Tramer, Joseph S.

Background: Quadriceps muscle atrophy remains a limiting factor in returning to activity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy may accelerate quadriceps strengthening in the perioperative period. Purpose: To evaluate postoperative isometric quadriceps strength in patients who underwent ACLR with a perioperative BFR program. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Patients indicated for ACLR were randomized into 2 groups, BFR and control, at their initial clinic visit. All patients underwent 2 weeks of prehabilitation preoperatively, with the BFR group performing exercises with a pneumatic cuff set to 80% limb occlusion pressure placed over the proximal thigh. All patients also underwent a standardized postoperative 12-week physical therapy protocol, with the BFR group using pneumatic cuffs during exercise. Quadriceps strength was measured as peak and mean torque during seated leg extension and presented as quadriceps index (percentage vs healthy limb). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), knee range of motion, and quadriceps circumference were also gathered at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively, and adverse effects were recorded. Results: Included were 46 patients, 22 in the BFR group (mean age, 25.4 ± 10.6 years) and 24 in the control group (mean age, 27.5 ± 12.0 years). At 6 weeks postoperatively, the BFR group demonstrated significantly greater strength compared with the controls (quadriceps index: 57% ± 24% vs 40% ± 18%; P = .029), and the BFR group had significantly better Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–Physical Function (42.69 ± 5.64 vs 39.20 ± 5.51; P = .001) and International Knee Documentation Committee (58.22 ± 7.64 vs 47.05 ± 13.50; P = .011) scores. At 6 weeks postoperatively, controls demonstrated a significant drop in the peak torque generation of the operative versus nonoperative leg. There were no significant differences in strength or PROs at 3 or 6 months postoperatively. Three patients elected to drop out of the BFR group secondary to cuff intolerance during exercise; otherwise, no other severe adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Integrating BFR into perioperative physical therapy protocols led to improved strength and increased PROs at 6 weeks after ACLR. No differences in strength or PROs were found at 3 and 6 months between the 2 groups. Registration: NCT04374968 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of a 2‐week home‐based blood flow restriction (BFR) prehabiliation program on quadriceps strength and patient‐reported outcomes prior to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods Patients presenting with an ACL tear were randomized into two groups, BFR and control, at their initial clinic visit. Quadriceps strength was measured using a handheld dynamometer in order to calculate peak force, average force, and time to peak force during seated leg extension at the initial clinic visit and repeated on the day of surgery. All patients were provided education on standardized exercises to be performed 5 days per week for 2 weeks between the initial clinic visit and date of surgery. The BFR group was instructed to perform these exercises with a pneumatic cuff set to 80% of limb occlusion pressure placed over the proximal thigh. Patient‐Reported Outcome Measurement System Physical Function (PROMIS‐PF), knee range of motion, and quadriceps circumference were gathered at the initial clinic visit and day of surgery, and patients were monitored for adverse effects. Results A total 45 patients met inclusion criteria and elected to participate. There were 23 patients randomized to the BFR group and 22 patients randomized into the control group. No significant differences were noted between the BFR and control groups in any demographic characteristics (48% vs 64% male [ P = .271] and average age 26.5 ± 12.0 vs 27.0 ± 11.0 [ P = .879] in BFR and control, respectively). During the initial clinic visit, there were no significant differences in quadriceps circumference, peak quadriceps force generation, time to peak force, average force, pain, and PROMIS scales ( P > .05 for all). Following completion of a 2‐week home prehabilitation protocol, all patients indeterminant of cohort demonstrated decreased strength loss in the operative leg compared to the nonoperative leg ( P < .05 for both) However, there were no significant differences in any strength or outcome measures between the BFR and control groups ( P > .05 for all). There were no complications experienced in either group, and both were compliant with the home‐based prehabilitation program. Conclusions A 2‐week standardized prehabilitation protocol preceding ACL reconstruction resulted in a significant improvement in personal quadriceps peak force measurements, both with and without the use of BFR. No difference in quadriceps circumference, strength, or patient reported outcomes were found between the BFR and the control group. The home‐based BFR prehabiliation protocol was found to be feasible, accessible, and well tolerated by patients. Level of Evidence Level II, randomized controlled trial with small effect size

Background: Multimodal pain protocols have been effective for postsurgical pain control; however, no published protocol has been effective in eliminating opioid consumption. Purpose: To compare a multimodal nonopioid pain protocol versus traditional opioid medication for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 90 patients undergoing primary ACLR were assessed for participation. We performed a prospective, randomized controlled trial in accordance with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 statement. The study arms were a multimodal nonopioid analgesic protocol (acetaminophen, ketorolac, diazepam, gabapentin, and meloxicam) and a standard opioid regimen (hydrocodone-acetaminophen), and the primary outcome was postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores for 10 days. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, complications, and satisfaction. The observers were blinded, and the patients were not blinded to the intervention. Results: A total of 9 patients did not meet inclusion criteria, and 19 patients declined participation. Thus, 62 patients were analyzed, with 28 patients randomized to the opioid group and 34 to the multimodal nonopioid group. Patients receiving the multimodal nonopioid pain regimen demonstrated significantly lower VAS scores compared with patients who received opioid pain medication ( P < .05). Patients were administered the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System Pain Interference Short Form, and no significant difference was found in patients’ preoperative scores (opioid group, 58.6 ± 7.9; multimodal nonopioid group, 57.5 ± 7.4; P = .385) and 1-week postoperative scores (opioid group, 66.3 ± 8.2; multimodal nonopioid group, 61.4 ± 8.8; P = .147). When we adjusted for possible confounders (age, sex, body mass index, graft type), no significant differences in pain control were found between the 2 groups. The most common adverse effects for both groups were drowsiness and constipation, with no difference between the groups. All patients in the multimodal nonopioid group reported satisfactory pain management. Conclusions: A multimodal nonopioid pain protocol provided at least equivalent pain control compared with traditional opioid analgesics in patients undergoing ACLR. Minimal side effects, which did not differ between groups, were noted, and all patients reported satisfaction with their pain management.