9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of open vs. closed kinetic chain exercises in ACL rehabilitation on knee joint pain, laxity, extensor muscles strength, and function: a systematic review with meta-analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are common among physically active individuals, often requiring ACL reconstruction (ACLR) for recovery. Rehabilitating these injuries involves determining the appropriate timing for initiating open kinetic chain (OKC) exercises. Although OKC exercises are effective post-ACLR, their use in rehabilitation remains a subject of debate. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a systematic review to determine whether OKC or closed kinetic chain (CKC) exercises result in differences in laxity, strength of the knee extensor muscle group, function, and functional performance in ACL rehabilitation. Five electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled between-group trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias using the PEDro scale. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model or calculated mean differences (fixed-effect) where appropriate. Certainty of evidence was judged using the GRADE approach. The systematic literature search yielded 480 articles, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. The evidence for all outcomes ranged from very low to low certainty. Across all comparisons, inconsistent results were found in outcome measures related to knee function between OKC and CKC exercises post-ACLR. A significant increase in quadriceps isokinetic strength was found in post-ACLR and ACL-deficient knees in favor of OKC exercises at 3 ( p = 0.03) and 4 ( p = 0.008) months, respectively. A significant decrease in knee laxity was observed in ACL-deficient knees in favor of OKC at 10 weeks ( p = 0.01), although inconsistency was noted at 4 months. Finally, a significant decrease in pain was found in favor of early OKC compared to late OKC ( p < 0.003). Additionally, in ACL-deficient knees, low load resistance training (LLRT) OKC showed no significant laxity difference compared to controls ( p > 0.05). In contrast, high load resistance training (HLRT) OKC had less laxity than controls at 6 weeks ( p = 0.02) but not at 12 weeks ( p > 0.05). OKC exercises appear to be superior to CKC for improving quadriceps strength 3–4 months post-injury, whether as a part of conservative or post-surgery rehabilitation. On the other hand, OKC exercises seem to be either superior or equally effective to CKC for improving knee laxity, thus presenting their importance in being included in a rehabilitation protocol from the initial phase.

          Systematic Review Registration

          PROSPERO [CRD42023475230].

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

            This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1785786/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2714753/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2750860/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/231085/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Sports Act Living
                Front Sports Act Living
                Front. Sports Act. Living
                Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2624-9367
                03 June 2024
                2024
                : 6
                : 1416690
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Department of Health Sciences, School of Sciences, European University Cyprus , Nicosia, Cyprus
                [ 2 ]Department of Physiotherapy, Aegean College , Athens, Greece
                [ 3 ]Laboratory of Biomechanics, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Peloponnese , Sparta, Greece
                [ 4 ]Division of Sport, Health, and Exercise Sciences, Brunel University London , Uxbridge, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Gary B. Wilkerson, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, United States

                Reviewed by: Jennifer Hogg, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, United States

                Luciana Labanca, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute (IRCCS), Italy

                [* ] Correspondence: Amir A. Mohagheghi amir.mohagheghi@ 123456brunel.ac.uk
                Article
                10.3389/fspor.2024.1416690
                11180725
                38887689
                f22ae51a-cfb9-460b-ad67-41aaede3cedb
                © 2024 Pamboris, Pavlou, Paraskevopoulos and Mohagheghi.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 12 April 2024
                : 20 May 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 11, Equations: 0, References: 79, Pages: 0, Words: 0
                Funding
                The authors declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
                Categories
                Sports and Active Living
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation

                knee,anterior cruciate ligament,open kinetic chain,close kinetic chain,rehabilitation,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article