Comparison of the Efficacy of Telerehabilitation and In-person Rehabilitation Based on Wearable Devices After ACLR Surgery: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

ACLR, Telerehabilitation

Purpose: Investigate whether telerehabilitation based on wearable devices is clinically as effective as in-person rehabilitation for ACLR patients. Subjects: 164 patients aged ≥18 years who underwent ACLR. Design: A mixed-block randomization method was used to randomly assign participants to two groups: the telerehabilitation group and the in-person rehabilitation group, with a 50% probability of assignment to each group. All participants received standard postoperative rehabilitation training with identical content. The telerehabilitation group received postoperative telerehabilitation guidance via software and sensors. The in-person rehabilitation group received therapist-administered treatment with three rehabilitation sessions per week. All participants underwent regular follow-ups (1 day preoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and 6 months postoperatively). Primary outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the Lysholm score. Secondary outcome measures included the IKDC score, Tegner Activity Scale, SF-36 questionnaire, VAS score, and isokinetic muscle strength of the knee joint.

Purpose: Investigate whether telerehabilitation based on wearable devices is clinically as effective as in-person rehabilitation for ACLR patients. Subjects: Participants: This study recruited 164 participants (aged ≥18 years) undergoing ACLRsurgery; Inclusion criteria: (1) Age range 18-60 years; (2) First-time unilateral ACLR surgery or ACLR combined with meniscus resection surgery; (3) No other lower limb joint injuries at the same time; (4) Possession of an internet-connected mobile device capable of using a mobile application; (5) Alert and oriented, with no communication impairments; Exclusion Criteria: (1) Patients undergoing revision surgery; (2) Patients who have previously undergone other lower limb surgeries; (3) Patients scheduled for another lower limb surgery within the next 6 months; (4) Patients with concomitant knee ligament injuries or severe structural damage beyond meniscal tears; (5) Patients with other comorbidities that may interfere with rehabilitation exercises; (6) Patients undergoing acute-phase surgery; (7)Patients undergoing acute surgery. Protocol: Participants were randomly assigned to two groups using a mixed-block randomization method: the telerehabilitation group and the in-person rehabilitation group. The allocation probability for both groups was 50%. All participants received routine outpatient diagnosis and treatment. Postoperative rehabilitation training used a standardized postoperative rehabilitation training protocol with identical content. The telerehabilitation group received postoperative telerehabilitation guidance via software and sensors. The in-person rehabilitation group received three face-to-face rehabilitation sessions per week. All participants underwent regular follow-ups (1 day preoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, and 6 months postoperatively). Primary outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the Lysholm score. Secondary outcome measures included the IKDC score, Tegner Activity Scale, SF-36 questionnaire, VAS score, isokinetic muscle strength of the knee joint, and muscle strength symmetry.

No related papers found yet.

China