Reconsideration of Return-to-Sport Decision-Making After Pediatric ACL Injury: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Context:

Up to 90% of pediatric athletes return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R); however, <50% RTS at the same level and second ACL injury rates are up to 32%.

Objectives:

(1) Determine which physical and patient-reported outcome measures guide clinical decision-making on RTS in pediatric athletes after ACL-R and (2) present a framework with insights from cognitive and neurophysiological domains to enhance rehabilitation outcomes.

Data Sources:

PubMed, CINAHL, Embrase, and Cochrane library databases and gray literature.

Study Selection:

Data on pediatric (<18 years) ACL-R patients, RTS, tests, and decision-making were reported in 1214 studies. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstract, excluding 962 studies. Gray literature and cross-reference checking resulted in 7 extra studies for full-text screening of 259 studies. Final data extraction was from 63 eligible studies.

Study Design:

Scoping review.

Level of Evidence:

Level 4.

Data Extraction:

Details on study population, aims, methodology, intervention, outcome measures, and important results were collected in a data chart.

Results:

Studies included 4456 patients (mean age, 14 years). Quadriceps and hamstring strength (n = 25), knee ligament arthrometer (n = 24), and hop tests (n = 22) were the most-reported physical outcome measures guiding RTS in <30% of studies with cutoff scores of limb symmetry index (LSI) ≥85% or arthrometer difference <3 mm. There were 19 different patient-reported outcome measures, most often reporting the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) (n = 24), Lysholm (n = 23), and Tegner (n = 15) scales. Only for the IKDC was a cutoff value of 85% reported.

Conclusion:

RTS clearance in pediatric ACL-R patients is not based on clear criteria. If RTS tests were performed, outcomes did not influence time of RTS. Postoperative LSI thresholds likely overestimate knee function since biomechanics are impaired despite achieving RTS criteria. RTS should be considered a continuum, and biomechanical parameters and contextual rehab should be pursued with attention to the individual, task, and environment. There is a need for psychological monitoring of the ACL-R pediatric population.

Keywords

ACL injury ACL reconstruction pediatric return to sport

The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in young athletes (<18 years) has increased by 23% annually over the last 2 decades in both skeletally mature and immature children.¹⁰ A subsequent increase of 74% to 174% of ACL reconstructions (ACL-R) was reported in this time period.^17,100,103 However, surgical or nonsurgical management of ACL injuries in pediatric athletes remains a topic of controversy.

Return-to-sport (RTS) rates after ACL-R in young athletes have been reported to be as high as 90%.^9,25,49,64 However, 46% to 84% return to a lower level of sport than their preinjury level.⁹ For example, 37% of those participating at level 1 type of sport (pivoting contact sports) before injury were active at level 2 type of sport (pivoting noncontact sports) after ACL injury.⁸ It is also of great concern that RTS is associated with a high rate of second ACL injury, which is reported to be as high as 32%.^9,25 Of those, 19% are graft ruptures, 13% contralateral injuries, and 1% of patients sustain both.^9,25 Of those reinjuries, 78% occur before the age of 20 years.⁹ The risk of sustaining a graft injury after the first 12 months post ACL-R, is as high as 83%,^5,9 and still unacceptable high (67%) after the second year postsurgery.⁹

The high rates of second ACL injury highlight the need for secondary injury prevention. This would be preferably incorporated in the RTS decision-making process after pediatric ACL-R. There is a paucity of literature about RTS criteria for pediatric athletes after ACL-R. There is no consensus on RTS criteria to determine if a pediatric patient is ready to participate in sport again, and the validity of the current criteria remains unknown.⁵ Recently, a scoping review presented an overview on the RTS tests used, showing sparse evidence for specific testing regarding RTS in children after ACL-R.²⁶

RTS testing has been studied extensively in adults with ACL injury. The difference between the affected and nonaffected leg is assessed using the limb symmetry index (LSI) and typically used to detect deficits in a hop test battery. An LSI >90% for hop distance is recommended as the RTS cutoff value.⁵⁴ This is also considered the cutoff value for quadriceps (QS) and hamstring strength (HS).⁴⁰ In pediatric ACL-R patients, the validity of these tests remains unknown.⁵

Young athletes perform not only closed motor tasks like hopping.⁶ In open skilled sports (eg, football, handball), athletes are subject to continuous change of playing situations. The capacity to anticipate is essential and a broad spectrum of motor skills is needed to participate fully in sports. This puts more cognitive load on the ACL-injured pediatric athlete since they experience a higher cognitive load to precise joint position and motor control during functional motor tasks.³⁶

Moreover, not being psychologically ready may negatively impact on RTS outcomes,²⁷ and therefore the psychological readiness to RTS needs to be evaluated.^5,41,70

The aims of this scoping review were to (1) identify which physical outcome measures (POMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) should be considered to guide clinical decision-making on RTS in pediatric skeletally immature and mature ACL-R athletes and (2) present a framework integrating cognitive and neurophysiological principles to assessment and rehabilitation in these patients.

Methods

In this study, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist together with the PROSPERO Protocol for Systematic reviews. This study was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9b5mu).

Data Search

The following databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The following Mesh terms were used: ‘Anterior Cruciate Ligament’ AND ‘Pediatric’ AND ‘Return to sport.’ Search terms were adjusted for the specific database (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart article selection.⁷¹ PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses; RTS, return to sport.

Appendix 1, available in the online version of this article, describes further details about the literature search.

Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they (1) contained information on (1) athletes <18 years of age; (2) athletes with ACL-R (with and/or without associated lesions) treated either surgically or nonsurgically; (3) POM and/or PROM for RTS testing and/or RTS criteria; and if they (4) had full text available in (5) English or Dutch language. All study levels, except scoping reviews, were included. Gray literature was also searched. Studies on bony ACL lesions (avulsions) and animal studies were excluded.

The data search was performed incorporating literature up to November 21, 2021. Two authors independently reviewed titles, abstract, and full-text articles using Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai/). Any disagreements about the interpretation of the results were resolved by discussion. A third reviewer was consulted in case of any disagreement. Crossreference checking was performed to retrieve additional studies at the final stage of selection. One reviewer charted the retrieved data separately. The data were collected in 2 separate data searches, as was the reviewing process, which had a Kappa agreement of 0.77.

Data Charting Process

A data chart was created to assist structured data extraction. Details on study population, aims of the study, methodology, intervention type, outcome measures, and important results were collected.

Results

Search Results of This Study

A total of 1214 studies were included for title and abstract screening. After screening, 259 potentially relevant studies were retrieved. Of these, 58 annual meeting reports were excluded. From the remaining 201 studies, 65 were excluded as these reported on athletes aged ≥18 years. In addition, we excluded 62 studies as these lacked information about RTS and/or criteria, 5 studies that did not contain information about ACL injury or reconstruction, 2 that were duplicate records, 3 based on study type, and 1 as a published research protocol without any data. Consequently, a total of 63 studies were included for analyses.

Data Extraction

Participant Characteristics

The total number of included patients was 4456. The mean age of athletes was 14 years (range, 5.7-18.0 years). Some studies did not report the distribution of boys and girls. When reported, there were 2024 girls and 2071 boys in total. Table 1 presents patient demographics and Figure 2 the type of sport they participated.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics

Study Type
	Cohort	23 (37%)^{2,8,24,28,35,43,45,47,48,60,62,63,74,76,78,80,84,86,87,99,101–104}
	Cross-sectional	7 (11%)^{13,18,39,52,69,89,98}
	Case seriesProspectiveRetrospective	27 (43%)8 (13%)^{1,23,29,30,34,38,56,68} 19 (30%)^{11,15,16,19,22,29,32,50,55,65,73,75,77,79,82,83,85,94,96,97}
	(Randomized) controlled trial	6 (10%)^{21,27,44,57,66,90}
Participants^a		4456
	Girls	2024
	Boys	2071
Age, y	14 (range, 5.2-18)
Skeletal maturation
	Skeletally immature (n = 1076)	33 (52%)^{2,8,11,15,19,22-24,28,38,45,48,55,56,60,62,63,69,72,75-77,79,80,84-86,88,90,96,101-103}
	Age, y	12.9 (range, 5-17)
	Skeletally mature (n = 272)	4 (7%)^15,23,79,82
	Age, y	16.4 (range, 12-18)
	Maturation unknown/undescribed (n = 2987)	31 (49%)^{1,13,16,18,21,27,30,32,34,35,39,43,44,47,48,50,52,57,62,65,66,68,73,74,78,83,87,94,97-99}
	Age, y	14.5 (range, 6.3-18.0)

Not all studies specified the numbers of girls and boys.

Figure 2.

Distribution of sport types.

Physical Outcome Measures

The studies reported on a wide range of POMs for testing, mostly closed tasks and strength tests and, though to a much lesser extent, RTS decision-making criteria. Table 2 lists the number of studies reporting on POMs. Table 3 lists all the tests used for decision-making and, when reported, also the RTS cutoff point values.

Table 2.

Number of studies describing the physical outcome measures

POMs	No. of Studies (%)
QS^{1,11,13,21,24,32,35,38,39,45,47,56,65,66,68,73,74,79,83,89,90,97,99,102}	24 (38)
KT-1000^{2,8,11,15,19,22-24,34,35,38,45,55,56,61,65,69,72,77,80,84,94,97,98}	24 (38)
Hop testing (total)^{1,11,13,20,32,35,38,39,45,47,56,65,66,68,73,74,79,83,89,90,97,102}	22 (35)
Different hop test used^a
Single hop for distance	17 (27)
Triple hop	11 (17)
Side hop	1 (2)
Vertical jump	1 (2)
Cross-over hop	8 (13)
6-m timed hop	8 (13)
Not specified	5 (7)
HS^{1,18,19,23,34,38,47,56,60,65,72-74,77,83,89,90,102}	18 (29)
HA strength^74,89,90	3 (5)
Y-Balance^{13,30,83,89,90}	5 (8)
Agility testing⁶⁰	1 (2)
Plyometric jumps⁴⁴	1 (2)
QMA-RTS⁵⁷	1 (2)
Vail sport test³³	1 (2)
GNRB system⁸⁶	1 (2)
Deep squat hurdle step¹⁵	1 (2)
Inline lunge¹⁵	1 (2)
Active straight leg raise trunk stability push-up¹⁵	1 (2)
Rotatory stability¹⁵	1 (2)
Modified long shuttle run⁶⁸	1 (2)
T-test⁶⁸	1 (2)
Squat³⁸	1 (2)
Single-leg stance³⁸	1 (2)
8 inch forward step³⁸	1 (2)
Single-leg squat³⁸	1 (2)
Jump in place³⁸	1 (2)
Run forward and back peddle³⁸	1 (2)
Shuttle run³⁸	1 (2)
Sprint stop and go on command³⁸	1 (2)
Cutting 90° ³⁸	1 (2)
Inside shuffle 90° ³⁸	1 (2)

Some studies used a test battery of hop test. That is why the total number of different hop tests exceeds 100%.

GNRB, Genourob; HA, hip abduction; HS, hamstring strength; POMs, physical outcome measures, QMA-RTS, Quality of Movement Assessment for Return to Sport; QS, quadriceps strength

Table 3.

Overview of the tests used and RTS cutoff point values

Skeletally Immature				Skeletally Mature or Unknown
	RTS Testing	RTS Decision-Making^a	RTS Cutoff Point Values	RTS Testing	RTS Decision-Making	RTS Cutoff Point Values
POM
Hop testing	10 (16%)	5 (8%)	LSI ≥90% ^{45,56,79,89,102}	13 (21%)	6 (10%)	LSI >85%^{13,20, 39,47,73, 79,83,99}
QS	13 (21%)	6 (10%)	LSI 85-90% ^{8,56,61,89,102} or 85% BW²	8 (13%)	5 (8%)	LSI >85%^{20,47,73,83,87,99}
HS	10 (16%)	5 (8%)	LSI ≥90% ^56,60,89,102 or 85% BW²	8 (13%)	2 (3%)	LSI >90%^47,73,83
HA strength	2 (3%)	1 (2%)	LSI ≥90%⁸⁹	1 (2%)	-	-
Y-Balance	2 (3%)	1 (2%)	LSI ≥90%⁸⁹	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	<4 cm difference (anterior reach)^13,83
KT-1000	18 (29%)	1 (2%)	<3 mm²	7 (11%)	1 (2%)	<2 mm⁹⁸
ROM of the knee joint	-	-	-	2 (3%)	2 (3%)	Symmetrical or <5 difference^13,98
PROM
IKDC	12 (19%)	1 (2%)	IKDC >85⁷⁹	12 (19%)	3 (5%)	IKDC >85^13,47,79
Pedi-IKDC	5 (3%)	-	-	4 (6%)	-
KOOS	2 (3%)	-	-	2 (3%)	-
ACL-RSI	1 (1%)	-	-	3 (5%)	-	-
Lysholm	14 (22%)	-	-	6 (10%)	-
Tegner	8 (13%)	-	-	6 (10%)	-
HSS PEDI FABS	2 (3%)	-	-	1 (2%)	-
MARS	1 (2%)	-	-	-	-
KOSDLS	-	-	-	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	≥ 90%²⁰
Time RTS	(No earlier than) 6-12 months^{15,56,60,63,84,102}			8-10 months (at least)^15,73,98

Number of studies describing RTS decision-making. Three studies had information about both skeletally mature and immature patients^15,23,79 these studies therefore are mentioned in both sections, skeletally immature and skeletally mature.

ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACL-RSI, ACL-Return to Sport after Injury scale; BW, body weight; HA, hip abduction; HS, hamstring strength; HSS PEDI FABS, Hospital for Special Surgery Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; KOSDLS, Knee Outcome Survey activities of Daily Living scale; KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; LSI, limb symmetry index; MARS, MARX Activity rating Scale; POM, physical outcome measure; PROM, patient-reported outcome measure; QS, quadriceps strength; RTS, return to sport.

In the included studies, 19 different questionnaires were used. The questionnaires reported were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) in 25 studies (38%),^{1,3,11,13,19,22,24,28,34,35,43,45,47,62,63,65,74,77-79,82,84,86,96,98} Pediatric (Pedi)IKDC in 11 studies (17%),^{18,30,32,50,55,78,83,96,101-103} Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in 4 studies (6%),^27,74,80,86 the ACL-Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI) in 5 studies (8%),^{18,30,52,57,102} the Lysholm score in 23 studies (37%),^{8,16,19,22,24,32,35,45,50,55,62,63,65,72,75-77,80,82,83,85,94,101} the Tegner in 15 studies (23%),^{16,27,28,46,50,55,62,63,75-77,82-84,101} the MARX Activity Rating Scale (MARS) in 1 study (2%),²⁴ the Hospital for Special Surgery Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (HSS PEDI FABS) in 4 studies (6%),^24,30,78,103 and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) was used in 3 studies (5%).^75,76,97 The following outcome measures were used once (2% of studies): the Knee Outcome Survey of Daily Living Scale (KOSDLS),²⁰ the Functional Knee Scoring Measure,⁵⁰ the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11),²⁷ the Athlete Fear of Avoidance Questionnaire (AFAQ),²⁷ International Society of the Knee Questionnaire,⁶⁹ and the Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PEDI-PROMIS).⁶⁹ One study used both the VAS and the Knee Outcome Survey Activity of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADLS).⁶⁵ The following 4 questionnaires were used in the same study (2%): Athletic coping scale-28 (ACSI28), Athletic Identity Measurement Scale (AIMS), Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) and the Impact of event scale (IES).³⁰ Note that the sum of percentages presented exceeds 100% as >1 questionnaire was used in various studies.

Discussion

The main outcome of this scoping review was that clearance for RTS in pediatric patients after ACL-R is not based on clear criteria. Although some form of RTS testing was performed in the included studies, no consequences were attached to the outcomes of these tests in 70% of cases, so RTS criteria were applied in only 30% of the studies. In those cases, the same cutoff values for adults were also used for pediatric patients.

PROMs were not applied consistently, including psychological readiness, the latter being used in only 6% (n = 4) of the studies. We will discuss our findings below. The LSI is used commonly to assess for differences in function between limbs. This review showed that LSI ≥85% cutoff criterion was used for RTS for hop testing and both QS and HS for pediatric athletes after ACL-R. These cutoff scores were the subject of vigorous debate. In adults, only 50% of patients who RTS after ACLR passed the criterion LSI ≥90%.⁹¹ In healthy youth athletes, 95% were able to pass 1 of the hop tests (LSI ≥90%); however, this dropped to only 45% when all 4 hop test criteria had to be met.⁵⁸ Applying criteria from adult populations to pediatric patients seems a priori invalid; the appropriateness of these tests to serve RTS decision-making in pediatric athletes should be questioned.

Regarding hop testing in skeletally immature patients, it has been postulated that quality of movement should be assessed rather than LSI alone.⁵ This was underpinned recently in adults,^53,54 where those scoring within cutoffs of LSI of 90% were still found to demonstrate clear kinematic deficits. Incorporating the assessment of quality of movement in RTS clearance in pediatric athletes after ACL-R was also proposed by Dietvorst et al.²⁶

Isokinetic strength testing of QS and HS showed larger measurement errors in children than in adults and, as such, should be interpreted with caution.⁵ Despite this, QS and HS testing was used widely in RTS decision-making in pediatric ACL-R patients (usually with cutoff LSI>90%^{2,8,20,47,56,60,73,87,91,99,102}). Hannon et al⁴² studied differences in muscle strength between noninjured type 1 (pivoting) young athletes (mean age, 14.9 years) and ACL-injured patients (mean age, 15.6 years). They found a 26% decrease in QS of the nonaffected leg in ACL-injured patients over time. When the nonaffected leg was considered to be the 100% reference, this indicated that QS of the ACL-R side is then only 74% upon RTS. Using an LSI ≥90% for RTS clearance for the affected leg as acceptable indicates that, upon RTS, QS may still only be at a 64% level of functioning.⁴² Applying LSI in this manner likely increases the risk for the young ACL-R athlete as strength will be overestimated despite using the ≥90% threshold.

The limited use of the clear RTS criteria and the high number of reruptures warrant further research. Quantitative values were used to assist RTS clearance, but LSI symmetry may exist when quality of movement is still largely different.⁵⁴ Knee function was thus then likely overestimated when using the current quantitative RTS clearance criteria. Specific tests should be sought for the developing child and should be based on more than just kilograms, distance, or seconds. Quality of movement assessment may thus be the next valuable step in RTS decision-making in young patients.

Emerging evidence is addressing the importance of psychological status in RTS after ACL-R.^7,92 The use of PROMs in pediatric ACL-R patients was rare, and the outcomes overall seem not to be weighted in the RTS decision-making process. Only 4 of the included studies used an RTS cutoff value. The only PROM with RTS cutoff values specified was a score <85 for the IKDC^13,47,79 and ≥90% for the KOSDLS.²⁰

The PEDI-IKDC, specifically designed for children with knee disorders, is valid.^51,95 However, we found that the adult version of the questionnaire was used in pediatric ACL-R patients rather than the pediatric version.

Psychological readiness is of current interest in ACL rehab and RTS. Fear of reinjury, perceived functional limitations, decreased quality of life, and changes in social roles all impact negatively upon the rehabilitation process.²⁷ In young athletes, a correlation was found between knee function and self-esteem, mental health, emotional role, and social limitations.¹⁴ This suggests that quality of life in this population is affected by physical limitations as a result of knee joint dysfunction. It was suggested that young patients are affected differently than adults by an ACL injury, as emotional functioning of pediatric patients was likely more affected in than adults.¹⁴ This shines a light on the important dark sides of long-lasting disability and the time-consuming rehabilitation processes, especially in this specific young group and has direct implications for improving quality of rehabilitation, with elements that need to be addressed for this young population. Fun can be targeted, for example, by using gamification or appealing to the preferred sport context, especially in the early phases. This will likely increase compliance and eventually rehabilitation outcomes.

RTS is not a single moment at the end of the rehabilitation process. RTS is considered to be a continuum, starting during rehabilitation, and task and context is applied more and more to prepare the injured athlete to perform again.⁶ This indicates that certain cutoff values are prerequisites that guide taking a next step in the process. Of the 4 ACL injuries, 3 are noncontact by nature, implying that movement patterns (local joint kinematics or whole-body kinematics) may matter when it comes to staying safe after an ACL injury.^4,12 Only with proper loading and sufficient demands during rehabilitation is there optimal preparation for sustainable knee function.

Despite ACL-R, abnormal movement patterns were reported consistently in the literature.^53,54 This raises questions regarding whether common rehabilitation strategies are sufficient to target aberrant movement. In pediatrics, learning new motor skills through an external focus of attention and implicit learning are often described.^31,37,59,93 Rehabilitation using external focus and implicit learning seems promising as movement patterns transfer to sports and could therefore be a sustainable solution for movement skills, reducing the risk of graft rupture.³⁷ RTS should therefore include improving motor patterns and thus quality of movement should be incorporated into rehabilitation.³⁶

We propose that movement quality be assessed not only in closed motor tasks like hopping but also in tasks that align with the sport-specific context.

There should preferably be attention on several factors during the rehabilitation process: the individual athlete (body-joint kinematic, movement pattern, and learning ability), task, and environment.⁶⁷ Athletic performance depends on all 3 factors, so if a performance deficit remains regarding 1 of these, this will likely have a negative impact upon total performance and increase the (re-)injury risk.

Figure 3 shows that movement patterns and perception likely relate to injury. There are 3 types of mechanical factors related to an ACL injury. Suboptimal local joint pattern, kinematics in the whole-body kinematic, and a (non)contact trauma.

Figure 3.

Example football dynamic system (modified from Mullally and Clark⁶⁷).

Knowledge of the mechanical factors and an effective intervention may prevent a secondary injury in the future. An ACL injury can occur in a direct contact situation with an opponent or in an indirect noncontact situation with or without an opponent. Direct contact is hard to prevent in the future, but movement strategies in indirect or noncontact situations can be trained, aiming to prevent a secondary knee/ACL injury in the future.⁶⁷

Early specialization is increasing in youth sports, resulting in less broad motor skill development in children. There is a long competition season, with increasing pressure on younger athletes.²⁴ Also, children seem to be less fit than 40 years ago, which includes a decrease in neuromotor fitness (ie, muscle strength, flexibility, speed of movement, and coordination), both negatively affecting the young athlete’s activity level as well as long-term health. This may result in a higher risk of injury, including sports injuries like those of the ACL.⁸¹

There is still no consensus or sustainable solution regarding RTS in pediatric ACL-R patients. Current practice is still derived from the adult and skeletally mature patient. But, at 3-year post surgery, about 19% suffer a graft rerupture and around 13% sustain a contralateral ACL injury.²⁵ This suggests that we are still insufficiently able to determine whether an ACL-R pediatric patient is ready to return to pivoting sports safely.

The most important limitation of this study was that some more data seemed to be available but not usable within the stated inclusion criteria. Attempts were made to get in touch with the authors of these studies, but due to (1) no response to the email or (2) being unable to provide separate data for participants under the age of 18, these data could unfortunately not be included in this review.

This study does not describe different types of grafts or operation techniques, such as physeal-sparing ACL-R, partial transphyseal, or transphyseal techniques, and does not provide any information about risk related to graft maturation.

In addition, there is a paucity of literature pertaining effectiveness of pre- and postoperative bracing in pediatric ACL-injured athletes.

Clinical Relevance

A safe and successful RTS after pediatric ACL-R should be established and several factors then considered. A minimal assessment should entail hop testing, incorporating movement quality as well as QS and HS testing. A minimum LSI of 90% must be pursued for HS and QS as well as for the hop tests, and postinjury data should be collected as early as possible after trauma as these will serve as reference to strive for during rehabilitation. Quality of movement such as ‘soft landing’ during the hop tests is essential as stiff landing strategies may result in larger stress on the ACL.⁵³ New sensor technology will allow clinicians to collect kinematic data so they will have insight into movement quality, not only in the clinical situation but also in the sport-specific tasks and context.³⁶ This is a new domain to be discovered in the near future.

A minimum score of 85% should be strived for on the Pedi-IKDC score. Readiness to RTS should be monitored during the rehabilitation process and not only at the end stage at RTS testing. Also, psychological health should be subject of ongoing attention as quality of life is likely to be impaired in this young age group after knee injury.

Transferring the skills learned from a rehabilitation setting toward the specific sporting context is an import not-to-be-missed aspect of the RTS continuum. So rehabilitation should, for example, take place on the field or athletic track at some stage. Having a prosperous rehabilitation or not, the advice is to wait at least 9 months after ACL-R before RTS, and in pivoting sport this should be a minimum of 12 months as longer RTS duration is associated with a lower reinjury risk.⁵

Conclusion

A wide set of POMs and PROMs are available for assessment after pediatric ACL-R. Clear criteria are rarely applied to guide RTS decision-making. Currently used LSI thresholds likely overestimate knee function: knee function of the nonaffected knee deteriorates, and biomechanics are likely still impaired when limb symmetry is within previously reported ranges. In the absence of functional assessment, insufficient knee function will remain undiscovered. Testing to aid RTS decision-making should include the individual (biomechanics), task (sport type), and environment. Psychological monitoring is essential in this young population with knee injury.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sph-10.1177_19417381221146538 – Supplemental material for Reconsideration of Return-to-Sport Decision-Making After Pediatric ACL Injury: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sph-10.1177_19417381221146538 for Reconsideration of Return-to-Sport Decision-Making After Pediatric ACL Injury: A Scoping Review by Anne Hendrika Johanna Pauw, Tristan Marcel Frank Buck, Alli Gokeler and Igor Joeri Ramon Tak in Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Footnotes

The authors report no potential conflicts of interest in the development and publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Anne Hendrika Johanna Pauw

References

Akinleye

Sewick

Wells

. All-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction: a three-year follow-up. Int J Sport Phys Ther. 20213;8(3):300-310.

Andrews

Noyes

Barber-Westin

. Anterior cruciate ligament allograft reconstruction in the skeletally immature athlete. Am J Sport Med. 1994;22(1):48-54.

Ardern

Taylor

Feller

Webster

. Returning to sport after ACL reconstruction varies according to different physical functioning and contextual factors. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;18:e44.

Ardern

Ekas

Grindem

, et al. 2018 International Olympic Committee consensus statement on prevention, diagnosis, and management of pediatric anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(3):232596711875995.

Ardern

Ekås

Grindem

, et al. 2018 International Olympic Committee consensus statement on prevention, diagnosis and management of paediatric anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(7):422-438.

Ardern

Glasgow

Schneiders

, et al. 2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(14):853-864.

Armento

Albright

Skelton

, et al. Abstract of Pre-operative competition level and expectations of returning to sport after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Clin J Sport Med. 2019;29:102.

Aronowitz

Ganley

Goode

Gregg

Meyer

. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescents with open physes. Am J Sport Med. 2000;28(2):168-175.

Astur

Novaretti

J V

Cavalcante

ELB

, et al. Pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reruptures are related to lower functional scores at the time of return to activity: a prospective, midterm follow-up study. Orthop J Sport Med. 2019;7(12):2325967119888888.

10.

Beck

Lawrence

JTR

Nordin

DeFor

Tompkins

. ACL tears in school-aged children and adolescents over 20 years. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3):e20161877.

11.

Bigoni

Gaddi

Gorla

, et al. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears in skeletally immature patients: surgical technique and preliminary results. Knee. 2017;24(1):40-48.

12.

Boden

Sheehan

Torg

Hewett

. Non-contact ACL injuries: mechanisms and risk factors. Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(9):520-527.

13.

Boo

Garrison

Hannon

, et al. Energy absorption contribution and strength in female athletes at return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison with healthy controls. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(3):2325967118759522.

14.

Boykin

McFeely

Shearer

, et al. Correlation between the child health questionnaire and the international knee documentation committee score in pediatric and adolescent patients with an anterior cruciate ligament tear.J Pediatr Orthop. 2013;33(2):216-220.

15.

Boyle

Butler

Queen

. Functional movement competency and dynamic balance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent patients.J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36(1):36-41.

16.

Britt

Ouillette

Edmonds

, et al. The challenges of treating female soccer players with acl injuries: hamstring versus bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. Orthop J Sport Med. 2020;8(11):2325967120964884.

17.

Buller

Best

Baraga

Kaplan

. Trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Orthop J Sport Med. 2015;3(1):2325967114563664.

18.

Burland

Kostyun

Solomito

Nissen

Milewski

. Clinical outcome measures and return-to-sport timing in adolescent athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Athl Train. 2018;53(5):442-451.

19.

Calvo

Figueroa

Gili

, et al. Transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with open physes: 10-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2): 289-294.

20.

Capin

Khandha

Zarzycki

Manal

Buchanan

Snyder-Mackler

. Gait mechanics and second ACL rupture: implications for delaying return-to-sport. J Orthop Res. 2017;35(9):1894-1901.

21.

Capin

Khandha

Zarzycki

, et al. Gait mechanics and tibiofemoral loading in men of the ACL-SPORTS randomized control trial. J Orthop Res. 2018;36(9):2364-2372.

22.

Cohen

Ferretti

Quarteiro

, et al. Transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with open physes. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(8):831-838.

23.

Cordasco

Black

Price

, et al. Return to sport and re-operation rates in athletes under the age of 20 following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: risk profile comparing three patient groups predicated upon skeletal age. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(3):628-639.

24.

Cordasco

Mayer

Graziano

, et al. All-inside, all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction in skeletally immature athletes: incidence of second surgery and two-year clinical outcomes. Orthop J Sport Med. 2015;3(7 suppl2):2325967115S00076.

25.

Dekker

Godin

Dale

Garrett

Taylor

Riboh

. Return to sport after pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and its effect on subsequent anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2017;99(11):897-904.

26.

Dietvorst

Brzoskowski

van der Steen

Delvaux

Janssen

RPA

Van Melick

. Limited evidence for return to sport testing after ACL reconstruction in children and adolescents under 16 years: a scoping review. J Exp Orthop. 2020;7(1):83.

27.

DiSanti

Lisee

Erickson

Bell

Shingles

Kuenze

. Perceptions of rehabilitation and return to sport among high school athletes with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a qualitative research study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018;48(12):951-959.

28.

Domzalski

Karauda

Grzegorzewski

Lebiedzinski

Zabierek

Synder

. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the transphyseal technique in prepubescent athletes: midterm, prospective evaluation of results. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(6):1141-1146.

29.

Ebert

Edwards

Du Preez

Furzer

Joss

. Knee extensor strength, hop performance, patient-reported outcome and inter-test correlation in patients 9-12 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2021;30:176-184. PMID: 33940305

30.

Ellis

Sabatino

Nwelue

Wagner

III Force

Wilson

. The use of psychological patient reported outcome measures to identify adolescent athletes at risk for prolonged recovery following an ACL reconstruction. J Pediatr Orthop. 2020;40(9):e844-e852. PMID: 32658154

31.

Flôres

Schild

JFG

Chiviacowsky

. Benefits of external focus instructions on the learning of a balance task in children of different ages. Int J Sport Psychol. 2015;46(4):311-320.

32.

Gagliardi

Carry

Parikh

Albright

. Outcomes of quadriceps tendon with patellar bone block anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(1):93-98.

33.

Garrison

Bothwell

Wolf

Aryal

Thigpen

. Y balance test^TM anterior reach symmetry at three months is related to single leg functional performance at time of return to sports following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(5):602-611.

34.

Ghosh

Salmon

Heath

Pinczewski

Roe

. Transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using living parental donor hamstring graft: excellent clinical results at 2 years in a cohort of 100 patients. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(8):2511-2518.

35.

Goddard

Bowman

Salmon

Waller

Roe

Pinczewski

. Endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in children using living donor hamstring tendon allografts. Am J Sports Med. 41(3):567-574.

36.

Gokeler

Grassi

Hoogeslag

, et al. Return to sports after ACL injury 5 years from now: 10 things we must do. J Exp Orthop. 202230;9(1):73. Erratum in: J Exp Orthop. 2022;9(1):111.

37.

Gokeler

Neuhaus

Benjaminse

Grooms

Baumeister

. Principles of motor learning to support neuroplasticity after ACL injury: implications for optimizing performance and reducing risk of second ACL injury. Sport Med. 2019;49(6):853-865.

38.

Graziano

Chiaia

De Mille

Nawabi

Green

Cordasco

. Return to sport for skeletally immature athletes after ACL reconstruction: preventing a second injury using a quality of movement assessment and quantitative measures to address modifiable risk factors. Orthop J Sport Med. 2017;5(4):2325967117700599.

39.

Greenberg

Dyke

Leung

Karl

Lawrence

Ganley

. Uninjured youth athlete performance on single-leg hop testing: how many can achieve recommended return-to-sport criterion? Sports Health. 2020;12(6):552-558 .

40.

Grindem

Snyder-Mackler

Moksnes

Engebretsen

Risberg

. Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(13):804-808.

41.

Gustavsson

Neeter

Thomeé

, et al. A test battery for evaluating hop performance in patients with an ACL injury and patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(8):778-788.

42.

Hannon

Wang-Price

Goto

Garrison

Bothwell

. Do muscle strength deficits of the uninvolved hip and knee exist in young athletes before anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Orthop J Sport Med. 2017;5(1):2325967116683941.

43.

Heath

Salmon

Cooper

Pappas

Roe

Pinczewski

. 5-Year survival of pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with living donor hamstring tendon grafts. Am J Sport Med. 2019;47:41-51.

44.

Hildebrandt

Müller

Zisch

Huber

Fink

Raschner

. Functional assessments for decision-making regarding return to sports following ACL reconstruction. Part I: development of a new test battery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(5):1273-1281.

45.

Hui

Roe

Ferguson

Waller

Salmon

Pinczewski

. Outcome of anatomic transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in Tanner stage 1 and 2 patients with open physes. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1093-1098.

46.

Ithurburn

Longfellow

Thomas

Paterno

M V

Schmitt

. Knee function, strength, and resumption of preinjury sports participation in young athletes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(3):145-153.

47.

Ithurburn

Paljieg

Thomas

Hewett

Paterno

M V

Schmitt

. Strength and function across maturational levels in young athletes at the time of return to sport after ACL reconstruction. Sports Health. 2019;11(4):324-331.

48.

Jacobs

Burnham

Makhni

Malempati

Swart

Johnson

. Allograft augmentation of hamstring autograft for younger patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(4):892-899.

49.

Kay

Memon

Marx

Peterson

Simunovic

Ayeni

. Over 90% of children and adolescents return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(4):1019-1036.

50.

Kocher

Heyworth

Fabricant

Tepolt

Micheli

. Outcomes of physeal-sparing ACL reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft in skeletally immature prepubescent children. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2018;100(13):1087-1094.

51.

Kocher

Smith

Iversen

, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a modified international knee documentation committee subjective knee form (Pedi-IKDC) in children with knee disorders. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(5):933-939.

52.

Kostyun

Burl Kostyun

Milewski

Nissen

. Male and female adolescent athletes’ readiness to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. Clin J Sport Med. 2021;31(4):383-387.

53.

Kotsifaki

Korakakis

Whiteley

Van Rossom

Jonkers

. Measuring only hop distance during single leg hop testing is insufficient to detect deficits in knee function after ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(3):139-153.

54.

Kotsifaki

Whiteley

Van Rossom

, et al. Single leg hop for distance symmetry masks lower limb biomechanics: Time to discuss hop distance as decision criterion for return to sport after ACL reconstruction? Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(5):249-256 .

55.

Lanzetti

Pace

Ciompi

, et al. Over the top anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with open physes: a long-term follow-up study. Int Orthop. 2020;44(4):771-778.

56.

Lawrence

JTR

Bowers

Belding

Cody

Ganley

. All-epiphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(7):1971-1977.

57.

Ling

Chiaia

DeMille

Marx

. Return to sport testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has marginal psychological impact: a randomised controlled trial. J ISAKOS. 2019;4(1):4-8.

58.

Magill

Myers

Esposito

Messer

Lentz

Riboh

. Healthy pediatric athletes have significant baseline limb asymmetries on common return to sport performance tests. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(1):2325967120982309.

59.

Marchant

Griffiths

Partridge

Belsley

Porter

. The influence of external focus instruction characteristics on children’s motor performance. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2018;89(4):418-428.

60.

McCarroll

Rettig

Shelbourne

. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the young athlete with open physes. Am J Sports Med. 1988;16(1):44-47.

61.

McCarroll

Shelbourne

Patel

. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in young athletes: recommendations for treatment and rehabilitation. Sport Med. 1995;20(2):117-127.

62.

McCarthy

Harty

. Follow-up study on transphyseal ACL reconstruction in Irish adolescents with no cases of leg length discrepancy or angular deformity.Ir J Med Sci. 2020;189(4):1323-1329.

63.

McIntosh

Dahm

Stuart

. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the skeletally immature patient. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1325-1330.

64.

Moksnes

Engebretsen

Eitzen

Risberg

. Functional outcomes following a non-operative treatment algorithm for anterior cruciate ligament injuries in skeletally immature children 12 years and younger. A prospective cohort with 2 years follow-up. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(8):488-494.

65.

Moksnes

Engebretsen

Risberg

. Performance-based functional outcome for children 12 years or younger following anterior cruciate ligament injury: a two to nine-year follow-up study. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):214-223.

66.

Mueske

Patel

Pace

, et al. Improvements in landing biomechanics following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent athletes. Sport Biomech. 2020;19(6):738-749.

67.

Mullally

Clark

. Noncontact knee soft-tissue injury prevention considerations and practical applications for netball players. Strength Cond J. 2021;43(3):9-28.

68.

Myer

Schmitt

Brent

, et al. Utilization of modified NFL combine testing to identify functional deficits in athletes following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41(6):377-387.

69.

Nakhostine

Bollen

Cross

. Reconstruction of mid-substance anterior cruciate rupture in adolescents with open physes. J Pediatr Orthop. 1995;15(3):286-287.

70.

Noyes

Barber

Mangine

. Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after ACL rupture. Am J Sport Med. 1991;19(5):513-518.

71.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

72.

Parker

Drez

Jr Cooper

. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in patients with open physes. Am J Sport Med. 1994;22(1):44-47.

73.

Patel

Bram

Talathi

Defrancesco

Lawrence

JTR

Ganley

. Which children are at risk for contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury after ipsilateral reconstruction? J Pediatr Orthop. 2020;40(4):162-167.

74.

Paterno

Huang

Thomas

Hewett

Schmitt

. Clinical factors that predict a second ACL injury after ACL reconstruction and return to sport: preliminary development of a clinical decision algorithm. Orthop J Sport Med. 2017;5(12):2325967117745279.

75.

Pennock

Chambers

Turk

Parvanta

Dennis

Edmonds

. Use of a modified all-epiphyseal technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the skeletally immature patient. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(7):2325967118781769.

76.

Pennock

Johnson

Turk

, et al. Transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the skeletally immature: quadriceps tendon autograft versus hamstring tendon autograft. Orthop J Sport Med. 2019;7(9):2325967119872450.

77.

Placella

Bartoli

Peruzzi

Speziali

Pace

Cerulli

. Return to sport activity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature athletes with manual drilling original all inside reconstruction at 8 years follow-up. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(6):635-638.

78.

Ranade

Refakis

Cruz

, et al. Validated pediatric functional outcomes of all-epiphyseal ACL reconstructions: does reinjury affect outcomes? J Pediatr Orthop. 2020;40(4):157–161.

79.

Reinhardt

Hammoud

Bowers

Umunna

Cordasco

. Revision ACL reconstruction in skeletally mature athletes younger than 18 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 470(3):835-842.

80.

Roberti

Sarsina

Macchiarola

Signorelli

, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with an all-epiphyseal “over-the-top” technique is safe and shows low rate of failure in skeletally immature athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;27(2):498-506.

81.

Runhaar

Collard

DCM

Singh

Kemper

HCG

van Mechelen

Chinapaw

. Motor fitness in Dutch youth: differences over a 26-year period (1980-2006).J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13:323-328.

82.

Saper

Pearce

Shung

, et al. Outcomes and return to sport after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent athletes. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(4):2325967118764884.

83.

Saper

Wong

Strauss

. Adolescent patients exhibit significant improvements in strength and functional performance from 6 to 9 months after ACL reconstruction with quadriceps autograft. Arthrosc Sport Med Rehabil. 2021;3(3):e837-e843.

84.

Schmale

Kweon

Larson

Bompadre

. High satisfaction yet decreased activity 4 years after transphyseal ACL reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 472(7):2168-2174.

85.

Seon

Song

Yoon

Park

. Transphyseal reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring autograft in skeletally immature adolescents. J Korean Med Sci. 20(6):1034-1038.

86.

Severyns

Lucas

Jallageas

, et al. ACL reconstruction in 11 children using the Clocheville surgical technique: objective and subjective evaluation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(4 Suppl):S205-S208.

87.

Shelbourne

Sullivan

Bohard

Gray

Urch

. Return to basketball and soccer after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in competitive school-aged athletes. Sports Health. 2009;1(3):236-241.

88.

Sugimoto

Heyworth

Brodeur

Kramer

Kocher

Micheli

. Effect of graft type on balance and hop tests in adolescent males following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;28(5):468-475.

89.

Sugimoto

Heyworth

Carpenito

Davis

Kocher

Micheli

. Low proportion of skeletally immature patients met return-to-sports criteria at 7 months following ACL reconstruction. Phys Ther Sport. 2020;44:143-150.

90.

Sugimoto

Heyworth

Collins

Fallon

Kocher

Micheli

. Comparison of lower extremity recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transphyseal hamstring versus extraphyseal iliotibial band techniques in skeletally immature athletes. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(4):2325967118768044.

91.

Thomeé

Kaplan

Kvist

, et al. Muscle strength and hop performance criteria prior to return to sports after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(11):1798-1805.

92.

Truong

Mosewich

Holt

Miciak

Whittaker

. Psychological, social and contextual factors across recovery stages following a sport-related knee injury: a scoping review. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54:1149-1156.

93.

Tsetseli

Zetou

Vernadakis

Mountaki

. The attentional focus impact on tennis skills’ technique in 10 and under years old players: implications for real game situations. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2018;13(2):328-339.

94.

Vaughn

Dunleavy

Jackson

Hennrikus

. The outcomes of quadriceps tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent athletes: a retrospective case series. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022;32(4):739-744.

95.

Van Der Velden

Van Der Steen

Leenders

Van Douveren

FQMP

Janssen

RPA

Reijman

. Pedi-IKDC or KOOS-child: which questionnaire should be used in children with knee disorders? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):240.

96.

Wall

Ghattas

Eismann

Myer

Carr

. Outcomes and complications after all-epiphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients. Orthop J Sport Med. 2017;5(3):2325967117693604.

97.

Webster

Feller

. Younger patients and men achieve higher outcome scores than older patients and women after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(10):2472-2480.

98.

Webster

Feller

. Clinical tests can be used to screen for second anterior cruciate ligament injury in younger patients who return to sport. Orthop J Sport Med. 2019;7(8):2325967119863003.

99.

Wells

Dyke

Albaugh

Ganley

. Adolescent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective analysis of quadriceps strength recovery and return to full activity after surgery. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009;29(5):486-489.

100.

Werner

Yang

Looney

Gwathmey

Jr.

Trends in pediatric and adolescent anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36(5):447-452.

101.

Willimon

Jones

Herzog

May

Leake

Busch

. Micheli anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature youths: a retrospective case series with a mean 3-year follow-up. Am J Sport Med. 2015;43:2974-2981.

102.

Willson

Kostyun

Milewski

Nissen

. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in skeletally immature patients: early results using a hybrid physeal-sparing technique. Orthop J Sport Med. 2018;6(2):2325967118755330.

103.

Wilson

Wyatt

Wagner

III Boes

Sabatino

Ellis

Jr.

Combined transphyseal and lateral extra-articular pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a novel technique to reduce ACL reinjury while allowing for growth. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(14):3356-3364.

104.

Zbrojkiewicz

Vertullo

Grayson

. Increasing rates of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young Australians, 2000-2015. Med J Aust. 2018;208(8):354-358.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB