Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Information derived from functional return-to-sport (RTS) tests after primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) can have a significant impact on the risk reduction of ACL reruptures. However, due to space, time, and financial limitations, few clinicians utilize objective data to assess their patients’ functional abilities after ACLR.

Purpose:

To identify validated and feasible RTS tests that could reliably estimate the risk of reinjury after ACLR in everyday clinical practice beyond the highly sophisticated laboratory setting.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A focused review was performed by experts of the committees for Ligament Injuries and Prevention/Rehabilitation of the German Knee Society. RTS functional tests, their reinjury prognostic values (if known), their reliabilities, and their implementation capacities were extracted from the original studies on the described RTS test setup, as well as from studies on potential test alternatives. These alternatives were required to be less resource-consuming yet still validated and thus able to be implemented into everyday practice. All tests were categorized according to their relevant target objective: isokinetic or isometric strength, functional (hopping and jumping) ability, or self-reported readiness.

Results:

In the final analysis, 19 studies involving 7513 patients were included. From these, a total of 21 RTS tests were retrieved, and 13 tests were included. For strength testing, 2 dynamic tests and 1 static test were found to be eligible. Functional ability was represented by 8 different jump, hop, and agility tests. Tests for self-reported readiness included the ACL–Return to Sport after Injury scale and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Sport and Recreation subscore. Alternative tests included the 8–repetition maximum test, handheld/portable dynamometer, single-leg vertical (countermovement) hop with inertial sensor or smartphone app, and the drop jump with knee displacement or normalized knee distance measurement.

Conclusion:

For most of the strength and functional abilities assessed by RTS tests, validated and less resource-consuming alternatives do exist. Therapists and clinicians working in nonlaboratory settings may find it helpful to select from a menu of established RTS tests and test alternatives for each relevant target objective, depending on their individual requirements.

Keywords

ACL physical therapy rehabilitation return to sport sports trauma knee ligaments

With an annual incidence of 0.9% to 1.7%^62,72 within an athletic population, an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is one of the most common ligament injuries of the knee. The incidence is particularly high among athletes involved in pivoting and cutting sports.⁸ In order to restore knee joint function and stability,⁶ including return to pivoting and cutting sports, most athletes are advised to undergo ACL reconstruction (ACLR) followed by functional rehabilitation.⁵⁴ However, the risk of reinjury is high even for athletes who successfully complete rehabilitation and are able to return to sport (RTS)^9,85; the overall risk of subsequent ACL rerupture after ACLR is reported to be 6% to 15%.^72,92 Therefore, an important goal before RTS must be to assess the individual's risk of reinjury.

Comprehensive rehabilitation with test criteria–based progression during RTS, combined with key discharge criteria for RTS release, may reduce the likelihood of subsequent ACL failure or reinjury after ACLR.^9,34,48 RTS testing is an important tool to estimate this risk and thus determine the readiness for RTS on an individual level,^9,83,93 but only if the tests are validated for assessing the risk of rerupture and/or reinjury.⁴⁸ Although controversy exists in the current literature,^{11,21,53,89,92} meeting corresponding test criteria appears to reduce the risk of a rerupture and/or reinjury.^{22,23,34,48,82}

However, there is great variability in the definition, assessment, and reporting of RTS after ACLR, and several studies have been conducted on RTS test batteries, their variability, and their validity.^53,87,88 Multiple measurements should be performed to achieve the desired goal of monitoring the continuum of RTS,^17,22 which can be a significant resource burden in everyday clinical practice. Given these facts, it would be useful for clinicians to know if there are simpler alternative but still valid tests that assess the same variables. Importantly, a greater number of therapists, clinicians, and physicians should be able to validly use objective RTS tests and data to assess the functional capacity of their patients recovering from ACLR in real-time clinical settings.

With this in mind, the purpose of the current review was to analyze the literature to objectify the RTS tests that have been validated to estimate the risk of recurrent ACL rupture, with the aim of assessing their applicability in daily clinical practice beyond the sophisticated laboratory setting.

Methods

Study Design

The study was designed as an umbrella review, concentrating on the current literature (up to July 2023) on RTS testing and the associated risk of ACL rerupture. The umbrella review used is a relatively new concept.¹³ It refers specifically to a review that synthesizes evidence from multiple reviews into a single accessible and usable document. It focuses on broad conditions or problems for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their outcomes. Umbrella reviews are not required to follow PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, although we tried to follow them as closely as possible.

A review of the literature and best-practice guidelines was performed by an expert multidisciplinary working group mostly consisting of members of the committees for Ligament-Injury and Prevention/Rehabilitation of the German Knee Society (DKG), each having 10 to almost 30 years of experience in the treatment of ACL injuries.

Overview of the Review Process

Considering Past Review Studies for Inclusion

To gain an initial overview of the current literature, we first sought previously published reviews that explicitly evaluated tests or test batteries for the ACL rerupture risk or reinjury risk. For that purpose, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were screened for original articles regarding “ACL” AND (“re-injury” OR “re-rupture” OR “second”) AND (“RTS” OR “return to sport” OR “return-to-sport” OR “test” OR “test batterie” OR “testing” OR “criteria”). Subsequently, 4 reviews framing the current knowledge on the topic were identified.^4,11,52,88 These studies were considered the latest systematic review–based scientific perspectives; 2 studies were systematic reviews with meta-analyses on the validity of RTS testing after ACLR⁸⁸ and on the association between passing RTS criteria and second ACL injury risk⁵²; 1 study was a systematic review on evidence level 2 studies regarding the reinjury risk and prognostic value of RTS testing⁴; and 1 study was a critical reanalysis¹¹ of the first review on the validity of RTS testing after ACLR.⁸⁸

To determine the test pool, we reviewed all original studies included in the four selected reviews.^4,11,52,88 We extracted the RTS tests used in these studies and evaluated their ability to predict reinjury risk after ACLR, their reliability, and how easily they could be implemented. Additionally, we manually searched the reference lists of these articles to find further relevant studies and tests. Each study was then reviewed in full text to ensure it was relevant to our research purpose.

Exclusion Criteria

Case reports, letters to the editor, expert opinions, editorials, abstracts, technical reports, and protocols, as well as studies not reporting tangible pass/cutoff criteria, studies with a cohort of minors (patients <18 years) as the study population, and duplicate studies were excluded.

Data Extraction: Valid Reinjury-Predictive RTS Testing

It is possible that some tests that are easier to perform in a clinical setting were not included in the test batteries of the original studies, as the focus of the included studies was mainly on the aspect of passing the RTS test and returning to the sport, as well as the risk of reinjury. Therefore, the literature was reviewed again specifically with this question in mind. The aim was to identify those RTS tests that would be easier to perform in everyday clinical practice, while still maintaining good validity and reliability. For this purpose, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were screened for original articles regarding the specific RTS test (eg, isokinetic testing = XX) “XX” AND (“anterior cruciate ligament”) AND (test OR testing) AND (“alternative” OR “test criteria” OR “valid” OR “quality criteria”). The inclusion criteria for these alternative tests were those that (1) had been validated against a previously identified, standardized, and established test procedure and (2) were reliable for their predictive values regarding the risk of ACL rerupture, reporting intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) or correlation coefficients (r values) of ≥0.9 to be rated “approved” and recommended.

Results

Study Selection and Characteristics

A total of 27 studies, including 8689 patients, were extracted. After the application of the exclusion criteria, 19 studies^{‖ ‖} (N = 7513 patients) using 21 reinjury-predictive functional and self-reported RTS tests were included in this review.

Within the framework of this umbrella review, the different studies and the respective RTS tests are summarized in Table 1. The studies varied in terms of the activity level of the participants (from amateur to professional athletes) and also in terms of the types of sport investigated. This was an advantage for our research question, as a wide range of sports and patient groups could then be covered. A detailed discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies is available in the Appendix, and a table summarizing the characteristics of the population within each included study is shown in Appendix Table A1.

Table 1

Studies Included in the Final Review and Their Respective RTS Tests^a

ACL-RSI, Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Return to Sport after Injury; Ext, extension; Flex, flexion; GRS-PF, global rating scale for perceived function; HT, hamstrings; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; LESS, Landing Error Scoring System; Quad, quadriceps; SEBT, Star Excursion Balance Test; Sport/Rec, Sport and Recreation; TSK, Tampa scale of kinesiophobia.

Test validated (either isolated or as part of a test battery) regarding its prognostic value for the risk of anterior cruciate ligament rerupture.

Characteristics of the Included RTS Tests

Of the 21 RTS tests, 13 tests were considered in the final analysis. Further information on 7 alternative tests with more practical but still valid and reliable test quality for estimating the risk of ACL reinjury were retrieved from 11 additional studies^¶¶ with 292 patients. All tests were categorized according to their respective target objective: isokinetic or isometric strength, functional ability (hopping and jumping), or self-reported readiness. For each test, reinjury prognostic values, reliabilities, and performance capacities were assessed, and where available, cutoff values and reference values from healthy individuals were obtained for each target objective. This information is summarized in Tables 2 (strength testing), 3 (functional ability), and 4 (self-reported readiness). Each of these tables is divided into 3 different sections, highlighted with a gold, silver, and bronze frame. The gold-framed tests are mostly complex and labor-intensive to perform. They are costly, space- and time-consuming, and therefore not feasible in most clinical settings. To address this issue, validated test alternatives have been compiled in the silver and bronze frameworks. These alternatives allow RTS testing with significantly less financial, time, and space expenditure. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the amount of information (ie, validity, reliability, or objectivity) usually decreases, and the uncertainty increases when descending from the established extensive test batteries to the test alternatives. In addition, each test characteristic was graded according to quality, indicated by different-colored shadings (green, yellow, or red)

Table 2

RTS Tests Recommended After Final Analysis: Strength Testing^a

ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; EPIC, estimated preinjury capacity; HR, hazard ratio; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; LSI, limb symmetry index; RM, repetition maximum; RTS, return to sport.

Table 3

RTS Tests Recommended After Final Analysis: Functional Ability Testing^a

ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; EPIC, estimated preinjury capacity; F, female; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; LSI, limb symmetry index; M, male; OR, odds ratio; sec, second.

Table 4

RTS Tests Recommended After Final Analysis: Self-Reported Readiness^a

ACL-RSI, Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Return to Sport after Injury; ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient; KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; Sport/Rec, Sport and Recreation.

Values shown are mean scores for patients with rehabilitation and early ACL reconstruction. The “Return to same activity” are the ACL-RSI scores in patients who returned to same activity or activity level.

Strength Testing

Three established strength tests were found to be eligible: the dynamic test for isokinetic knee extension torque, the dynamic test for isokinetic extension/flexion or quadriceps/hamstring torque ratio, and the static test for maximal voluntary isometric contraction knee extension strength. To carry out these tests according to their standard requirements, an isokinetic dynamometer was mandatory. The supplied software simultaneously provided the age- and sex-specific standard strength values to be aimed for, which was a great advantage. However, a disadvantage of this approach was the high cost related to the purchase of an isokinetic dynamometer, which led us to search for more applicable and cost-saving alternatives. The 8–repetition maximum (RM) knee extension test,⁸² a handheld/portable dynamometer,⁴⁵ or the elastic band test,³⁹ being a 1-RM test for dynamic knee extension, were alternatives for strength testing that were found within the studies included in this review. Several studies have shown that lower quadriceps strength is associated with a higher risk of reinjury^34,60,74 or contralateral injury.⁴² A functional hamstrings/quadriceps ratio of <0.6 has been connected with increased risk of hamstring injuries; values between 0.7 to 1 are to be accepted.⁷⁴

Functional Ability Testing

In terms of the hop and jump tests, 8 tests were found to be eligible. The drop jump has shown excellent reliability in measuring the knee valgus moment using 2 cameras^26,67 and is a time- and space-saving established standard test, whereas purchasing 2 camera systems cannot be considered a cost saving. As an alternative to measuring the valgus moment using cameras, medial knee displacement or normalized knee distance could be assessed, which may be easier to measure using either an inertial sensor^24,69 or a smartphone app.²⁹ Side-to-side differences (asymmetry) in the sagittal plane of the knee valgus moment at the point of initial contact of >2.81 × 10⁻² N·m/kg (odds ratio = 3.3 [95% CI, 1.2-8.8])⁶⁷ do have a positive predictive validity in predicting reinjury. The cutoff values given in current literature lie within a side-to-side difference <2.8 × 10⁻² N·m/kg; a knee separation distance of >60% at initial contact and >40% at lowest point.⁶ Due to the well-researched results of this test in the current literature and with valuable test alternatives in terms of cost, the drop jump should be considered for each individualized test battery in combination with a test involving horizontal movement patterns.

Horizontal movement tests such as the single-leg distance-, triple-, triple crossover-, and 6-m timed hop have been validated in combination in terms of their predictive values for the risk of ACL rerupture.^{16,19,34,50,60,66,80} These tests are time- and cost-effective but require a large open area (≥8 × 2 m) to perform.Due to the low resource requirements of the test methods, there was no need for test alternatives if the appropriate space capacity was available. The same applied to the running t test, although in this case, the space requirement was even greater, with a minimum test area of 6 × 6 m.

The single-leg vertical countermovement hop test may provide an RTS discharge criterion in combination with the isokinetic strength testing of knee extension, triple hop, and triple crossover hop tests.⁷³ For the established standard test, a contact time mat is required, which could easily estimate the jumping height. Since contact time mats can be costly, a more economical alternative could be an indirectly calculated jumping height with inertial sensor or insoles.⁸⁴ Sufficient ICC and r values have also been demonstrated by the smartphone app,²⁹ which can, therefore, be a good financial alternative.

Hop testing appears to possess fair association to subjective tests of knee function, as measured by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and a patient's ability to RTS after ACLR.⁵¹ However, as mentioned above, an isolated assessment using a horizontal hop should be avoided.^43,44

Self-Reported Readiness

Two self-reported tests were recommended. The ACL–Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) is a scale that was developed by Webster et al⁸⁶ in 2008 to measure the psychological impact of RTS after ACLR.^2,3 It has since been used to assess the reinjury risk in various studies and RTS testing^1,31,90 and is an established evaluation criterion. According to Sadeqi et al,⁷¹ the optimal ACL-RSI score threshold to return to the same sport at 2-year follow-up is >65. To return to a professional or competitive level of play, an ACL-RSI score >60 at 6-month follow-up should be reached.

In this context, the KOOS is also an established and validated scale to measure self-reported knee function. It can be divided and evaluated in subscales and has been validated for its predictive value regarding the risk of ACL reinjury on its own²⁸ or in combination with other tests.^## The Sport and Recreation subscale of the KOOS (KOOS Sport/Rec) is a quick and easily assessed outcome measure that shows significant differences between patients with and without a later revision surgery³³ and was therefore relevant for this study. Both the ACL-RSI and the KOOS Sport/Rec are easy to assess and take little time to complete. Therefore, they are eligible to be used in all setups and should be implemented in every RTS test compilation.

The Tampa scale of kinesiophobia may be a bit more elaborate and time-consuming, but it has been evaluated for the risk of second ACL injuries, and although it was not included as a recommended test, it is also valuable in assessing psychological readiness with regard to RTS after ACLR.^46,65

Applications

Depending on the resources available (money, time, personnel, and equipment) and the accuracy required (validity and reliability), tests that reflect the target objective can be administered using either the established test version (marked with a gold outline in Tables 2 and 3) or alternative test versions (marked with a silver or bronze outline in Tables 2 and 3). This may be applied as follows:

For strength testing:

● Dynamic isokinetic knee extension torque

● Dynamic isokinetic extension/flexion

● Static maximal voluntary isometric contraction knee extension strength

Alternatives:

● 8-RM knee extension test

● elastic band test

For functional ability testing:

● Distance hop

● Triple hop

● Triple crossover hop

● 6-m timed hop

● Speedy hop

Alternative 1:

● Single-leg vertical (countermovement) hop with inertial sensor

● Drop jump: medial knee displacement in degrees

Alternative 2:

● Single-leg vertical (countermovement) hop with smartphone app

● Drop jump: normalized knee distance in centimeters or as a limb symmetry index (%)

Starting from the established strength and functional ability tests at the top of Tables 2 and 3 going downward to their test alternatives, the time, money, and space resources required usually decrease as the uncertainty increases.

Tailoring the Individual Tests According to Resources

In the flowchart in Figure 1, different test selections depending on quality criteria (approved, some restrictions, or not generally recommended) and resources (time, money, and space) are depicted. Starting with only 1 resource (time or money or space) in the upper horizontal row, the respective tests reflecting the 3 relevant test abilities (strength, functional ability, and self-reported readiness) are listed underneath. In the second row, the resources (money and space, money and time, space and time) are combined, and the respective tests regarding the target objective are listed underneath once more. If the established most standardized test setup is applicable, the arrows point directly to the standardized tests.

Figure 1.

Flowchart for test selection regarding the different resources of time, money, and space The development from the most time-, money- and space-efficient test alternatives to the most standardized tests is indicated with the arrows. The different colors of the text boxes correspond to the quality criteria outlined in Tables 2 –4. ACL-RSI, Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Return to Sport after Injury; KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; RM, repetition maximum; Sport/Rec, Sport and Recreation.

For strength testing, if time is critical but space and cost are not an issue, then the static maximal voluntary isometric contraction knee extension strength may be used from the test compilation (Table 2). As a more time- and space-efficient test alternative, the 8-RM knee extension test may be applied, while if costs need to be saved, the elastic band test or the handheld/portable dynamometer tests can be effective alternatives (Figure 1).

A selection of appropriate functional tests ideally combines measures for speed, agility and dynamic knee valgus moments to monitor the improvement of neuromuscular control in athletes.¹⁰ However, an isolated assessment using a horizontal hop should be avoided, since the knee contributes about one-third to vertical hop height but only about one-eighth to horizontal hop distance.^43,44 Distance hop, triple hop, triple crossover hop, and 6-m timed hop are time-saving tests, each taking <5 minutes for their execution. A combination of single-leg vertical/countermovement hop and the drop jump, which are able to assess explosive strength with a contact time mat (vertical/countermovement hop) or knee valgus moments via cameras (drop jump), could be adopted. However, both assessments are costly. A more economical and faster test alternative would be to assess both tests and test qualities (jumping height, medial knee displacement) with an inertial sensor (Figure 1).

To create an RTS test battery tailored to the individual needs of clinicians and patients, established tests for the 3 main categories can be combined with test alternatives and vice versa (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Flowchart to create a return-to-sport test battery tailored to the individual needs of clinicians and patients. ACL-RSI, Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Return to Sport after Injury; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; RTS, return to sport.

Discussion

Many systematic reviews evaluating measurements of functional performance after ACLR have come to the same conclusion: studies lack the objective physiological criteria concerning at what time RTS after ACLR should be allowed.^{5,6,14,20,37,59,83} There are only a few objective measurement criteria, such as the isokinetic strength measurement, that are adapted to standardized age, sex, height, and weight values when estimating normal knee function; these are very helpful but are also very expensive and time-consuming. This review was intended to assist clinicians in selecting validated RTS tests for each relevant target objective (strength, functional ability, self-reported readiness) and offer guidance on how to conduct RTS assessments within the time, space, and budget available in their clinical setting (see Tables 2 –4).

A difficulty in our daily practice has been the interpretation of the test results. Without cutoff and/or reference values, it is not possible to provide sustained support to athletes during RTS testing. For this reason, cutoff and reference values are described in the included studies in Tables 2 through 4, to give a rough orientation regarding the athletes’ performance.

Each individual test compilation should include the primary selection of the relevant abilities to be tested²⁷ in view of estimating a “safe” RTS.^{22,34,48,65,66,91} Different movement patterns in the horizontal or vertical planes, while focusing on the medial knee displacement, should be taken into consideration for functional assessment and RTS testing after ACLR.^10,12,18 We recommend starting with the self-reported questionnaires, which may be completed before the consultation in the waiting area. Contrary to the test battery described by Gokeler et al,³¹ we believe it to be important and more time-efficient to perform testing as follows: (1) self-reported questionnaires, (2) strength testing, and (3) functional ability testing. We believe that if the tests are performed in this order, neuromuscular deficits, which are essential to identify in order to prevent reinjury, may be easier to detect due to the fatigued muscle strength following the RTS strength test. In addition, the strength test is intended to measure peak torque, which may be reduced by previous functional testing.

The evidence that single RTS tests are predictive for reinjuries and, therefore, can reduce the risk of ACL rerupture is sparse and generally refers to test batteries. Despite this knowledge, ongoing monitoring of the progress after ACLR using a combination of strength tests, hop tests, and self-reported outcome scores can support the athlete to a safe RTS. It is important that the athlete's and clinician's expectations are in line with the capabilities and predictive power of an RTS test battery, as it is not a green card for a lifelong injury-free sporting career but rather a guideline and helpful tool in the RTS process.

Limitations

One limitation of the current review was that data regarding age, sex, rehabilitation protocol, follow-up time, RTS criteria, functional tests, graft type, and surgical techniques were not standardized across the selected studies. These factors are known to play a role in ACL reinjury; however, we found them beyond the scope of this review. In addition, for most of the RTS tests included, it was not possible to make an individual risk assessment for reinjury. This was due to the combination of RTS tests in many of the studies. Therefore, the validity of the reinjury prediction for a single test had to be rated as intermediate (yellow-shaded text in Tables 2 –4) in many cases.

There is a lack of RTS testing concentrating on the different sporting patterns (eg, gymnastics, soccer) that have to be evolved and reestablished for each sport after ACLR. Most studies focus on professional soccer players and athletes of pivoting sports, which, on the one hand, are at the highest risk of suffering reinjury but, on the other hand, are the most popular and one of the best paid worldwide, with considerable interest in early RTS. Another problem within the current literature is that we hardly know what happens after the RTS testing. The exposure to high-risk activities is an essential point when evaluating the validity of RTS tests. Indeed, a player failing RTS tests but returning to sports with very low exposure to high-risk activities might still be at a relatively lower injury risk compared with another player passing RTS tests with very high exposure to high-risk activities. However, this exposure is not reported in current studies.³⁰

Irrespective of these methodological variations, we believe that the findings add valid, evidence-based information in terms of RTS testing regarding the risk of ACL reinjury and RTS advice in clinical settings due to the high level of the included studies. Nevertheless, we believe that further work to validate new, more precise outcome measures and to determine their true predictive values regarding ACL reinjury is required.

Conclusion

This study enables physicians and therapists to offer RTS testing in their practice according to their individual resources and gives them the freedom to accompany the process of RTS. With the provided outcome measures and cutoff values from multiple studies, this focused review contains an appropriate assessment basis for the overall orientation of the rehabilitation status and RTS skills of patients, bridging the gap between science and everyday practice.

A practical tip: With the findings of this article, the authors developed 3 test manuals, which are freely available for download on the homepage of the DKG (https://deutsche-kniegesellschaft.de/downloads).

Footnotes

Appendix

Final revision submitted June 17, 2024; accepted June 24, 2024.

The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

ORCID iD

Natalie Mengis

‖ ‖

References 1, 7, 16, 19, 31, 33, 34, 38, 45, 48, 50, 60, 65, 66, 73, 79, 80, 90, .

¶¶

References 24, 29, 32, 35, 41, 55, 69, 75 -77, .

##

References 16, 19, 33, 34, 38, 50, 60, 66, .

References

Ahmed

Salmon

Roe

Pinczewski

The long-term clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who suffer recurrent injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament after reconstruction. Bone Joint J. 2017;99(3):337-343. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.99B3.37863

Ardern

CL.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—not exactly a one-way ticket back to the preinjury level: a review of contextual factors affecting return to sport after surgery. Sports Health. 2015;7(3):224-230. doi:10.1177/1941738115578131

Ardern

Österberg

Tagesson

Gauffin

Webster

Kvist

The impact of psychological readiness to return to sport and recreational activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(22):1613-1619. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-093842

Ashigbi

EYK

Banzer

Niederer

. Return to sport tests’ prognostic value for reinjury risk after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;52(6):1263-1271. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000002246

Barber-Westin

Noyes

FR.

Factors used to determine return to unrestricted sports activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(12):1697-1705. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2011.09.009

Barber-Westin

Noyes

FR.

Objective criteria for return to athletics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent reinjury rates: a systematic review. Phys Sportsmed. 2011;39(3):100-110. doi:10.3810/psm.2011.09.1926

Beischer

Gustavsson

Senorski

, et al. Young athletes who return to sport before 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have a rate of new injury 7 times that of those who delay return. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50(2):83-90. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9071

Brophy

Stepan

Silvers

Mandelbaum

BR.

Defending puts the anterior cruciate ligament at risk during soccer: a gender-based analysis. Sports Health. 2015;7(3):244-249. doi:10.1177/1941738114535184

Buckthorpe

Optimising the late-stage rehabilitation and return-to-sport training and testing process after ACL reconstruction. Sports Med. 2019;49(7):1043-1058. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01102-z

10.

Buckthorpe

Tamisari

Della Villa

A ten task-based progression in rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction: from post-surgery to return to play—a clinical commentary. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2020;15(4):611-623. doi:10.26603/ijspt20200611

11.

Capin

Snyder-Mackler

Risberg

Grindem

. Keep calm and carry on testing: a substantive reanalysis and critique of “What is the evidence for and validity of return-to-sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(23):1444-1447. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-100906

12.

Cheney

Chiaia

de Mille

Boyle

Ling

Readiness to return to sport after ACL reconstruction: a combination of physical and psychological factors. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2020;28(2):66-70. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000263

13.

Choi

Kang

The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence. Korean J Pain. 2022;35(2):127-128. doi:10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127

14.

Czuppon

Racette

Klein

Harris-Hayes

Variables associated with return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(5):356-364. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091786

15.

de Araujo

Ribeiro

Alvares

Rodrigues

de Azevedo Franke

, et al. Inter-machine reliability of the Biodex and Cybex isokinetic dynamometers for knee flexor/extensor isometric, concentric and eccentric tests. Phys Ther Sport. 2015;16(1):59-65. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2014.04.004

16.

Di Stasi

Logerstedt

Gardinier

Snyder-Mackler

Gait patterns differ between ACL-reconstructed athletes who pass return-to-sport criteria and those who fail. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1310-1318. doi:10.1177/0363546513482718

17.

Dingenen

Gokeler

Optimization of the return-to-sport paradigm after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a critical step back to move forward. Sports Med. 2017;47(8):1487-1500. doi:10.1007/s40279-017-0674-6

18.

Dingenen

Truijen

Bellemans

Gokeler

Test–retest reliability and discriminative ability of forward, medial and rotational single-leg hop tests. Knee. 2019;26(5):978-987. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2019.06.010

19.

Ebert

Edwards

, et al. Strength and functional symmetry is associated with post-operative rehabilitation in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(8):2353-2361. doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4712-6

20.

Engelen-van Melick

van Cingel

REH

Tijssen

MPW

Nijhuis-van

der

Sanden

MWG.

Assessment of functional performance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of measurement procedures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(4):869-879. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2030-6

21.

Faleide

AGH

Magnussen

Strand

, et al. The role of psychological readiness in return to sport assessment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(5):1236-1243. doi:10.1177/0363546521991924

22.

Fältström

Hägglund

Kvist

Functional performance among active female soccer players after unilateral primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with knee-healthy controls. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(2):377-385. doi:10.1177/0363546516667266

23.

Fältström

Kvist

Bittencourt

NFN

Mendonça

Hägglund

. Clinical risk profile for a second anterior cruciate ligament injury in female soccer players after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(6):1421-1430. doi:10.1177/0363546521999109

24.

Finkbiner

Gaina

McRandall

, et al. Video movement analysis using smartphones (ViMAS): a pilot study. J Vis Exp. 2017;2017(121):54659. doi:10.3791/54659

25.

Fitzgerald

Lephart

Hwang

Wainner

MRS

. Hop tests as predictors of dynamic knee stability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001;31(10):588-597. doi:10.2519/jospt.2001.31.10.588

26.

Ford

Myer

Hewett

TE.

Reliability of landing 3D motion analysis: implications for longitudinal analyses. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(11):2021-2028. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318149332d

27.

Forelli

Le Coroller

Gaspar

, et al. Ecological and specific evidence-based safe return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in soccer players: a new international paradigm. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2023;18(2):526-540. doi:10.26603/001c.73031

28.

Frobell

Roos

Ranstam

Lohmander

LS.

A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):331-342. doi:10.1056/nejmoa0907797

29.

Gallardo-Fuentes

Ramírez-Campillo

, et al. Intersession and intrasession reliability and validity of the My Jump app for measuring different jump actions in trained male and female athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(7):2049-2056. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001304

30.

Gokeler

Dingenen

Hewett

TE.

Rehabilitation and return to sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: where are we in 2022?

Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022;4(1):e77-e82. doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2021.10.025

31.

Gokeler

Welling

Zaffagnini

Seil

Padua

Development of a test battery to enhance safe return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(1):192-199. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4246-3

32.

Gomi

Hirano

Kato

Validity of isometric muscle strength measurements of the shoulder joint using a hand-held dynamometer and belt: a comparison with an isokinetic dynamometer. Rigakuryoho Kagaku. 2015;30(2):317-321. doi:10.1589/rika.30.317

33.

Granan

Baste

Engebretsen

Inacio

MCS

. Associations between inadequate knee function detected by KOOS and prospective graft failure in an anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(4):1135-1140. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2925-5

34.

Grindem

Snyder-Mackler

Moksnes

Engebretsen

Risberg

MA.

Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(13):804-808. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031

35.

Guex

Daucourt

Borloz

. Validity and reliability of maximal-strength assessment of knee flexors and extensors using elastic bands. J Sport Rehabil. 2015;24(2):151-155. doi:10.1123/jsr.2013-0131

36.

Gustavsson

Neeter

Thomeé

, et al. A test battery for evaluating hop performance in patients with an ACL injury and patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(8):778-788. doi:10.1007/s00167-006-0045-6

37.

Harris

Abrams

Bach

, et al. Return to sport after ACL reconstruction. Orthopedics. 2014;37(2):e103-e108. doi:10.3928/01477447-20140124-10

38.

Herbst

Hoser

Hildebrandt

, et al. Functional assessments for decision-making regarding return to sports following ACL reconstruction. Part II: clinical application of a new test battery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(5):1283-1291. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3546-3

39.

Hewett

Myer

Zazulak

BT.

Hamstrings to quadriceps peak torque ratios diverge between sexes with increasing isokinetic angular velocity. J Sci Med Sport. 2008;11(5):452-459. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2007.04.009

40.

Hildebrandt

Müller

Zisch

Huber

Fink

Raschner

Functional assessments for decision-making regarding return to sports following ACL reconstruction. Part I: development of a new test battery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(5):1273-1281. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3529-4

41.

Kim

Seo

Kang

SH.

Reliability and validity of isometric knee extensor strength test with hand-held dynamometer depending on its fixation: a pilot study. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(1):84-93. doi:10.5535/arm.2014.38.1.84

42.

King

Richter

Daniels

KAJ

, et al. Can biomechanical testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction identify athletes at risk for subsequent ACL injury to the contralateral uninjured limb? Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(3):609-619. doi:10.1177/0363546520985283

43.

Kotsifaki

Korakakis

Whiteley

Van Rossom

Jonkers

Measuring only hop distance during single leg hop testing is insufficient to detect deficits in knee function after ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(3):139-153. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099918

44.

Kotsifaki

Van Rossom

Whiteley

, et al. Single leg vertical jump performance identifies knee function deficits at return to sport after ACL reconstruction in male athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(9):490-498. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104692

45.

Krych

Woodcock

Morgan

Levy

Stuart

Dahm

DL.

Factors associated with excellent 6-month functional and isokinetic test results following ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(4):1053-1059. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2869-9

46.

Kvist

Sporrstedt

Good

Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13(5):393-397. doi:10.1007/s00167-004-0591-8

47.

Kvist

Österberg

Gauffin

Tagesson

Webster

Ardern

Translation and measurement properties of the Swedish version of ACL-Return to Sports after Injury questionnaire. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(5):568-575. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01438.x

48.

Kyritsis

Bahr

Landreau

Miladi

Witvrouw

Likelihood of ACL graft rupture: not meeting six clinical discharge criteria before return to sport is associated with a four times greater risk of rupture. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(15):946-951. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908

49.

Kyritsis

Witvrouw

Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a literature review. J Nov Physiother. 2014;4(1):193. doi:10.4172/2165-7025.1000193

50.

Logerstedt

Di Stasi

Grindem

, et al. Self-reported knee function can identify athletes who fail return-to-activity criteria up to 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(12):914-923. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.4852

51.

Losciale

Bullock

Cromwell

Ledbetter

Pietrosimone

Sell

TC.

Hop testing lacks strong association with key outcome variables after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(2):511-522. doi:10.1177/0363546519838794

52.

Losciale

Zdeb

Ledbetter

Reiman

Sell

TC.

The association between passing return-to-sport criteria and second anterior cruciate ligament injury risk: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(2):43-54. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8190

53.

Marom

Xiang

Wolfe

Jivanelli

Williams

3rd Marx

RG.

High variability and lack of standardization in the evaluation of return to sport after ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(4):1369-1379. doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06594-9

54.

Marx

Jones

Angel

Wickiewicz

Warren

RF.

Beliefs and attitudes of members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(7):762-770. doi:10.1016/S0749-8063(03)00398-0

55.

Mateos-Angulo

Galán-Mercant

Cuesta-Vargas

AI.

Kinematic mobile drop jump analysis at different heights based on a smartphone inertial sensor. J Hum Kinet. 2020;73(1):57-65. doi:10.2478/hukin-2019-0131

56.

McKay

Baldwin

Ferreira

Simic

Vanicek

Burns

; for the 1000 Norms Project Consortium. Normative reference values for strength and flexibility of 1,000 children and adults. Neurology. 2017;88(1):36-43. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000003466

57.

Müller

Krüger-Franke

Schmidt

Rosemeyer

Predictive parameters for return to pre-injury level of sport 6 months following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(12):3623-3631. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3261-5

58.

Munro

Herrington

LC.

Between-session reliability of four hop tests and the agility T-test. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(5):1470-1477. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d83335

59.

Narducci

Waltz

Gorski

Leppla

Donaldson

The clinical utility of functional performance tests within one-year post-ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2011;6(4):333-342.

60.

Nawasreh

Logerstedt

Cummer

Axe

Risberg

Snyder-Mackler

Functional performance 6 months after ACL reconstruction can predict return to participation in the same preinjury activity level 12 and 24 months after surgery. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(6):375. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097095

61.

Neder

Nery

Shinzato

Andrade

Peres

Silva

AC.

Reference values for concentric knee isokinetic strength and power in nonathletic men and women from 20 to 80 years old. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999;29(2):116-126. doi:10.2519/jospt.1999.29.2.116

62.

Niederer

Engeroff

Wilke

Vogt

Banzer

Return to play, performance, and career duration after anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a case–control study in the five biggest football nations in Europe. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28(10):2226-2233. doi:10.1111/sms.13245

63.

Noyes

Barber-Westin

Fleckenstein

Walsh

West

The drop-jump screening test: difference in lower limb control by gender and effect of neuromuscular training in female athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(2):197-207. doi:10.1177/0363546504266484

64.

Nyberg

Validity of using elastic bands to measure knee extension strength in older adults. J Nov Physiother Phys Rehabil. 2016;3(1):16-21. doi:10.17352/2455-5487.000030

65.

Paterno

Flynn

Thomas

Schmitt

LC.

Self-reported fear predicts functional performance and second ACL injury after ACL reconstruction and return to sport: a pilot study. Sports Health. 2018;10(3):228-233. doi:10.1177/1941738117745806

66.

Paterno

Huang

Thomas

Hewett

Schmitt

LC.

Clinical factors that predict a second ACL injury after ACL reconstruction and return to sport: preliminary development of a clinical decision algorithm. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(12):2325967117745279. doi:10.1177/2325967117745279

67.

Paterno

Schmitt

Ford

, et al. Biomechanical measures during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):1968-1978. doi:10.1177/0363546510376053

68.

Pauole

Madole

Garhammer

Lacourse

Rozenek

Reliability and validity of the T-test as a measure of agility, leg power, and leg speed in college-aged men and women. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(4):443-450. doi:10.1519/00124278-200011000-00012

69.

Redler

Watling

Dennis

Swart

Ahmad

CS.

Reliability of a field-based drop vertical jump screening test for ACL injury risk assessment. Phy Sportsmed. 2016;44(1):46-52. doi:10.1080/00913847.2016.1131107

70.

Reid

Birmingham

Stratford

Alcock

Giffin

. Hop testing provides a reliable and valid outcome measure during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Phys Ther. 2007;87(3):337-349. doi:10.2522/ptj.20060143

71.

Sadeqi

Klouche

Bohu

Herman

Lefevre

Gerometta

Progression of the psychological ACL-RSI score and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective 2-year follow-up study from the French Prospective Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Cohort Study (FAST). Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(12):2325967118812819. doi:10.1177/2325967118812819

72.

Salmon

Russell

Musgrove

Pinczewski

Refshauge

Incidence and risk factors for graft rupture and contralateral rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):948-957. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2005.04.110

73.

Sousa

Krych

Cates

Levy

Stuart

Dahm

DL.

Return to sport: does excellent 6-month strength and function following ACL reconstruction predict midterm outcomes?

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(5):1356-1363. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3697-2

74.

Sueyoshi

Nakahata

Emoto

Yuasa

Single-leg hop test performance and isokinetic knee strength after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in athletes. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(11):2325967117739811. doi:10.1177/2325967117739811

75.

Sung

Shin

HI.

Reliability and validity of knee extensor strength measurements using a portable dynamometer anchoring system in a supine position. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):320. doi:10.1186/s12891-019-2703-0

76.

Taylor

Fletcher

JP.

Correlation between the 8-repetition maximum test and isokinetic dynamometry in the measurement of muscle strength of the knee extensors: a concurrent validity study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29(4):335-341. doi:10.3109/09593985.2012.727529

77.

Taylor

Fletcher

JP.

Reliability of the 8-repetition maximum test in men and women. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(1):69-73. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2011.07.002

78.

Thomeé

Kaplan

Kvist

, et al. Muscle strength and hop performance criteria prior to return to sports after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(11):1798-1805. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1669-8

79.

Thomeé

Neeter

Gustavsson

, et al. Variability in leg muscle power and hop performance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(6):1143-1151. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1912-y

80.

Toole

Ithurburn

Rauh

Hewett

Paterno

Schmitt

LC.

Young athletes cleared for sports participation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how many actually meet recommended return-to-sport criterion cutoffs?

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(11):825-833. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7227

81.

Undheim

Cosgrave

King

, et al. Isokinetic muscle strength and readiness to return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: is there an association? A systematic review and a protocol recommendation. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(20):1305-1310. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-093962

82.

van Melick

Pronk

Nijhuis-van der Sanden

Rutten

van Tienen

Hoogeboom

. Meeting movement quantity or quality return to sport criteria is associated with reduced second ACL injury rate. J Orthop Res. 2022;40(1):117-128. doi:10.1002/jor.25017

83.

van Melick

van Cingel

REH

Brooijmans

, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice update: practice guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation based on a systematic review and multidisciplinary consensus. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(24):1506-1515. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095898

84.

Wang

Shull

PB.

Vertical jump height estimation algorithm based on takeoff and landing identification via foot-worn inertial sensing. J Biomech Eng. 2018;140(3):34502. doi:10.1115/1.4038740

85.

Webster

Feller

JA.

Clinical tests can be used to screen for second anterior cruciate ligament injury in younger patients who return to sport. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(8):2325967119863003. doi:10.1177/2325967119863003

86.

Webster

Feller

Lambros

Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure the psychological impact of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Phys Ther Sport. 2008;9(1):9-15. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2007.09.003

87.

Webster

Hewett

TE.

Is there value and validity for the use of return to sport test batteries after anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction?

Arthroscopy. 2020;36(6):1500-1501. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2020.03.025

88.

Webster

Hewett

TE.

What is the evidence for and validity of return-to-sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2019;49(6):917-929. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01093-x

89.

Welling

Benjaminse

Lemmink

Gokeler

Passing return to sports tests after ACL reconstruction is associated with greater likelihood for return to sport but fail to identify second injury risk. Knee. 2020;27(3):949-957. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2020.03.007

90.

Welling

Benjaminse

Seil

Lemmink

Zaffagnini

Gokeler

Low rates of patients meeting return to sport criteria 9 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective longitudinal study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(12):3636-3644. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-4916-4

91.

Wellsandt

Failla

Snyder-Mackler

Limb symmetry indexes can overestimate knee function after anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(5):334-338. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7285

92.

Wiggins

Grandhi

Schneider

Stanfield

Webster

Myer

GD.

Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(7):1861-1876. doi:10.1177/0363546515621554

93.

Wilk

Arrigo

CA.

Rehabilitation principles of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed knee: twelve steps for successful progression and return to play. Clin Sports Med. 2017;36(1):189-232. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2016.08.012

A Guideline for Validated Return-to-Sport Testing in Everyday Clinical Practice: A Focused Review on the Validity,Reliability,and Feasibility of Tests Estimating the Risk of Reinjury After ACL Reconstruction

Abstract

Background:

Purpose:

Study Design:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Methods

Study Design

Overview of the Review Process

Considering Past Review Studies for Inclusion

Exclusion Criteria

Data Extraction: Valid Reinjury-Predictive RTS Testing

Results

Study Selection and Characteristics

Characteristics of the Included RTS Tests

Strength Testing

Functional Ability Testing

Self-Reported Readiness

Applications

Tailoring the Individual Tests According to Resources

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix

ORCID iD

‖ ‖

¶¶

##

References