ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Substantial variability and inconsistent quality of publicly available rehabilitation protocols after quadriceps tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A cross-sectional analysis of academic orthopaedic surgery programmes.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft is increasingly used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), yet rehabilitation guidelines remain extrapolated from patellar tendon (PT) or hamstring tendon (HT) protocols. This cross‑sectional study evaluated publicly available postoperative rehabilitation protocols from academic orthopaedic programmes to describe their content, assess variability and identify key trends. Methods: Accredited orthopaedic residency programmes were identified through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS). A three-step systematic web-based search was conducted to identify publicly available QT-ACLR rehabilitation protocols. Protocols were included if specific to QT autografts and excluded if addressing concomitant meniscal repairs. Two independent reviewers extracted data on rehabilitation components and timelines. The proportion of protocols including each component and the median initiation time were calculated. Results: Of 219 programmes screened, 16 eligible protocols were identified. Nine were QT-specific and seven were general ACLR protocols. Key trends included: (1) use of a hinged brace locked in extension for 2-4 weeks (86.7%); (2) initiation of icing, cryotherapy and patellar mobilizations immediately postoperatively (68.8%); (3) neuromuscular electrical stimulation use within the first 4 weeks (56.2%); (4) target of full extension by 2-4 weeks and flexion by 3-4 months (100%); (5) strengthening, balance and proprioceptive training beginning between 1-3 months (93.8%-100%) and (6) return‑to‑sport (RTS) testing between 5 and 9 months, using time-based and/or criterion-based recommendations (100%). Substantial variability existed in exercise prescriptions, adjunctive therapy use and RTS criteria. Conclusions: Publicly available QT-ACLR rehabilitation protocols from academic programmes emphasize early weight-bearing, range of motion restoration and progressive strengthening but reveal considerable variability in timing, adjunctive therapies and RTS guidelines. Many protocols mirror those for PT and HT autografts rather than being tailored to QT-specific considerations. Standardized, evidence-based rehabilitation guidelines that address graft-specific risks, psychological readiness and telehealth delivery are needed to optimize outcomes following QT-ACLR. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.