Abstract
BACKGROUND: Corona virus infectious pandemic makes outdoors rehabilitation a potential hazard. Patient education to perform simple home-based exercises seems to be an interesting and sometimes a mandatory option. This study provides a comparison between the conventional and home-based virtual rehabilitation after surgical repair of medial meniscus root tears. METHODS: In this prospective study, all patients who underwent medial meniscus posterior root repair with a modified trans-tibial pull-out technique from March 2019 to March 2021 were evaluated. Those who underwent surgery after December 2019 were trained to perform self-rehabilitation. The rest had undergone outdoors specialized rehabilitation according to a unified protocol and these were used as a historical control group. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 year after surgery. Final Lysholm scores were utilized to compare functional outcomes after considering the effect of age, body mass index and time from surgery by multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three consecutive patients with medial meniscal root tears were studied. Thirty-nine (90.7%) were women and 4 (9.3%) were men. The mean age of participants was 53.2 ± 8.1 years. The total Lysholm knee score, and all its items were significantly improved in both groups at a two-year follow-up (p < 0.05), except the "Using cane or crutches" item (p = 0.065). Nevertheless, the final Lysholm knee score improvement was higher in patients who performed outdoors specialized rehabilitation and in patients with shorter time-to-surgery. CONCLUSION: Regardless of age and gender, home-based rehabilitation after meniscal root repair with the modified trans-tibial pull-out technique improved the patients' function at a two-year follow-up. Nonetheless, this effect was still significantly lower than that of the outdoors specialized rehabilitation. Future work is required to clarify basic protocols for home-based tele-rehabilitation programs and determine clinical, radiological and functional results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic, historically controlled study.