A comparison between physical therapy clinics with high and low rehabilitation volumes of patients with ACL reconstruction.

Background: Treatment volume can impact outcomes after surgical procedures of the knee between surgeons with high- and low-patient-volumes. However, the difference between physical therapeutic clinics with high- and low-volumes has not been widely researched. This registry study aims to investigate how patient volume affects knee function outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction at physical therapy (PT) clinics in terms of odds for a second ACL injury, return to pre-injury level of activity, perceived knee function, and recovery of strength and hop performance.

Method: Data were extracted from the Project ACL, a local rehabilitation registry. High- and low-volume clinics were defined based on the number of patients who attended different clinics. High-volume clinics were defined as those with > 100 patient registrations in Project ACL during the study period while low-volume clinics were those with ≤ 100 patient registrations. High- and low-volume clinics were compared, based on muscle function and patient-reported outcomes across 4 follow-ups, 2-, 4-, 8-, and 12 months, during the first year after ACL reconstruction, and odds of second ACL injury up to 2 years after ACL reconstruction.

Result: Of the 115 rehabilitation clinics included, 111 were classified as low-volume clinics and included 733 patients, and 4 as high-volume clinics which included 1221 patients. There were 31 (1.6%) second ACL injuries to the ipsilateral or contralateral side within the first 12 months and 68 (4.0%) within 2 years. No difference in the incidence of a second ACL injury, within 12 months follow-up odds ratio (OR) 0.95 [95% CI 0.46-1.97] or within 2 years follow-up OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.68-1.88], was found between high- and low-volume clinics. There were early (2 months) and non-clinically relevant differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physical activity levels early after ACL reconstruction in favor of high-volume clinics. One year after ACL reconstruction, no differences were observed between high- and low-volume clinics in terms of PROs, muscle function, and return to pre-injury level of activity.

Conclusion: No clinically relevant difference in the incidence of secondary ACL injuries in patients who underwent rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction at high- or low-volume physical therapist clinics was found. In addition, no clinically relevant differences in outcomes were found during the first year in terms of patient-reported outcomes, recovery of muscle function, or return to pre-injury level of activity.