Meta-analysis. To define the accuracy of clinical tests for assessing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. The cruciate ligaments, and especially the ACL, are among the most commonly injured structures of the knee. Given the increasing injury prevalence, there is undoubtedly a growing need for clinical decision making of health care providers. We reviewed the literature to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination for assessing ACL ruptures. MEDLINE (1966 to April 2005), EMBASE (1989 to April 2005), and CINAHL (1982 to April 2005) searches were performed. Also reference lists of the included studies were reviewed. Studies selected for data extraction were those that addressed the accuracy of at least 1 physical diagnostic test for ACL rupture and compared the performance of the clinical examination of the knee with a reference standard, such as arthroscopy, arthrotomy, or MRI. Searching was limited to English, German, and Dutch languages. Twenty-eight studies that assessed the accuracy of clinical tests for diagnosing ACL ruptures met the inclusion criteria. Study results were, however, heterogeneous. The Lachman test is the most valid test to determine ACL tears, showing a pooled sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83-87) and a pooled specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92-95). The pivot shift test is very specific, namely 98% (95% CI, 96-99), but has a poor sensitivity of 24% (95% CI, 21-27). The anterior drawer test shows good sensitivity and specificity in chronic conditions, respectively 92% (95% CI, 88-95) and 91% (95% CI, 87-94), but not in acute conditions. In case of suspected ACL injury it is recommended to perform the Lachman test. Because the pivot shift test is very specific both in acute as well as in chronic conditions, it is recommended to perform the pivot shift test as well.

Purpose There is a lack of consensus regarding the appropriate criteria for releasing patients to return to sports (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). A test battery was developed to support decision-making. Methods Twenty-eight patients (22 males and 6 females) with a mean age of 25.4 ± 8.2 years participated and were 6.5 ± 1.0 months post-ACLR. All patients followed the same rehabilitation protocol. The test battery used consisted of the following: isokinetic test, 3 hop tests and the jump-landing task assessed with the LESS. The isokinetic tests and single-leg hop tests were expressed as a LSI (involved limb/uninvolved limb × 100 %). In addition, patients filled out the IKDC and ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale. RTS criteria to pass were defined as a LSI > 90 % on isokinetic and hop tests, LESS < 5, ACL-RSI > 56 and a IKDC within 15th percentile of healthy subjects. Results Two out of 28 patients passed all criteria of the test protocol. The pass criterion for the LESS < 5 was reached by 67.9 % of all patients. For the hop tests, 78.5 % of patients passed LSI > 90 % for SLH, 85.7 % for TLH and 50 % for the SH. For the isokinetic test, 39.3 % of patients passed criteria for LSI peak torque quadriceps at 60°/s, 46.4 % at 180°/s and 42.9 at 300°/s. In total, 35.7 % of the patients passed criterion for the peak torque at 60°/s normalized to BW (>3.0 Nm) for the involved limb. The H/Q ratio at 300°/s > 55 % for females was achieved by 4 out of 6 female patients, and the >62.5 % criterion for males was achieved by 75 %. At 6 months post-ACLR, 85.7 % of the patients passed the IKDC score and 75 % the ACL-RSI score >56 criteria. Conclusion The evidence emerging from this study suggests that the majority of patients who are 6 months after ACLR require additional rehabilitation to pass RTS criteria. The RTS battery described in this study may serve as a framework for future studies to implement multivariate models in order to optimize the decision-making regarding RTS after ACLR with the aim to reduce incidence of second ACL injuries. Level of evidence III.

Athletes who wish to resume high-level activities after an injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) are often advised to undergo surgical reconstruction. Nevertheless, ACL reconstruction (ACLR) does not equate to normal function of the knee or reduced risk of subsequent injuries. In fact, recent evidence has shown that only around half of post-ACLR patients can expect to return to competitive level of sports. A rising concern is the high rate of second ACL injuries, particularly in young athletes, with up to 20% of those returning to sport in the first year from surgery experiencing a second ACL rupture. Aside from the increased risk of second injury, patients after ACLR have an increased risk of developing early onset of osteoarthritis. Given the recent findings, it is imperative that rehabilitation after ACLR is scrutinized so the second injury preventative strategies can be optimized. Unfortunately, current ACLR rehabilitation programs may not be optimally effective in addressing deficits related to the initial injury and the subsequent surgical intervention. Motor learning to (re-)acquire motor skills and neuroplastic capacities are not sufficiently incorporated during traditional rehabilitation, attesting to the high re-injury rates. The purpose of this article is to present novel clinically integrated motor learning principles to support neuroplasticity that can improve patient functional performance and reduce the risk of second ACL injury. The following key concepts to enhance rehabilitation and prepare the patient for re-integration to sports after an ACL injury that is as safe as possible are presented: (1) external focus of attention, (2) implicit learning, (3) differential learning, (4) self-controlled learning and contextual interference. The novel motor learning principles presented in this manuscript may optimize future rehabilitation programs to reduce second ACL injury risk and early development of osteoarthritis by targeting changes in neural networks.

Athletes who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury often opt for an ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with the goal and expectation to return to sports at the preinjury level. The proportion of athletes who successfully return to preinjury‐level sport is low and disappointing, whereas the rate of second ACL injury in athletes under the age of 20 has been reported to be as high as 40% after return to sport (RTS). Although in recent years, new insights pertaining to RTS have been published, the lack of validity of RTS criteria after ACLR remain. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to present a critical overview of the current literature on RTS testing after ACLR.