Arthrofibrosis after ACL reconstruction is best treated in a step-wise approach with early recognition and intervention: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Arthrofibrosis is the most common post-operative complication of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Risk factors and management strategies for arthrofibrosis remain unclear. The purpose of this review was to: (a) describe existing definitions of arthrofibrosis, and (b) characterize the management strategies and outcomes of arthrofibrosis treatment. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from database inception to search date (March 21, 2016) and screened in duplicate for relevant studies. Data regarding patient demographics, indications, index surgery, management strategy, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies of primarily level IV evidence (88%) were included. A total of 647 patients (648 knees) with a mean age of 28.2 ± 1.8 years (range 14-62 years) were treated for arthrofibrosis following ACL reconstruction and followed for a mean 30.1 ± 16.9 months (range 2 months-9.6 years). Definitions of arthrofibrosis varied widely and included subjective definitions and the Shelbourne classification system. Patients were treated by one or more of: arthroscopic arthrolysis (570 patients), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) (153 patients), oral corticosteroids (31 patients), physiotherapy (81 patients), drop-casting (17 patients), epidural therapy combined with inpatient physiotherapy (six patients), and intra-articular interleukin-1 antagonist injection (four patients). All studies reported improvement in range of motion post-operatively, with statistically significant improvement reported for 306 patients (six studies, p range <0.001 to =0.05), and one study (18 patients) reporting significantly better results if arthrofibrosis was treated within 8 months of reconstruction (p < 0.03). The greatest improvements for extension loss were seen with drop-casting (mean 6.2° ± 0.6° improvement), whereas MUA produced the greatest improvement for flexion deficit (mean 47.8° ± 3.3° improvement). CONCLUSIONS: Arthrofibrosis is poorly defined and outcome measures range varies widely. Amongst the studies included in this review, arthrofibrosis was most commonly managed surgically by arthroscopic arthrolysis, and most patients showed at least some improvement, including six studies that reported statistically significant change in ROM. In studies that used a step-wise approach to treating arthrofibrosis, more than half of patients were successfully treated without an operation. A more well-defined concept of arthrofibrosis, along with large, prospective studies will provide a clearer understanding of how to describe and manage this complication. The issue of arthrofibrosis following ACL reconstruction is clinically relevant as it represents a common complication of a commonly performed operation that nonetheless remains poorly defined and without clear treatment guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review of Level III and IV Studies, Level IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".