Compare the Effectiveness of Clinic-Based Rehabilitation and On-Field Training in Patients with ACL Injuries
Keywords:
ACL reconstruction, clinic-based rehabilitation, on-field training, return to sport, randomized controlled trialAbstract
Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is a common knee injury in athletes and active individuals. Rehabilitation is critical to restore function and reduce re-injury risk. Two common rehabilitation approaches are structured clinic-based rehabilitation (CBR) and progressive on-field training (OFT). This study compares the effectiveness of CBR and OFT in improving patient-reported outcomes, functional performance, and return-to-sport (RTS) rates.
Need of study: The demand for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rehabilitation has grown substantially in recent years, largely due to the increasing prevalence of ACL injuries and the varied outcomes associated with different recovery pathways
Objective: To compare clinical outcomes, functional performance, return-to-sport rates, and re-injury incidence between clinic-based rehabilitation and on-field training in patients following ACL reconstruction (ACLR).
Methods: This single-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial enrolled 40 patients aged 16–40 years who underwent primary ACLR. Participants were randomized 1:1 to CBR or OFT. Primary outcome: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, isokinetic quadriceps/hamstring strength, single-leg hop tests, time to RTS, and re-injury rate at 24 months.
Results: (summary): Both groups improved significantly from baseline. At 12 months, mean IKDC scores were similar between groups (CBR: 85.2 ± 8.1; OFT: 86.5 ± 7.6; mean difference 1.3, 95% CI -1.8 to 4.4, p=0.41). Time to unrestricted RTS was shorter in the OFT group (median 8.5 months vs 9.6 months, p=0.03). Re-injury rates at 24 months were not significantly different (CBR 6.7% vs OFT 8.3%, p=0.72). Functional hop tests and strength symmetry showed comparable outcomes.
Conclusion: Clinic-based rehabilitation and progressive on-field training produce similar patient-reported outcomes and functional recovery at 12 months. On-field training may accelerate time to return to sport without increasing short-term re-injury risk. Further multicenter studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Allegrete, J., Batalha, N., Fernandes, O., et al. (2024). Effectiveness of the KC@H Programme Compared with Clinic Based Rehabilitation After ACL Reconstruction: Study Protocol. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001868
Bafrouei, M. J. (2025). Core-exercise and education post ACL reconstruction: A pilot RCT. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-13568-1
Edwards, P. K. (2025). Rehabilitation and assessment practices following anterior cruciate ligament: Australian physiotherapists’ perspectives.
Erayata, B. N., & Menek, B. (2025). Investigating the effects of percussion massage therapy on ACL recovery: A randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 20(3), e0319731. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319731
Filbay, S. R., Bullock, G., Russell, S., Brown, F., Hui, W., & Egerton, T. (2025). No difference in return-to-sport rate or activity level in people with ACL injury managed with ACL reconstruction or rehabilitation alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-025-02268-5
Ford, K. R., et al. (2025). Neuromuscular training with real-time biofeedback in female athletes post-ACL reconstruction: A randomized trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 26, 366. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08647-3
Ghafelzadeh Ahwaz, F. (2025). Feasibility of conducting an RCT comparing surgical and non-surgical options for ACL injuries. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-025-01652-2
Han, Z. (2025). Club-based vs. hospital-guided rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1641750
High return to competition rate after on field rehabilitation. (2025). Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671251320093
Jenkins, S. M. (2022). Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament injury. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9107547/
Li, Y., et al. (2025). Effectiveness of virtual reality in ACL rehabilitation: A systematic review.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40029868/
Middlebrook, A. (2025). The patient voice—perceptions before and after ACL reconstruction: A qualitative review protocol. Systematic Reviews.
Pamboris, G. M. (2024). Open vs. closed kinetic chain exercises in ACL rehab: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Sports Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1416690
Ricupito, R. (2025). ACL return to play: A framework. Journal of Clinical Medicine.
Smeets, A., et al. (2024). Comparison of delayed surgery vs. conservative treatment after acute ACL injury. BMC Sports Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-024-00816-6
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
