Does the “Rule of Thirds” apply to the management of the injured Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Main Article Content
Abstract
Noyes et al were among the first to announce a treatment pathway for the management of the cruciate deficient knee over 40 years ago when they postulated “the rule of thirds” which stated that a third will require surgery, a third will require rehabilitation thereby avoiding surgery and a third will be asymptomatic. However, although each category exists it remains uncertain what percentage in terms of management can be assigned to each category. Hence the concept of the “Rule of Thirds” remains unproven. What, therefore, is the optimum management for the cruciate deficient knee.?
Over the past 40 years there has been a plethora of articles in the orthopaedic literature relating to the management of the injured anterior cruciate ligament, some even contributing to the “replication crisis”, and apart from elite sports participants there is no clear consensus on which patients are more likely to benefit from surgery as opposed to rehabilitation alone. It is therefore likely that an unknown number of patients will have undergone surgical reconstruction when rehabilitation alone would have sufficed. This has contributed to a significant “grey area” in the management of the injured ACL The challenge is, therefore, to detect patients in this “grey area”.
What are required are better designed studies and large multi -centre randomised controlled trials [RCT,s] that have a low risk of bias and that are powered for hard end points and a high level of evidence ,more refined pre-operative assessment in a dedicated knee clinic and the detection of the injury at the earliest possible moment before an undiagnosed injury allows progressive deterioration of knee joint function. Shared data collected from such clinics should aid in the provision of a more accurate consensus on the management of the cruciate deficient knee and each category in Noyes’ “rule of thirds” can be assigned their true value.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Galway HR, MacIntosh `DL: The lateral Pivot Shift: a symptom and sign of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. Clin. Orthop. 147:45-51 1980
3. Sanders TL, Snyder-mackler L et al; Incidence of ACL tears and reconstruction: A 21-year population based study. AM J. Sports Med 44 [6] 1502-7 2016
4. Feagin JA, Curl WW: Isolated tear of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament. 5 year follow-up study Am J Sports Med., 4: 95-100, 1976.
5. Noyes FR, Mooar PA, Matthews DS, Butler DL. The symptomatic ACL deficient knee, Part 1: The long-term functional disability in athletically active individuals J Bone and Joint Surgery 65 [2] 154 -162 1983
6. Best Practice for primary isolated ACL reconstruction. BOA and BASK 2009
7. Maletis GB, Innacio MCS, Desmond JL, Funahashi TT. Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament. Association of graft choice with increased risk of early revision {Kaiser Permente} Bone and Joint Journal. 95[B] 623-625 2013.
8. Beard DJ, Davies L, Cook JA, et al Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction of non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury [AC SNNAP]: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Vol 400 Issue 10352, p605-612 Aug 2022
9. Mowbray MAS. The facts and mythology in the management of the cruciate deficient knee. The Hugh Owen Thomas Lecture. Feb 16th 1997. Proceedings of the Liverpool Medical Society
10. Mowbray MAS. Part 2. The facts and mythology in the management of the cruciate deficient knee. Lecture Royal College of Surgeons, England. Proceedings. The Hunterian Society RCS
11. Muller W. The Knee, form, function and ligament reconstruction: Springer-Verlag 1983
12. Pauzenberger L, Syre S, Schultz M. “Ligamentisation” in hamstring grafts after ACL reconstruction: A systematic review of the literature and a glimpse into the future. J. of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 29 [10] p1712-1720, 2013S,
13. Claes S, Verdonk P, Forsyth R, Bellemans J. The “Ligamentisation” process in ACLR: What happens to the human graft? A systematic review of the literature. Am J Sports Med 39 [11] p2476-2483 2011
14. Howell SM, Abrams GD, Bach RD. Serial MRI of ACL autografts during the first year of implantation. Am J. Sports Med., 19 [1] p42-47 1991
15. Zaffagnini S, Pasquale V, Mascacci M. Electron microscopy of the re-modelling process in hamstring tendon used as an ACL graft. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy [18] p1652-1658 2010
16. Howell SM, Taylor MA,. Failure of reconstruction of the ACL due to impingement by the intercondylar roof. J Bone and Joint Surgery 75 [7] p1044-1055 1993
17. Howell SM. Principles of placing the tibial tunnel and avoiding roof impingement during reconstruction of a torn ACL. Knee surgery, Sports traumatology, Arthroscopy, Supplement 1 p549-555 1998
18. Barry M, Kong KC, Thomas R, Mowbray MAS. Instrumentation to avoid impingement lesions in ACL reconstruction. The Knee 75 [7] p1044-1055 1993
19. Kohne D, Busche D, Carls J. Drill hole position in endoscopic ACL reconstruction. Results of an advanced arthroscopy course. Knee surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. Supplement 1 [6]] p13-15 1998
20. Topliss C, Webb J, Audit of tunnel position in ACL Reconstruction. The Knee 8 [1] p59-63 2001
21. Mowbray MAS, Ireland J. A personal and narrative review of the current management of the injured ACL of the knee in the UK with reference to surgery versus rehabilitation. BMJ Open Sports and Exercise Med Vol 8, Issue 3, Sept 2022
22. Second ACL injury is 6 times more likely after reconstruction. American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Report July 11th 2013
23. Voskanian N, ACL injury prevention in female athletes: Review of the literature and practical considerations in implementing an ACL prevention programme. Musculo-skeletal Medicine 6 [2] p158-163 2013
24. Sward P, Kostogianis I, Roos H. Risk factors for a contralateral ACL injury. Knee surgery,Sports traumatology,Artroscopy 18 [3]p277-291 2010
25. Kaplan,Yonaton et al. Identifying individuals with an anterior cruciate deficient knee as copers and non-copers: A narrative literature rview. J of Orthopaedics and Sports Physical Therapy 40 [10] 2011
26. Moksnes H,Snyder-Mackler L et al. Individuals with ACL defiient knees classified as . non-copers may be candidates for non-surgical rehabilitation. J of Orthopaedics and Sports Physical therapy.38 [10] p586-595 2008
27. Frobell R, Roos E, Roos H et al. Randomizes trial of treatment for acute ACL tears. New England J. of Med. Vol 363 p331-342 2010
28. Blom aw, Beswick AD, Whitehouse MR, KUNUTsor SK .Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: Umbrella review of level 1 evidence. British Medical Journal 374 1511 2021
29. Lai CCH, Ardern CL, Feller JA,Webster KE. Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes return to pre-injury sport after ACLR: A systematic review with meta-analysis of return to sport rates, graft rupture rates and performance outcomes. Br J Sports Med. 52 [2] p128-138 2018
30. Webster KE, Fuller JA. A research update on the state of play for return to sport after ACL reconstruction. Journal of Orthopaedics and traumatology 20 Article no 10 2019
31. Mowbray M. A peek behind the Study. Blog posted Sept 25th 2022
32. Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs K et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction with outcome after ACL reconstruction. J Bone and Joint surgery 84-A [9] p1560-1572 2000
33. Ball S, Haddard F. The impact of an acute knee clinic.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 92 [8] 2010
34. Lohmander LS, Roos EW. The evidence base for orthopaedics and sports medicine; scandalously poor in parts. British Journal of Sports Medicine 50 {9} 564-565 2016