| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4078177 | The Knee | 2010 | 8 Pages |
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction using a water-filled soft brace to those using a hard brace.The method used in this study was a prospective randomised clinical trial including 36 patients wearing a hard brace and 37 patients wearing a water-filled soft brace for 6 weeks after surgery. Preoperative and postoperative (seven examinations) clinical evaluation within a follow-up period of 1 year including effusion status, swelling and range of motion (ROM), IKDC 2000, KT1000 Arthrometer™, Lysholm knee scoring scale and Tegner activity score. Mean values are presented with standard deviations. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and Student's t-test for unpaired samples.Significantly less effusion was found in the soft brace group from 5 days (p = 0.002) to 12 weeks (p < 0.024) postoperative. Hard brace patients presented with significantly more extension deficit from 5 days (p = 0.036) to 12 months (p = 0.014) postoperative but no significant difference was detected in complete ROM, laxity or thigh atrophy at any follow-up examination. Patients treated with a soft brace had significantly higher IKDC subjective ratings at 6 weeks (p = 0.02) up to 12 months after operation (p = 0.002) and rated significantly higher in Tegner activity score (p = 0.004) and Lysholm knee scoring scale (p = 0.006) 6 and 12 months (p < 0.001 for both scores) postoperatively.The water-filled soft brace was superior regarding effusion, swelling, extension deficit and patient-measured midterm outcome. The soft brace presents a safe, easy-to-use and effective alternative to the hard brace.
