Download PDF
Sportverletz Sportschaden 2016; 30(01): 38-49
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-100966
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Interdisziplinäre Beurteilungskriterien für die Rehabilitation nach Verletzungen an der unteren Extremität: Ein funktionsbasierter Return to Activity Algorithmus

Interdisciplinary Assessment Criteria for Rehabilitation after Injuries of the Lower Extremity: A Function-Based Return to Activity Algorithm
M. Keller
1   OS Institut Bewegung für Orthopädie und Sportmedizin, München
2   OSPHYSIO training & therapie, München
,
E. Kurz
1   OS Institut Bewegung für Orthopädie und Sportmedizin, München
3   Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Funktionsbereich Motorik, Pathophysiologie und Biomechanik, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena
,
O. Schmidtlein
1   OS Institut Bewegung für Orthopädie und Sportmedizin, München
2   OSPHYSIO training & therapie, München
,
G. Welsch
4   UKE-Athleticum, Ambulanzzentrum des Universitätsklinikums Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
C. Anders
3   Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Funktionsbereich Motorik, Pathophysiologie und Biomechanik, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 March 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund: Bei der Nachbehandlung von Patienten mit Verletzungen an der unteren Extremität findet ein Paradigmenwechsel statt: rein zeitbasierte Nachbehandlungskonzepte treten immer mehr in den Hintergrund und werden zunehmend durch funktionsbasierte Konzepte ersetzt.

Methodik: Es wird ein funktionsbasierter Return to Activity Algorithmus vorgestellt, der sich an einer Leveleinteilung (I–IV) orientiert. Jedem Level ist zunächst ein qualitativer und ein entsprechender quantitativer Test zugeordnet. Innerhalb des zu testenden Levels muss immer zunächst der qualitative Test bestanden werden bevor der Patient den zugeordneten quantitativen Test durchführen darf. Beide Tests müssen erfolgreich absolviert worden sein, um das jeweils nächste Level zu erreichen. Das Beurteilungskriterium für die erfolgreiche Absolvierung jedes Levels ist immer der qualitative bzw. quantitative Vergleich mit der nicht betroffenen Extremität. Die Level sind stufenweise mit aufsteigender motorisch-funktioneller Anforderung aufgebaut und erfordern im Level I sagittale Stabilität ohne Impacts, im Level II dynamische Stabilität in der Sagittalebene, im Level III zusätzlich dynamische Stabilität in der Frontalebene und im Level IV multidirektionale dynamische Stabilität. Der zeitliche Aufwand für die Testung der einzelnen Levels beträgt nicht länger als fünf Minuten. Der Return to Activity Algorithmus wird am Beispiel eines Profifußballers beschrieben. Nach einer Knieverletzung wurde dieser mit einer VKB-Rekonstruktion (Patellasehne) und einer Teilmeniskusentfernung (lateral und medial) arthroskopisch versorgt.

Ergebnisse: Der Sportler konnte am Ende der Rehabilitation jedes Level erfolgreich absolvieren. Die Gesamtdauer der Rehabilitation betrug 203 Tage. Das erste komplette Training mit der Mannschaft bestritt er nach 222 Tagen. Der Spieler wurde 247 Tage nach seiner Verletzung erstmals wieder bei einem Fußballspiel über die volle Spielzeit eingesetzt.

Diskussion: Der Return to Activity Algorithmus hilft, den funktionellen Status nach einer Verletzung oder einer Operation zu evaluieren und ist in der Lage, Defizite oder Asymmetrien aufzudecken die ein Risiko für eine Reverletzung darstellen. Ein individuelles funktionsbasiertes Vorgehen hilft, die Belastung spezifisch zu dosieren und den richtigen Zeitpunkt für die weitgehend risikoarme Rückkehr zum Sport zu bestimmen.

Abstract

Background: In the treatment of patients with lower extremity injuries, a paradigm shift is taking place: Time-dependent concepts are increasingly being replaced by function-based concepts.

Methods: A function-based Return to Activity Algorithm is presented which contains a level classification (I-IV). Qualitative and subsequent quantitative tests are assigned to every level. Within each level, first the respective qualitative test has to be passed before patients are allowed to perform the corresponding quantitative test. Criteria for success are qualitative and quantitative comparisons with the unaffected side. Before entering the next level, both tests have to be successfully passed. The levels are ordered according to increasing demands on the loco-motor system. These demands are adequate stability without impact interaction in sagittal plane for level I, followed by dynamic stability demands for level II. Impacts in frontal plane are added for level III and finally multidirectional impacts have to be compensated at level IV. The time expenditure per level is no more than five minutes. The case of a professional soccer player will serve to exemplify the Return to Activity Algorithm. Following a knee injury, he underwent arthroscopy with ACL reconstruction (patellar tendon) and a partial meniscectomy (lateral and medial).

Results: The athlete was able to successfully pass each level and finished his rehabilitation 203 days post injury. He returned to the team training 221 days post injury. 247 days post injury, the athlete completed his first game.

Conclusion: The Return to Activity Algorithm is able to support the evaluation of the functional status of the loco-motor system after injury or surgery and is furthermore capable of uncovering deficits or asymmetries, which are a proven risk for re-injury. This function-oriented individual approach is able to adequately dose the therapeutic efforts on an individual basis. With this approach, the right timing for a safe return to sports activities can be detected with high certainty.

Schlüsselwörter

Rehabilitation - untere Extremität - Zurück zum Sport - Entscheidungshilfe

Key words

rehabilitation - lower extremity - back to sports - aid to decision-making
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Myer GD, Paterno MV, Ford KR et al. Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: criteria-based progression through the return-to-sport phase. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006; 36: 385-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Keller M, Schmidtlein O, Kurz E. Reporting on ACL deficient patients: a function-based Return to Activity Algorithm. Br J Sports Med 2013; 47: e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 White K, Di Stasi SL, Smith AH et al. Anterior cruciate ligament- specialized post-operative return-to-sports (ACL-SPORTS) training: a randomized control trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Petersen W, Taheri P, Forkel P et al. Return to play following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review about strength deficits. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134: 1417-1428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wilk KE, Macrina LC, Cain EL et al. Recent advances in the rehabilitation of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42: 153-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Keller M, Schmidtlein O, Kurz E. Return to Activity Testing: Bedeutung funktioneller Tests für die Rehabilitation. In: Knorpelkurs der TU München, 23/24 März 2012. München: 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Bizzini M, Silvers HJ. Return to competitive football after major knee surgery: more questions than answers?. J Sports Sci 2014; 32: 1209-1216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hofstädter F. Pathologie der Wundheilung. Chirurg 1995; 66: 174-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lippert H ed. Wundatlas: Kompendium der komplexen Wundbehandlung. 3 ed. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Heughan C, Hunt TK. Some aspects of wound healing research: a review. Can J Surg 1975; 18: 118-126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kandel M. Das mehrdimensionale Belastungs-/Belastbarkeits-Modell. Physiotherapeut 1997; 3: 27-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Christian LM, Graham JE, Padgett DA et al. Stress and wound healing. Neuroimmunomodulation 2006; 13: 337-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ardern CL, Österberg A, Tagesson S et al. The impact of psychological readiness to return to sport and recreational activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48: 1613-1619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fitzgerald GK, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. A decision-making scheme for returning patients to high-level activity with nonoperative treatment after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2000; 8: 76-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Waddell G. The back pain revolution. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Oesch P, Hilfiker R, Keller S et al. Assessments in der muskuloskelettalen Rehabilitation. Bern: Hans Huber; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Diemer F, Sutor V. Hauttemperaturmessung. Mit dem Thermometer die Heilung beurteilen. Physiopraxis 2007; 8: 30-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hunt MA, Di Ciacca SR, Jones IC et al. Effect of anterior tibiofemoral glides on knee extension during gait in patients with decreased range of motion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Physiother Can 2010; 62: 235-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Friends J, Augustine E, Danoff J. A comparison of different assessment techniques for measuring foot and ankle volume in healthy adults. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2008; 98: 85-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sturgill LP, Snyder-Mackler L, Manal TJ et al. Interrater reliability of a clinical scale to assess knee joint effusion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009; 39: 845-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kanamoto T, Tanaka Y, Yonetani Y et al. Anterior knee symptoms after double-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts: an ultrasonographic and power Doppler investigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23: 3324-3329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Torabi M, Wo S, Vyas D et al. MRI evaluation and complications of medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction. Clin Imaging 2015; 39: 116-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Knapik JJ, Bauman CL, Jones BH et al. Preseason strength and flexibility imbalances associated with athletic injuries in female collegiate athletes. Am J Sports Med 1991; 19: 76-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Keller M, Hochleitner E, Weikard C et al. Posttraumatische Asymmetrien bei konservativ versorgten Rupturen des vorderen Kreuzbandes. Z Physiother 2014; 66: 21-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rohman E, Steubs JT, Tompkins M. Changes in involved and uninvolved limb function during rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: implications for limb symmetry index measures. Am J Sports Med 2015;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T et al. Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24: 281-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: WHO; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Baldus A, Huber G, Pfeiffer K et al. ICF-Orientierung in der Sport- und Bewegungstherapie: Neue Versorgungspfade für die Rehabilitation. Bewegungstherapie und Gesundheitssport 2012; 28: 85-89
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Keller M, Kurz E. Zurück zum Pre Injury Level nach Verletzungen an der unteren Extremität - eine Einteilung funktioneller Assessments. Manuelle Therapie 2016; 20: 16-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Zaffagnini S, Grassi A, Serra M et al. Return to sport after ACL reconstruction: how, when and why? A narrative review of current evidence. Joints 2015; 3: 25-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cote KP, Brunet ME, Gansneder BM et al. Effects of pronated and supinated foot postures on static and dynamic postural stability. J Athl Train 2005; 40: 41-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kinzey SJ, Armstrong CW. The reliability of the star-excursion test in assessing dynamic balance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 27: 356-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Olmsted LC, Carcia CR, Hertel J et al. Efficacy of the Star Excursion Balance Tests in detecting reach deficits in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 2002; 37: 501-506
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW et al. Star Excursion Balance Test as a predictor of lower extremity injury in high school basketball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006; 36: 911-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Coughlan GF, Fullam K, Delahunt E et al. A comparison between performance on selected directions of the star excursion balance test and the Y balance test. J Athl Train 2012; 47: 366-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Barber SD, Noyes FR, Mangine RE et al. Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 255: 204-214
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Noyes FR, Barber SD, Mangine RE. Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Sports Med 1991; 19: 513-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gustavsson A, Neeter C, Thomee P et al. A test battery for evaluating hop performance in patients with an ACL injury and patients who have undergone ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14: 778-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Östenberg A, Roos E, Ekdahl C et al. Isokinetic knee extensor strength and functional performance in healthy female soccer players. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1998; 8: 257-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Paterno MV, Schmitt LC, Ford KR et al. Biomechanical measures during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38: 1968-1978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hewett TE, Di Stasi SL, Myer GD. Current concepts for injury prevention in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41: 216-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Cvjetkovic DD, Bijeljac S, Palija S et al. Isokinetic testing in evaluation rehabilitation outcome after ACL reconstruction. Med Arch 2015; 69: 21-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Gardinier ES, Manal K, Buchanan TS et al. Gait and neuromuscular asymmetries after acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: 1490-1496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Daniel DM, Stone ML, Dobson BE et al. Fate of the ACL-injured patient. A prospective outcome study. Am J Sports Med 1994; 22: 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Padua DA, Marshall SW, Boling MC et al. The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) Is a valid and reliable clinical assessment tool of jump-landing biomechanics: The JUMP-ACL study. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37: 1996-2002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Almangoush A, Herrington L. Functional performance testing and patient reported outcomes following ACL reconstruction: a systematic scoping review. International Scholarly Research Notices 2014; 2014: 613034
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Fitzgerald GK, Lephart SM, Hwang JH et al. Hop tests as predictors of dynamic knee stability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2001; 31: 588-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Eitzen I, Moksnes H, Snyder-Mackler L et al. A progressive 5-week exercise therapy program leads to significant improvement in knee function early after anterior cruciate ligament injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010; 40: 705-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kvist J, Ek A, Sporrstedt K et al. Fear of re-injury: a hindrance for returning to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2005; 13: 393-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Keller M, Schmidtlein O. Asymmetrien beim Front Hop Test – und jetzt? Korrigierende Strategien zur Verbesserung des Front Hop. Z Physiother 2014; 66: 38-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Mithoefer K, Hambly K, Logerstedt D et al. Current concepts for rehabilitation and return to sport after knee articular cartilage repair in the athlete. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42: 254-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF et al. Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med 2011; 45: 596-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar