ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
Comparative Analysis of Functional Outcomes of Accelerated versus Conventional Rehabilitation after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Post-operative rehabilitation is crucial for recovery following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. While accelerated protocols aim to restore knee function more quickly, there are ongoing concerns about their impact on graft stability and long-term outcomes. This study examines the differences in functional outcomes between accelerated and traditional rehabilitation methods after primary ACL reconstruction. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized study on 44 patients undergoing primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: conventional (n = 22) and accelerated rehabilitation (n = 22). Outcomes were measured preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 9 months using the Lysholm Knee Score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, visual analog scale for pain, knee range of motion (ROM), thigh circumference difference, and stability tests (Lachman, Anterior Drawer, and Pivot Shift). Results: Both rehabilitation protocols led to significant improvements in Lysholm and IKDC scores, pain levels, knee ROM, quadriceps muscle recovery, and overall clinical stability during the follow-up. The accelerated rehab group tended to recover pain, knee ROM, and patient-reported function earlier in the post-operative period, but these differences were not statistically significant. Clinical stability was consistent across both groups throughout the follow-up, with no indication that the accelerated approach compromised graft stability. By 9 months, both protocols resulted in similar functional outcomes. Conclusion: Accelerated rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction yields functional outcomes comparable to those of conventional rehabilitation without compromising knee stability. While both protocols show positive early recovery trends, they lead to comparable medium-term results. Therefore, when adequately supervised, accelerated rehab is a safe option.
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.