Abstract
Purpose
Evaluate the effect of kinesiophobia on functional outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
Materials and methods
A three-phase, integrated mixed-methods review of observational and qualitative studies was undertaken. (1) Systematic search of studies with participants over 12 years old, following ACLR and focusing on kinesiophobia, using the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) for observational studies. Exclusion criteria included ipsilateral knee surgery and the involvement of elite athletes. (2) Critical appraisal for both design types was undertaken. (3) Synthesis occurred in five stages. Results were reported as a relationship between the TSK and other functional outcome measures. Finally, qualitative results were integrated to explain the results.
Results
Twenty-four studies (1174 participants) were included with no exclusion based on the quality appraisal. Six themes were identified: (1) return to sport (RTS); (2) activities of daily living; (3) knee-related quality of life; (4) gait; (5) reinjury; and (6) knee disability and physical function. The highest strength of evidence was the negative association between increased TSK scores and both decreased activity levels and RTS.
Conclusions
Kinesiophobia affects a range of functional outcomes. Further research is required to identify screening tools and interventions for patients with kinesiophobia.
Kinesiophobia affects the effectiveness of rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, therefore addressing kinesiophobia both pre- and post-ACLR is important to optimise rehabilitation.
Validated screening tools are required to identify kinesiophobia in individuals early to allow appropriate rehabilitation.
Physiotherapists need to use a range of physiotherapeutic techniques, such as motor imagery and prehabilitation to assist individuals to overcome their kinesiophobia and improve their functional outcomes post-ACLR.
IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION
Acknowledgements
The author(s) would like to thank the University of Birmingham. No funding was provided to support this research.
Disclosure statement
The author(s) declare no conflicts of interest.
Notes
1 References marked in bold were included as articles in the systematic review.