Exterior Cruciate Trauma Case Study

In Performance-based functional evaluation of non-operative and operative treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury. Moksnes, & Risberg, (2008) The purpose of the second study reviewed was to determine if there was a difference in the functional outcome in a group of individuals who had suffered an ACL injury. After non-operative treatment, and after surgical treatment at a 1 year follow up.
The true ultimate outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is not well known. (Beynnon, Johnson, Abate, Fleming, & Nichols, 2005) The results can vary significantly from sixty-five to eighty eight percent. And the corresponding numbers for nonoperative treatment vary even more significantly from twelve to eighty two percent (Smith, Rosenlund, Aune, & Maclean,
And the perturbation group had 11 successful subjects and 1 unsuccessful. With a p value of = .05 it was shown that a significant number of patients where unsuccessful in the standard group compared to the perturbation group. Even with the small numbers used in this study shows a significant number of patients being successful in the perturbation group compared the standard group a difference of 50% success rate in the standard group and 91% in the perturbation group. (Fitzgerald, Axe, & Snyder-mackler, 2000)
This study concluded that there should be established treatment guidelines for patients wanting to return to high level activity after having a ACL or ACL graft injury. These guidelines are applicable to individuals with unilateral ACL rupture who do not have concomitant ligament or repairable meniscal damage associated with their injury. The guidelines do not necessarily apply to individuals who are ACI. deficient and wish to partake in long-tern1 participation in high-level activity (76 months) or those who do not meet the criteria of a rehabilitation candidate. (Fitzgerald, Axe, & Snyder-mackler,