Abstract
Objectives:
Return to sports (RTS) decisions for high-level basketball players after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are multifactorial. The literature focuses mainly on sports performance metrics and lacks objective rehabilitation measures. The purpose of this study was to determine objective measure differences following an ACLR between basketball players competing at the college/professional, high school, and recreational levels. Our hypothesis was that basketball players competing at the college/professional level would have superior performance with objective measures following an ACLR, compared to those competing at the high school and recreational levels.
Methods:
Patients were retrospectively selected based on the following inclusion criteria: ACLR with a contralateral patellar tendon graft (PTG), preoperative activity level of ≥8 on the modified Tegner activity rating scale, ≤25 years old, and reported playing basketball. Exclusions included: revisions, bilateral procedures, or were missing data needed for analysis. Patients were split based on their preoperative activity level (level 8 = recreational, level 9 = high school, level 10 = college/professional). Each patient received a mini open, contralateral PTG utilizing the same surgical methods and followed the same accelerated rehabilitation approach. Postoperative outcome measures included the difference in extension range of motion (ROM) at 2 weeks, difference in flexion ROM at 3 months, percent deficit in isokinetic quadriceps strength and single leg hop for distance at 4 months, and the manual maximum difference on the KT arthrometer at 2 months. Statistical analysis included chi-square and analysis of variance where appropriate.
Results:
Of the 329 patients, 69 were level 8, 224 were level 9, and 36 were level 10 with mean ages of 19.6, 16.4, and 19.1 years, respectively. The percent of males differed by group with level 8 at 78.3%, level 9 at 29.5%, and level 10 at 27.8% (p < 0.001). The overall rate of return to competitive basketball for the cohort was 96.0%. The rate of return to competitive basketball was not statistically significantly different among the groups with level 10 having the highest rate (97.2%), followed by level 9 (96.4%) and then level 8 (94.2%), p = 0.659. Level 10 athletes had the lowest strength deficit with a mean of 9.3%, compared to 12.5% for level 9, and 15.6% for level 8, p=0.017. Single leg hop deficit was also different among groups with level 10 at 6.9%, level 9 at 6.2%, and level 8 at 10.4%, p < 0.001. Knee ROM and stability were not statistically different among the groups.
Conclusions:
The rate of return to competitive basketball is the same among all high-level basketball players. Objectively, level 10 athletes had superior strength and single leg hop performance compared to recreational basketball players. Although the return to competitive basketball rate is the same among all groups, recreational basketball players tend to be weaker than college/professional players, therefore, added emphasis on this aspect of their rehabilitation would be beneficial for this population.