Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical techniques of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) have evolved over the past three decades along with debate regarding timing of reconstruction. It was a widespread belief that the timing of surgery was an important factor in determining the resulting stiffness after ACLR. Delayed rather than early reconstruction of the ACL is the current recommended treatment since it is thought to give a better functional outcome. However, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the optimal time of surgical intervention. The purpose of this study was to compare the range of motion and functional outcome in patients who underwent ACLR early with those that were delayed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients were randomized into two groups; patients who underwent the procedure within three weeks were kept in Group I (Early) and those patients who were reconstructed after six weeks were categorized as Group II (Delayed). Hamstring grafts were used and a standard protocol of surgery and physiotherapy was followed. The range of motion, IKDC and Tegner scores were compared. RESULTS: A hundred and four patients underwent ACLR; fifty-three patients were grouped as Group I (Early) and fifty one as Group II (Delayed). The range of motion of both groups was comparable. The IKDC and Tegner scores were also comparable for early (Group I) ACLR and the patients who had their ACL reconstructed after a delay of at least 6 weeks (Group II). CONCLUSION: There are no clinical differences in terms of range of motion and functional results between early and delayed ACLR.