what IS the timeframe on ACL recoveries?

then why are re-tears so frequent in the first year?

why?

you really think if the majority of re-tears happen in the first year that the knee has fully healed? it may have been revolutionized, but we know for a fact the nfl brings back players when they’re not completely healthy.

and to be completely honest, doctors have an agenda too.

let’s take professional athlete x.

he goes to doctor a who tells him yes i can do the surgery and get you back on the field within a year.

he then goes to doctor b who tells him yes i can do the surgery but it will take two full years before you see any competitive action.

they then see adrian peterson come back in less than a year.

who do you think they’re gonna take their business to?

people rarely take the time to do the real research. most times they probably don’t even want to hear it.

well this is an article on second acl surgeries and why they fail.

one other thing i want to add. a lot also depends on the extent of damage. bradford’s was isolated meaning the other ligaments and cartilage were apparently intact. so he has that going for him. alexander’s injury i believe was not isolated. it probably looked like a plate of spaghetti in there.

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/22661.aspx

Sports medicine specialists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis are leading a national study analyzing why a second surgery to reconstruct a tear in the knee’s anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) carries a high risk of bad outcomes.

More than 200,000 ACL reconstruction surgeries are performed each year in the United States, and 1 percent to 8 percent fail for some reason. Most of those patients then opt to have their knee ligament reconstructed a second time, but the failure rate on those subsequent surgeries is almost 14 percent.

The Washington University group has received a $2.6 million grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and is leading dozens of surgeons across the nation in one of the largest orthopedic, multicenter studies ever conducted. The MARS study (Mutlicenter ACL Revision Study) is comparing surgical techniques and analyzing outcomes for patients undergoing ACL surgery to learn why a subsequent reconstruction is more likely to fail than an initial ACL repair.

“If I reconstruct the ACL in your knee, and you go back to sports, and three years later you pivot on a basketball court and tear it again, that subsequent surgery often does not have results equal to the original surgery,” says Rick W. Wright, MD, the MARS study’s principal investigator. “In a previous study, we found that the strongest predictor for a bad outcome after ACL surgery was whether that surgery was the initial reconstruction or a subsequent procedure.”

Wright, professor of orthopaedic surgery, co-chief of Washington University’s Sports Medicine Service and an orthopedic surgeon at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, has helped recruit 87 surgeons from 52 centers to participate in the MARS study. All are sports medicine specialists who are members of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine. Surgeons involved in the study include both academic physicians and those in private practice.

During ACL reconstruction, surgeons sometimes replace the torn knee ligament with a ligament transplanted from a cadaver. In other cases, the surgeon will move a piece of the hamstring muscle or the patellar tendon and attach it in place of the torn ligament.

Wright and his colleagues are recruiting patients for the MARS study who have a second tear of the ACL. They plan to enroll 1,000 patients at the various centers around the country and follow them for at least two years to identify predictors of problems after surgery.

Surgeons will note the condition of the knee and how the original surgery was performed to see whether that predicts problems with a subsequent operation. They also will make note of the surgical technique initially used and whether the ACL graft used in the initial reconstruction came from a cadaver, from the hamstring muscle or from the patellar tendon.

Surgeons also will compare rehabilitation techniques and whether particular approaches are related to better, or worse, outcomes. Patients also will be surveyed about their knee function, the general state of their health and their quality of life before and after a second ACL surgery.

Those participating in the MARS study must be older than 12, but there is no upper age limit.

“By definition, most of the people in the study will be active,” Wright says. “ Most are athletes who want to continue to compete, but the study also is open to those who just need knee surgery so they can get back to work.”

The ACL plays a crucial role in our ability to cut, jump, twist and change directions. Even in people who don’t compete in sports, ACL tears are related to having a knee give out, and when that happens, says Wright, it can damage the knee’s meniscus, the rubbery disc that cushions the knee and keeps it steady. If the knee gives out it also can tear cartilage in the joint, contribute to arthritis and increase the risk that an individual will someday require total knee replacement surgery.

but yeah. going back to my ap statement. that was wrong. 95% are a success. so that’s not the exception. i was going overboard. but again. maybe not enough attention was focused on the possibility of failure. what is the recovery rate then? i’m sure the doctors went over this with bradford.

in the end. sam is a competitor. and he was probably thinking i can do it. 5% is an acceptable risk to me. well now. he’s that exception. now what is the prognosis for recovery for that second tear?

the one article said 14%. but again. most people don’t get the best surgeon to do their reconstructive surgery so maybe it’s even lower than that. and that doesn’t take into account if the injury was isolated or not. and most people probably don’t go through the extensive rehab process that these athletes do. but if sam wants to be sure of a complete recovery. he better take the two full years to recover. which seems to be the best option at this point. anytime you have to go in a second time. you’re doing more damage. healing of that area is going to take longer than before. so if two years is ideal for first reconstructive surgery, then second reconstructive surgery should be longer than that. and even then. how long is that joint going to last? i read somewhere that acl surgeries last on average about 10 years. well. is that for professional athletes or just the general population? if it’s for the general population, then for professional athletes, it goes way down i’m sure.