Rehabilitation process was as important as the reconstruction surgery. Rehabilitation could be initiated after the surgery to ensure safe returned of patients to sports ACL reconstruction. To evaluate of the balance exercises and agility training for post ACL reconstruction. The Primary Outcomes such as the functional score assessments were the Lysholm and the Tegner system, Secondary Outcomes were the rollimeter, thigh circumference and physical assessment. To compare balance exercises and agility training for group 1 was the 18 weeks standard regime group which had one component only such as strength exercises, and group 2 was the 24 weeks new regime which had three components advantages such as balance exercises, agility training exercises, and strength exercises.
The main objective of this researched was to show that one group had significant different values compared to the other group: ie p < 0.05. Patients data from ACL reconstruction in Selayang and Sg Buloh Hospitals from 2012 to 2016, in this studied from Malaysian Knee Ligament Registry (MKLR). All patients had single bundle reconstruction with autograft hamstring tendon (Semitendinosus and Gracilis). Evaluation format were based on clinical assessment (anterior drawer, lachman, pivot shifted, laxity with rollimeter, end pointed and thigh circumference) and (Lysholm knee scoring and Tegner activity levelled scale). Group 1 was the 18 weeks Standard Regime group which had one component only such as strength exercises, and group 2 was the 24 weeks New Regime which had three components advantages such as balance exercises, agility training exercises, and strength exercises. That the following evaluation at 24 weeks for primary outcomes were Lysholm and Tegner; and secondary outcomes were the rollimeter, thigh circumference and physical assessment.
The results of researched as the baseline socio-demographic characteristics between the participants in the two groups were compared. There was no significant difference in the baseline socio-demographic characteristics across the two groups. The extent and severity of measured by questionnaire demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Summary of differences in participants’ baseline characteristics between groups. The two group were comparable in socio-demographic background, age, weight, height, gender (male / female) and BMI. After 24weeks evaluation in the two groups, there no laxity recorded in the physical examination tests such as anterior drawer test (ADT), pivot test and, Lachman test.
& CONCLUSIONS: The discussions of the researched such as the functional scores in the new regime were significantly higher than in the standard regime. The Standard Regime contains only one component: the strength exercises. The new regime contains the extra components, agility and balance in addition to strength exercises. These multiple components contribute to the higher functional scores in the new regime. The secondary outcomes such as there was a good consistency in the evaluation of laxity and the rollimeter in both groups in that there was reduced or no laxity after the operation. There was however no significant improvement and increase in thigh circumference after the rehabilitation in the two groups. In the conclusions, the primary outcomes and secondary outcomes. The New Regime (NR), had higher functional scores than Standard Regime (SR).