage lesions in the knee. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(4):232-40. doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.28.4.232

10.

Steadman

Briggs

Rodrigo

Kocher

Gill

Rodkey

. Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(5):477-84. doi:10.1053/jars.2003.50112

11.

Steadman

Rodkey

Briggs

. Microfracture to treat full-thickness chondral defects: surgical technique, rehabilitation, and outcomes. J Knee Surg. 2002;15(3):170-6.

12.

Steadman

Rodkey

Rodrigo

. Microfracture: surgical technique and rehabilitation to treat chondral defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(391 suppl):S362-S369. doi:10.1097/00003086-200110001-00033

13.

Blankevoort

Kuiper

Huiskes

Grootenboer

. Articular contact in a three-dimensional model of the knee. J Biomech. 1991;24(11):1019-31. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(91)90019-J

14.

Fujikawa

Seedhom

Wright

. Biomechanics of the patello-femoral joint. II: a study of the effect of simulated femoro-tibial varus deformity on the congruity of the patello-femoral compartment and movement of the patella. Eng Med. 1983;12(1_suppl):13-21. doi:10.1243/EMED_JOUR_1983_012_005_02

15.

Fujikawa

Seedhom

Wright

. Biomechanics of the patello-femoral joint. Part I: a study of the contact and the congruity of the patello-femoral compartment and movement of the patella. Eng Med. 1983;12(1_suppl):3-11. doi:10.1243/EMED_JOUR_1983_012_004_02

16.

Reinold

Wilk

Macrina

Dugas

Lyle Cain

. Current concepts in the rehabilitation following articular cartilage repair procedures in the knee. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2006;36(10):774-94. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.2228

17.

Wilk

Macrina

Reinold

. Rehabilitation following microfracture of the knee. Cartilage. 2010;1(2):96-107. doi:10.1177/1947603510366029

18.

Yen

Cascio

O’Brien

Stalzer

Millett

Steadman

. Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with microfracture and rehabilitation. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(2):200-5. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31815cb212

19.

Mithoefer

Hambly

Logerstedt

Ricci

Silvers

Della

. Current concepts for rehabilitation and return to sport after knee articular cartilage repair in the athlete. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(3):254-73. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3665

20.

Bozic

Maselli

Pekow

Lindenauer

Vail

Auerbach

. The influence of procedure volumes and standardization of care on quality and efficiency in total joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(16):2643-52. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01477

21.

Christiansen

Frost

Falla

, et al. Effectiveness of standardized physical therapy exercises for patients with difficulty returning to usual activities after decompression surgery for subacromial impingement syndrome: randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2016;96(6):787-96. doi:10.2522/ptj.20150652

22.

Hando

Gill

Walker

Garber

. Short- and long-term clinical outcomes following a standardized protocol of orthopedic manual physical therapy and exercise in individuals with osteoarthritis of the hip: a case series. J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20(4):192-200. doi:10.1179/2042618612Y.0000000013

23.

Makhni

Crump

Steinhaus

Verma

Ahmad

Cole

, et al. Quality and variability of online available physical therapy protocols from academic orthopaedic surgery programs for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(8):1612-21. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.033

24.

Fox

Duggan

. Health online 2013—Pew Research Center. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/

25.

Wang

Ashvetiya

Quaye

Parakh

Martin

. Online health searches and their perceived effects on patients and patient-clinician relationships: a systematic review. Am J Med. 2018;131(10):1250.e1-1250.e10. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.04.019

26.

Mithoefer

Mcadams

Williams

Kreuz

Mandelbaum

. Clinical efficacy of the microfracture technique for articular cartilage repair in the knee: an evidence-based systematic analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(10):2053-63. doi:10.1177/0363546508328414

27.

Lightsey

Wright

Trofa

Popkin

Ahmad

Redler

. Rehabilitation variability following medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Phys Sportsmed. 2018;46(4):441-8. doi:10.1080/00913847.2018.1487240

28.

Trofa

Parisien

Noticewala

Noback

Ahmad

Moutzouros

, et al. Quality and variability of online physical therapy protocols for isolated meniscal repairs. J Knee Surg. 2019;32(6):544-9. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1655742

29.

Lightsey

Kantrowitz

Swindell

Trofa

Ahmad

Lynch

. Variability of United States online rehabilitation protocols for proximal hamstring tendon repair. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(2):2325967118755116. doi:10.1177/2325967118755116

30.

Lightsey

Noback

Caldwell

JME

Trofa

Greisberg

Vosseller

. Online physical therapy protocol quality, variability, and availability in Achilles tendon repair. Foot Ankle Spec. 2019;12(1_suppl):16-24. doi:10.1177/1938640017751185

31.

Lightsey

Trofa

Sonnenfeld

Swindell

Makhni

Ahmad

. Rehabilitation variability after elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sport Med. 2019;7(3):2325967119833363. doi:10.1177/2325967119833363

32.

Fairchild

O’Shea

Washington

. Pierson and Fairchild’s principles & techniques of patient care. 3rd ed. Saunders; 2002.

33.

French

Barber

Leach

Doige

. The effect of exercise on the healing of articular cartilage defects in the equine carpus. Vet Surg. 1989;18(4):312-21. doi:10.1111/j.1532-950X.1989.tb01091.x

34.

Friemert

Bach

Schwarz

Gerngross

Schmidt

. Benefits of active motion for joint position sense. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:564-70. doi:10.1007/s00167-005-0004-7

35.

Palmoski

Colyer

Brandt

. Joint motion in the absence of normal loading does not maintain normal articular cartilage. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23(3):325-34. doi:10.1002/art.1780230310

36.

Ebert

Robertson

Lloyd

Zheng

Wood

Ackland

. Traditional vs accelerated approaches to post-operative rehabilitation following matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI): comparison of clinical, biomechanical and radiographic outcomes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(10):1131-40. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2008.03.010

37.

Marder

Hopkins

Timmerman

. Arthroscopic microfracture of chondral defects of the knee: A comparison of two postoperative treatments. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(2):152-8. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2004.10.009

38.

Ferretti

Srinivasan

Deschner

Gassner

Baliko

Piesco

, et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of continuous passive motion on meniscal fibrocartilage. J Orthop Res. 2005;23(5):1165-71. doi:10.1016/j.orthres.2005.01.025

39.

Howard

Mattacola

Romine

Lattermann

. Continuous passive motion, early weight bearing, and active motion following knee articular cartilage repair: evidence for clinical practice. Cartilage. 2010;1(4):276-86. doi:10.1177/1947603510368055

40.

Nugent-Derfus

Takara

O’Neill

Cahill

Görtz

Pong

, et al. Continuous passive motion applied to whole joints stimulates chondrocyte biosynthesis of PRG4. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(5):566-74. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2006.10.015

41.

Salter

Simmonds

Malcolm

Rumble

MacMichael

Clements

. The biological effect of continuous passive motion on the healing of full-thickness defects in articular cartilage. An experimental investigation in the rabbit. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62(8):1232-51.

42.

Jaspers

Taeymans

Hirschmüller

Baur

Hilfiker

Rogan

. Continuous passive motion does improve range of motion, pain and swelling after ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Z Orthop Unfall. 2019;157(3):279-91. doi:10.1055/a-0710-5127

43.

Marshall

Keller

Dines

Bush-Joseph

Limpisvasti

. Current practice: postoperative and return to play trends after ACL reconstruction by fellowship-trained sports surgeons. Musculoskelet Surg. 2019;103(1_suppl):55-61. doi:10.1007/s12306-018-0574-4

44.

Rodrigo

. Improvement of full-thickness chondral defect healing in the human knee after debridement and microfracture using continuous passive motion. Am J Knee Surg. 1994;7:109-116.

45.

Shimizu

Videman

Shimazaki

Mooney

. Experimental study on the repair of full thickness articular cartilage defects: effects of varying periods of continuous passive motion, cage activity, and immobilization. J Orthop Res. 1987;5(2):187-97. doi:10.1002/jor.1100050205

46.

Gatewood

Tran

Dragoo

. The efficacy of post-operative devices following knee arthroscopic surgery: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(2):501-16. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4326-4

47.

Behrens

Kraft

Oegema

Jr.

Biochemical changes in articular cartilage after joint immobilization by casting or external fixation. J Orthop Res. 1989;7(3):335-43. doi:10.1002/jor.1100070305

48.

Haapala

Arokoski

Pirttimäki

Lyyra

Jurvelin

Tammi

, et al. Incomplete restoration of immobilization induced softening of young beagle knee articular cartilage after 50-week remobilization. Int J Sports Med. 2000;21(1_suppl):76-81. doi:10.1055/s-2000-8860

49.

Haapala

Arokoski

JPA

Rönkkö

Agren

Kosma

Lohmander

, et al. Decline after immobilisation and recovery after remobilisation of synovial fluid IL1, TIMP, and chondroitin sulphate levels in young beagle dogs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60(1_suppl):55-60. doi:10.1136/ard.60.1.55

50.

Vanwanseele

Lucchinetti

Stüssi

. The effects of immobilization on the characteristics of articular cartilage: current concepts and future directions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(5):408-19. doi:10.1053/joca.2002.0529

51.

Schmitt

Quatman

Paterno

Best

Flanigan

. Functional outcomes after surgical management of articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a systematic literature review to guide postoperative rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(8):565-A10. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4844

52.

Hirschmüller

Schoch

Baur

Wondrasch

Konstantinidis

Südkamp

, et al. Rehabilitation before regenerative cartilage knee surgery: a new prehabilitation guideline based on the best available evidence. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019;139(2):217-30. doi:10.1007/s00402-018-3026-6

53.

Gill

McBurney

. Does exercise reduce pain and improve physical function before hip or knee replacement surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1_suppl):164-76. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.211

54.

Perry

Antonelli

Ford

. Analysis of knee-joint forces during flexed-knee stance. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975;57(7):961-7.

55.

Mithoefer

Williams

3rd Warren

Wickiewicz

Marx

. High-impact athletics after knee articular cartilage repair: a prospective evaluation of the microfracture technique. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(9):1413-8. doi:10.1177/0363546506288240

56.

Hambly

Bobic

Wondrasch

Van Assche

Marlovits

. Autologous chondrocyte implantation postoperative care and rehabilitation: science and practice. Am J Sport Med. 2006;34(6):1020-38. doi:10.1177/0363546505281918

57.

Harris

Walton

Erickson

Verma

Abrams

Bush-Joseph

, et al. Return to sport and performance after microfracture in the knees of national basketball association players. Orthop J Sport Med. 2013;1(6):2325967113512759. doi:10.1177/2325967113512759

58.

Krych

Pareek

King

Johnson

Stuart

Williams

. Return to sport after the surgical management of articular cartilage lesions in the knee: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(10):3186-96. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4262-3

59.

Mithoefer

Gill

Cole

Williams

Mandelbaum

. Clinical outcome and return to competition after microfracture in the athlete’s knee: an evidence-based systematic review. Cartilage. 2010;1(2):113-20. doi:10.1177/1947603510366576

60.

Schallmo

Singh

Barth

Freshman

Mai

Hsu

. A cross-sport comparison of performance-based outcomes of professional athletes following primary microfracture of the knee. Knee. 2018;25(4):692-8. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2018.04.008

61.

Adams

Logerstedt

Hunter-Giordano

Axe

Snyder-Mackler

. Current concepts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a criterion-based rehabilitation progression. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(7):601-14. doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3871

62.

Ellman

Sherman

Forsythe

LaPrade

Cole

Bach

Jr.

Return to play following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015;23(5):283-96. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-13-00183

63.

Logerstedt

Lynch

Axe

Snyder-Mackler

. Symmetry restoration and functional recovery before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(4):859-68. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1929-2

64.

Nawasreh

Logerstedt

Cummer

Axe

Risberg

Snyder-Mackler

. Do patients failing return-to-activity criteria at 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction continue demonstrating deficits at 2 years? Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(5):1037-48. doi:10.1177/0363546516680619

65.

Van Citters

Fahlman

Goldmann

, et al. Developing a pathway for high-value, patient-centered total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(5):1619-35. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3398-4

66.

Koenig

Bozic

. Orthopaedic healthcare worldwide: the role of standardization in improving outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3360-3. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4492-6

67.

McMullan

. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):24-8. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.006

68.

Salzmann

Sah

Südkamp

Niemeyer

. Clinical outcome following the first-line, single lesion microfracture at the knee joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(3):303-10. doi:10.1007/s00402-012-1660-y

Rehabilitation Variability Following Femoral Condyle and Patellofemoral Microfracture Surgery of the Knee

Abstract

Objective:

Design:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Prehabilitation

Postoperative Adjunct Therapy

Range of Motion and Weight-Bearing

Strengthening

Proprioception and Functional Testing

Return to Basic Activities and Sports

Discussion

Range of Motion

Weight-Bearing

Prehabilitation

Postoperative Adjunct Therapy

Strength, Proprioception, and Functional Testing

Return to Sport and Activity

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments and Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

ORCID iD

References