User login
Soccer or Football Medicine? Global Sports Medicine for a Global Game
Any given weekend where the sun is shining in the United States, you can jump in your car and see children competing on the soccer field. Soccer, known as football in other countries, is one of the most played sports in the US with over 25 million children participating every year. Despite Americans’ mass participation in youth soccer, this level of enthusiasm hasn’t necessarily translated into soccer being one of our most watched sports. On an international level, soccer is not only a sport but a way of life, and it is often described as “the beautiful game”, as visions of Pelé, Kaká, Messi, Ronaldo, and others can invoke emotional responses in the hearts of so many people across the world.
Over the course of the past 20 years, the enthusiasm for soccer in the US has grown significantly as defined not only by the number of youth players on the field but also now by the increased number of professional teams, energetic supporters in the stands, and fans watching on their televisions at home. This exponential growth started with the success of our US Soccer National Teams in the 1990s, including the 1994 World Cup held in the US, and became cemented into the culture of American sports with the birth, development, and subsequent growth of Major League Soccer (MLS) across the country. Despite the recent disappointment of the US Men’s National Team not making the 2018 World Cup, Americans should remain excited that our US Women’s National Team is prepared to be a contender in the 2019 World Cup, our US Men’s National Team will certainly make a significant push to compete in the 2022 World Cup, and the US is again ready to re-energize Americans’ interest in soccer by hosting a collaborative bid for the Men’s 2026 World Cup!
Now that I have hopefully energized all of our readers about the current and future impact of soccer within the US, I am personally excited about being an active member of the soccer medicine community through my roles as the Chief Medical Officer of the Orlando City Soccer Club, including Orlando City Lions MLS team and Orlando Pride National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) team, and a Team Physician for US Soccer. What most people don’t realize in the sports medicine community and beyond is that our MLS and US soccer medical teams have been working tirelessly for the last 20 years to not only provide top-notch medical care within our country but to create one of the best medical structures in the world.
Over the last several years, I have learned that our soccer medical community is fortunate to have strength in numbers. In fact, our international colleagues provide a collaborative team to help push the limits on medical innovation so that we constantly reflect upon the quality of care that we are providing for the ultimate improvement of the medical care for all of our players. I recently returned from a trip to Barcelona for the Isokinetic Medical Group Football, known as soccer in the US, Medicine Outcomes Meeting where over 3000 participants from almost 100 countries around the world attended. After previous involvement in Major League Baseball and the National Football League, and since my integration into the soccer medicine community several years ago, I have been amazed and challenged by the complexity of pathology that we see in soccer players and the attention to detail that is required to successfully transition a soccer player back to the field while also preventing a subsequent injury. In fact, soccer players require a unique combination of skill, fitness, performance, nutrition, and sustainability to be successful at the highest level of soccer. As a sports medicine community in the US, we have come so far but yet still have so much left to learn. I’m certainly excited that we will be able to build and share this knowledge base with not only my fellow Americans but also our international colleagues abroad. Who knows, after the 2026 World Cup, the further growth and solidification of soccer and soccer medicine in the US might enable me to change the title for my editorial with no resulting confusion: “Global Football Medicine for a Global Game”.
Any given weekend where the sun is shining in the United States, you can jump in your car and see children competing on the soccer field. Soccer, known as football in other countries, is one of the most played sports in the US with over 25 million children participating every year. Despite Americans’ mass participation in youth soccer, this level of enthusiasm hasn’t necessarily translated into soccer being one of our most watched sports. On an international level, soccer is not only a sport but a way of life, and it is often described as “the beautiful game”, as visions of Pelé, Kaká, Messi, Ronaldo, and others can invoke emotional responses in the hearts of so many people across the world.
Over the course of the past 20 years, the enthusiasm for soccer in the US has grown significantly as defined not only by the number of youth players on the field but also now by the increased number of professional teams, energetic supporters in the stands, and fans watching on their televisions at home. This exponential growth started with the success of our US Soccer National Teams in the 1990s, including the 1994 World Cup held in the US, and became cemented into the culture of American sports with the birth, development, and subsequent growth of Major League Soccer (MLS) across the country. Despite the recent disappointment of the US Men’s National Team not making the 2018 World Cup, Americans should remain excited that our US Women’s National Team is prepared to be a contender in the 2019 World Cup, our US Men’s National Team will certainly make a significant push to compete in the 2022 World Cup, and the US is again ready to re-energize Americans’ interest in soccer by hosting a collaborative bid for the Men’s 2026 World Cup!
Now that I have hopefully energized all of our readers about the current and future impact of soccer within the US, I am personally excited about being an active member of the soccer medicine community through my roles as the Chief Medical Officer of the Orlando City Soccer Club, including Orlando City Lions MLS team and Orlando Pride National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) team, and a Team Physician for US Soccer. What most people don’t realize in the sports medicine community and beyond is that our MLS and US soccer medical teams have been working tirelessly for the last 20 years to not only provide top-notch medical care within our country but to create one of the best medical structures in the world.
Over the last several years, I have learned that our soccer medical community is fortunate to have strength in numbers. In fact, our international colleagues provide a collaborative team to help push the limits on medical innovation so that we constantly reflect upon the quality of care that we are providing for the ultimate improvement of the medical care for all of our players. I recently returned from a trip to Barcelona for the Isokinetic Medical Group Football, known as soccer in the US, Medicine Outcomes Meeting where over 3000 participants from almost 100 countries around the world attended. After previous involvement in Major League Baseball and the National Football League, and since my integration into the soccer medicine community several years ago, I have been amazed and challenged by the complexity of pathology that we see in soccer players and the attention to detail that is required to successfully transition a soccer player back to the field while also preventing a subsequent injury. In fact, soccer players require a unique combination of skill, fitness, performance, nutrition, and sustainability to be successful at the highest level of soccer. As a sports medicine community in the US, we have come so far but yet still have so much left to learn. I’m certainly excited that we will be able to build and share this knowledge base with not only my fellow Americans but also our international colleagues abroad. Who knows, after the 2026 World Cup, the further growth and solidification of soccer and soccer medicine in the US might enable me to change the title for my editorial with no resulting confusion: “Global Football Medicine for a Global Game”.
Any given weekend where the sun is shining in the United States, you can jump in your car and see children competing on the soccer field. Soccer, known as football in other countries, is one of the most played sports in the US with over 25 million children participating every year. Despite Americans’ mass participation in youth soccer, this level of enthusiasm hasn’t necessarily translated into soccer being one of our most watched sports. On an international level, soccer is not only a sport but a way of life, and it is often described as “the beautiful game”, as visions of Pelé, Kaká, Messi, Ronaldo, and others can invoke emotional responses in the hearts of so many people across the world.
Over the course of the past 20 years, the enthusiasm for soccer in the US has grown significantly as defined not only by the number of youth players on the field but also now by the increased number of professional teams, energetic supporters in the stands, and fans watching on their televisions at home. This exponential growth started with the success of our US Soccer National Teams in the 1990s, including the 1994 World Cup held in the US, and became cemented into the culture of American sports with the birth, development, and subsequent growth of Major League Soccer (MLS) across the country. Despite the recent disappointment of the US Men’s National Team not making the 2018 World Cup, Americans should remain excited that our US Women’s National Team is prepared to be a contender in the 2019 World Cup, our US Men’s National Team will certainly make a significant push to compete in the 2022 World Cup, and the US is again ready to re-energize Americans’ interest in soccer by hosting a collaborative bid for the Men’s 2026 World Cup!
Now that I have hopefully energized all of our readers about the current and future impact of soccer within the US, I am personally excited about being an active member of the soccer medicine community through my roles as the Chief Medical Officer of the Orlando City Soccer Club, including Orlando City Lions MLS team and Orlando Pride National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) team, and a Team Physician for US Soccer. What most people don’t realize in the sports medicine community and beyond is that our MLS and US soccer medical teams have been working tirelessly for the last 20 years to not only provide top-notch medical care within our country but to create one of the best medical structures in the world.
Over the last several years, I have learned that our soccer medical community is fortunate to have strength in numbers. In fact, our international colleagues provide a collaborative team to help push the limits on medical innovation so that we constantly reflect upon the quality of care that we are providing for the ultimate improvement of the medical care for all of our players. I recently returned from a trip to Barcelona for the Isokinetic Medical Group Football, known as soccer in the US, Medicine Outcomes Meeting where over 3000 participants from almost 100 countries around the world attended. After previous involvement in Major League Baseball and the National Football League, and since my integration into the soccer medicine community several years ago, I have been amazed and challenged by the complexity of pathology that we see in soccer players and the attention to detail that is required to successfully transition a soccer player back to the field while also preventing a subsequent injury. In fact, soccer players require a unique combination of skill, fitness, performance, nutrition, and sustainability to be successful at the highest level of soccer. As a sports medicine community in the US, we have come so far but yet still have so much left to learn. I’m certainly excited that we will be able to build and share this knowledge base with not only my fellow Americans but also our international colleagues abroad. Who knows, after the 2026 World Cup, the further growth and solidification of soccer and soccer medicine in the US might enable me to change the title for my editorial with no resulting confusion: “Global Football Medicine for a Global Game”.
Knee Injuries in Elite Level Soccer Players
ABSTRACT
As one of the most popular sports in the world, soccer injury rates involving the knee continue to rise. An alarming trend of knee injuries, including increased anterior cruciate ligament ruptures, underscores the need to review our current understanding of these injuries in soccer players. This article includes a critical review of the epidemiology of knee injuries in soccer, anterior cruciate ligament and other ligamentous injuries, cartilage and meniscal injury, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, as well as current prevention initiatives.
Continue to: EPIDEMIOLOGY...
EPIDEMIOLOGY
There are currently 28 players on each of the Major League Soccer (MLS) teams, and during the 2013 to 2014 academic year, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) reported that 417,419 boys and 374,564 girls played high school soccer and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reported that 23,602 males and 26,358 females played collegiate soccer.5 As such, knee injuries in this population are a major concern for those involved in sports medicine. Several injuries occurring during soccer involve the lower extremity, particularly the knee.1 In fact, multiple reports estimate that up to 17.6% of soccer-related injuries presenting to the emergency room involved the knee.1,6-9 The majority of these injuries are noncontact injuries, although contact injuries do still occur.10,11
Risk factors for injuries in soccer may be non-modifiable (such as age and gender) and modifiable (such as level of conditioning, force, balance, and flexibility). Inadequate lower motor coordination may result in injury in the adolescent population, and advanced age >28 years in males and >25 years in females is considered as a high-risk factor for injury.12,13 Importantly, gender and age have been reported to play a significant role as risk factors for ACL injury.6 In fact, female players have a 3 to 5 times higher risk of significant knee injury, including ACL injuries, than male players.4,14-16 Preventative programs such as the FIFA 11+ program have been set forth to augment conditioning as part of managing the modifiable risk factors.
Like American football, playing on artificial turf has been questioned as a contributor to injury compared to playing on natural grass.17,18 In recent years, newer generations of artificial turf have been developed to more closely replicate the characteristics of natural grass. Meyers19 compared the incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate men’s soccer injuries on artificial turf and those on natural grass and demonstrated no significant difference in knee injuries between the 2 surfaces. This finding was consistent with previous studies that reported no difference in the incidence of knee injuries on either surface in women’s collegiate and elite-level soccer.15,20,21
Continue to: ACL INJURIES...
ACL INJURIES
ACL injuries are life-changing events that can significantly affect the career of a soccer athlete. As a major stabilizer of the knee, the ACL primarily prevents anterior tibial translation with the anteromedial bundle and secondarily resists tibial rotation with the posterolateral bundle. The ligament takes origin from the posteromedial aspect of the lateral femoral condyle and inserts anterior to the tibial intercondylar eminence. Grading of ACL injuries is based on the Lachman test, which is performed between 20°and 30° of knee flexion and measures the amount of anterior tibial translation relative to the femur (A = firm endpoint, B = no endpoint; grade I: 3-5 mm, grade II (A/B): 5-10 mm, grade III (A/B): >10 mm).
ACL injury may occur via contact or noncontact mechanisms. Noncontact mechanisms of ACL injury in soccer athletes contribute to about 85% of injuries.6,22-25 Typical noncontact mechanism of injury involves a forceful valgus collapse with the knee near full extension and combined external or internal rotation of the tibia23,26 (Figure 1). This on-field scenario generally involves cutting and torsional movement, as well as landing after a jump, particularly in 1-legged stance. Similarly, a disturbance in balance caused by the opponent may incite a noncontact mechanism resulting in ACL rupture.6,27 Video analyses of professional soccer players have also demonstrated a higher risk of noncontact ACL injury within the first 9 minutes of the match, with the most common playing situation resulting in injury being pressing, followed by kicking and heading.24,25,28 Contact mechanisms resulting in ACL injury, however, are not an uncommon occurrence in soccer players with higher risk for certain positions. Brophy and colleagues29 reviewed ACL injuries in professional and collegiate soccer players and reported a higher risk of ACL injury during defending and tackling. Similarly, Faude and colleagues30 found the risk of injury to be higher in defenders and strikers than in goalkeepers and midfielders.
Female athletes participating in elite-level athletics, especially soccer, represent a high-risk group for ACL injury. In fact, these soccer athletes experience ACL injury at an incidence 3 times higher than that in male athletes.31-35 Female soccer athletes may also be at risk for reinjury to the ACL and contralateral ACL injury. Female gender, in combination with participation in soccer, thus represents a high-risk group for ACL tear in athletics. Allen and colleagues36 retrospectively reviewed 180 female patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction (ACLR) (90 soccer players and 90 non-soccer players) over a mean period of 68.8 months. In their series, soccer players sustained significantly more ACL injuries than non-soccer players, including graft failures (11% vs 1%) and contralateral ACL tears (17% vs 4%).
ACLR is the gold standard treatment for elite soccer athletes. A recent survey of MLS team orthopedic surgeons revealed several important details regarding decision-making in ACLR in this population. From a technical standpoint, the vast majority of surgeons used a single incision, arthroscopically assisted, single-bundle reconstruction (91%). Femoral tunnel drilling was almost equally split between transtibial (51%) and use of an accessory medial portal (46%). Bone-patella-tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft was the most preferred graft choice (68%), and quadriceps tendon autograft was the least preferred. The majority of surgeons preformed ACLR within 4 weeks and permitted return to sport (RTS) without restrictions at 6 to 8 months.37
Continue to: There is a scarcity of literature regarding...
There is a scarcity of literature regarding the use of soft tissue and BPTB allografts in soccer athletes. However, one study reported no difference in patient-reported outcomes and return to preinjury level of activity (including soccer) with the use of either autograft or allograft BPTB in ACLR.38 The authors’ preference was to avoid the use of allograft in elite-level soccer athletes as the reported rate of ACL re-tear was 4 to 8 times higher than that with autograft reconstruction, as shown in athletes and military personnel.39,40 BPTB autograft and hamstring autograft (semitendinosus and/or gracilis) are common graft choices for soccer athletes. Gifstad and colleagues41 compared BPTB autograft and hamstring autograft in 45,998 primary ACLRs performed in Scandinavia. Although the cohort included, but was not limited to, soccer players, the authors reported an overall risk of revision that was significantly lower in the BPTB autograft group than in the hamstring autograft group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.74).41 Mohammadi and colleagues42 prospectively compared the functional outcomes of 42 competitive soccer players who underwent ACLR with BPTB autograft vs those who underwent ACLR with hamstring autograft at the time of RTS. Players who had undergone ACLR with hamstring autograft demonstrated greater quadriceps torque, as well as better performance with triple-hop, crossover-hop, and jump-landing tests; however, both groups demonstrated similar hamstring torque and performance in 2 other hop tests.42 In the authors’ opinion, there may be a concern regarding the use of hamstring autograft in elite soccer players considering that hamstring strains are extremely common in this athletic population; however, further research would be necessary to elucidate whether this is an actual or a theoretical risk. Although not yet studied in elite-level athletes, early clinical results of ACL repair with suture augmentation show promise for certain injury patterns. These include proximal femoral ACL avulsion injuries (Sherman type 1) of excellent tissue quality that have the ability to be reapproximated to the femoral origin43 (Figures 2A, 2B). In a recent series,43-45 early clinical outcomes were found to be excellent and maintained at midterm follow-up.
In the NCAA soccer athletes, an overall RTS rate of 85% has been reported in those undergoing ACLR, with a significantly higher rate observed in scholarship versus non-scholarship athletes.46 Howard and colleagues46 reported median time to unrestricted game play of 6.1 months, with 75% returning to the same or higher level position on the depth chart. Among their studied collegiate soccer athletes, 32% reported continued participation in soccer on some level after college (recreational, semiprofessional, or professional).46 RTS rates for MLS soccer players have also been reported to be high, ranging from 74% to 77%, most of them returning within the following season at 10 ± 2.8 months.47,48 These findings were consistent with the RTS rate of 72% reported by the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group, which analyzed 100 female and male soccer players undergoing ACLR at a minimum 7-year follow-up. In this series, Brophy and colleagues29,49 reported an RTS at 12 ± 14.3 months, with 85% returning to the same or a higher level of play prior to their injury. Erickson and colleagues47 analyzed a series of 57 ACLRs performed in MLS athletes and reported no significant difference in preinjury or postoperative performance, or between cases and uninjured controls. Arundale and colleagues48 demonstrated no significantly increased risk of lower extremity injury in MLS athletes after ACLR, but the athletes had significantly shorter careers than their uninjured counterparts. Curiously, RTS rates for European professional soccer athletes have been reported to be substantially higher at 95% to 97%.50,51 Although we can only speculate the reasons for such a discrepancy, the difference in RTS rates for similar athletes highlights a need for objective criteria to determine and report RTS rates, while also providing guidelines to prevent reinjury. Such a consensus among orthopedists is not yet present in the literature.
Soccer players and adolescent age in combination have been shown to portend a 3-fold increased risk of revision surgery for ACL failure in a cohort of 16,930 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.52 Published data regarding ACL failure and management of revision ACLR in elite-level soccer athletes are currently lacking. However, low failure rates of 3% to 10% requiring revision reconstruction have been reported.47,49 Arundale and colleagues48 reported 2 incidences of players with ACL graft failures, 1 BPTB autograft and 1 BPTB allograft, both of whom were able to return to MLS after revision ACLR. It is the authors’ preference to use ipsilateral hamstring autograft or contralateral BPTB autograft when an ACL revision reconstruction is required.
Continue to: OTHER LIGAMENTOUS INJURIES...
OTHER LIGAMENTOUS INJURIES
The majority of research efforts regarding knee injuries in this population are focused on the ACL. Correspondingly, literature regarding injury to the collateral ligaments and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in soccer players is sparse. The lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and the medial collateral ligament (MCL) play important roles as primary stabilizers to varus and valgus forces, respectively. The PCL is the primary posterior stabilizer of the knee, preventing posterior translation of the tibia. Injury to these structures may result in significant time lost from soccer and risk of reinjury.53,54
The MCL is the one of the most commonly injured ligaments in sports, including soccer.53,55 The injury mechanism generally involves contact with a resulting valgus force applied to the knee.55 Grading of MCL injuries is based on the amount of medial joint gapping with applied valgus force during examination (grade I: <5 mm, grade II: 5-10 mm, grade III: >10 mm). Kramer and colleagues53 reviewed collateral ligament injuries in the adolescent population and found that MCL injuries occurred 4 times more often than LCL injuries and about 25% were grade III injuries, most commonly occurring in American football and soccer players. Soccer also touts the highest sport-specific MCL injury rate for high school and collegiate athletics, particularly for female NCAA soccer players.56 At the professional level, Lundblad and colleagues55 reported 346 MCL injuries in 27 European teams over an 11-year period, of which 70% were contact-related, and the average time-off from soccer was 28 days.
Most surgeons treat isolated MCL injuries nonoperatively, regardless of grade.57,58 This includes activity modification, use of a hinged knee brace, quadriceps strengthening, and progressive return to play. The literature currently lacks substantial data to guide MCL injury management, specifically in elite soccer athletes. In our experience, grade I injuries are managed nonoperatively and RTS is allowed at 4 to 6 weeks. Grade II injuries are also managed nonoperatively and RTS is allowed at 6 to 8 weeks. Grade III injuries are generally allowed RTS at 8 to 12 weeks and may be considered for surgery in the context of concomitant injuries (eg, posteromedial capsular injury, multiligamentous knee injuries, and meniscal injuries). In some athletes, we consider using a varus unloader brace to help maximize decreased stress on the MCL while still allowing the athlete to be fully weight-bearing. We have found it less ideal to limit weight-bearing in elite athletes, which may negatively affect overall lower extremity neuromuscular proprioception and potentially prolong a safe return to play. Some athletes may experience prolonged soreness at the MCL femoral or tibial attachment despite being able to return to play. It is important to counsel athletes about these prolonged symptoms to set expectations, as this may even occur with grade I MCL injuries. Other rare instances where surgical management may be indicated include persistent pain and instability following nonoperative treatment of grade III injuries and highly displaced tibial avulsions of the ligament resulting in poor healing.59,60
Data regarding LCL injuries in soccer are extremely sparse. In our experience, treatment and RTS rates for isolated LCL injuries are similar to those for MCL injuries. However, it is worth noting that one-quarter of LCL injuries may occur in combination with injury to other posterolateral corner structures.53
PCL injuries are more commonly associated with vehicular trauma but have also been reported to occur in sports at a rate of 33% to 40%.61,62 The mechanism of injury in athletes generally involves a fall onto the hyperflexed knee with the foot in plantarflexion or a direct blow to the anterior tibia in a flexed knee.62,63 Classification of PCL injuries is based on posterior translation of the tibia relative to the femur with the knee flexed to 90°(grade I: 1-5 mm, grade II: 6-10 mm, grade III: >10 mm). In one cohort of 62 patients with isolated PCL injuries, soccer was found to be among the top 5 causes of injury.64 A Scandinavian review of 1287 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction found soccer to be the sport with the highest number of injuries (13.1%).65 The goalkeeper was most commonly subjected to this injury.62 Krutsch and colleagues54 compared PCL injuries in new, professional soccer players to those in players at the closest amateur level of play. In their series, 90% of PCL injuries occurred during preseason in players who were at a lower level of play in the previous season. This finding suggested that a rapid increase in training and playing intensity may have been a significant risk factor for PCL injury. Substantial literature supporting nonoperative or operative management of PCL injuries in soccer athletes is currently lacking. Historically, nonoperative treatment has been the initial management for isolated PCL injuries; however, surgical intervention has become increasingly used for both isolated and combined PCL injuries.66
Continue to: CARTILAGE AND MENISCAL INJURIES...
CARTILAGE AND MENISCAL INJURIES
The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) in retired soccer players is high.67,68 Articular cartilage degeneration with subsequent OA occurs in up to 32% of soccer players and ultimately leads to significant disability and retirement from the sport. High physical demands and concomitant knee injuries probably predispose to the development of posttraumatic OA.69-71
Several techniques addressing cartilage débridement or restoration have been reported, with successful RTS but with variable durability.72-75 Recently, Andrade and colleagues76 performed a systematic review of 217 articular cartilage defects in soccer players that were treated using restoration techniques, including chondroplasty, microfracture, autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and osteochondral autograft. Although no superior technique could be ascertained, microfracture and osteochondral autograft procedures led to the quickest return to play, and ACI techniques enhanced long-standing clinical and functional results.76 More recently, osteochondral allograft transplantation has also been described with an 84% return to some level of activity (including soccer) and 60% of athletes returning to high-level sports participation at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years77 (Figures 3A-3C). Although chondroplasty may be successful and allow for a quicker return to play in some soccer players (return to play from 6-12 weeks), the authors believe that a strong cartilage scaffold repair strategy with early weight-bearing, including osteochondral autograft and allograft procedures (return to play from 6-9 months), must also be considered in focal chondral defects to optimize both short-term and potential long-term success.
Meniscal injuries are also prevalent in the soccer population, and consistent with ACL injuries, female players are at least twice as likely to sustain a meniscal tear.78,79 Meniscal damage can occur in isolation or in association with ACL rupture. Repair techniques should be strongly considered as chondral changes in the setting of meniscal deficiency are a significant short- and long-term concern for elite athletes. However, due to intrinsically poor healing potential, partial meniscectomy is unfortunately more often performed.79,80 In either case, meniscal deficiency is recognized as a precursor to the development of OA as meniscal functionality is lost and the articular cartilage is subjected to increased biomechanical loading.81,82 Nawabi and colleagues83 analyzed RTS in 90 professional soccer players following partial meniscectomy. Median RTS was at 7 weeks for lateral meniscectomies and at 5 weeks for medial meniscectomies. RTS probability was 5.99 times greater after medial meniscectomy at all time points. Lateral meniscectomies were associated with an increased risk of postoperative adverse events, reoperation, and a significantly lower rate of return to play.83 In the case of severe meniscal deficiency, particularly post-meniscectomy, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) may be considered. In a series of MATs in lower division Spanish players, 12/14 (85.7%) returned to play at an average of 7.6 months.84 A more recent series of professional players reported 9/12 (75%) RTS as professionals and 2/12 (17%) as semiprofessionals at an average of 10.5 months.85 The authors’ strong preference is to perform meniscus-saving procedures whenever possible. Due to the longer recovery and return to play associated with meniscus repair than partial meniscectomy, most of the soccer players will often prefer to proceed with partial meniscectomy. Despite the ultimate treatment, it is critical that the surgeon and the soccer player have an in-depth conversation concerning the risks and benefits for each procedure and individualize treatment to the individual soccer player accordingly.
Continue to: INJURY PREVENTION...
INJURY PREVENTION
Given the breadth and the prevalence of soccer-related injuries, the FIFA11+ program was developed in 2006 as an injury prevention measure (Figure 4). The warm-up program includes 15 structured exercises emphasizing core stabilization, thigh muscle training, proprioception, dynamic stabilization, and plyometric exercises. The routine is believed to be easily executed and effective at preventing the incidence of noncontact injuries.86,87 Recently, Sadigursky and colleagues1 performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of FIFA11+. The authors reported a reduction in injuries by 30% and a relative risk of 0.70 for lower limb injuries, highlighting the significant preventative importance of the program.1 Post-training programs may also be beneficial as it has been shown that performing FIFA11+ both before and after training reduced overall injury rates in male, amateur soccer players.88 Regardless of the prevention program, it is critical that every league, team, medical team, and athlete have a thorough injury prevention strategy to help keep players healthy and not wait until they have instead sustained a significant injury.
CONCLUSION
Knee injuries are common in soccer, with an alarming number of ACL injuries, as well as other significant pathology. Understanding the unique epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and injury prevention strategies is critically important in helping medical professionals provide care for all levels of elite soccer players.
1. Sadigursky D, Braid JA, De Lira DNL, Machado BAB, Carneiro RJF, Colavolpe PO. The FIFA 11+ injury prevention program for soccer players: a systematic review. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2017;9:18. doi:10.1186/s13102-017-0083-z.
2. Junge A, Dvorak J. Soccer injuries: a review on incidence and prevention. Sports Med. 2004;34(13):929-938. doi:10.2165/00007256-200434130-00004.
3. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):311-319.
4. Agel J, Rockwood T, Klossner D. Collegiate ACL Injury rates across 15 sports: National collegiate athletic association injury surveillance system data update (2004-2005 Through 2012-2013). Clin J Sport Med. 2016;26(6):518-523. doi:10.1097/JSM.0000000000000290.
5. Kerr ZY, Pierpoint LA, Currie DW, Wasserman EB, Comstock RD. Epidemiologic comparisons of soccer-related injuries presenting to emergency departments and reported within high school and collegiate settings. Inj Epidemiol. 2017;4(1):19. doi:10.1186/s40621-017-0116-9.
6. Volpi P, Bisciotti GN, Chamari K, Cena E, Carimati G, Bragazzi NL. Risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament injury in football players: a systematic review of the literature. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2016;6(4):480-485. doi:10.11138/mltj/2016.6.4.480.
7. Smith NA, Chounthirath T, Xiang H. Soccer-related injuries treated in emergency departments: 1990-2014. Pediatrics. 2016;138(4). doi:10.1542/peds.2016-0346.
8. Leininger RE, Knox CL, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of 1.6 million pediatric soccer-related injuries presenting to US emergency departments from 1990 to 2003. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):288-293. doi:10.1177/0363546506294060.
9. Adams AL, Schiff MA. Childhood soccer injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(5):571-574. doi:10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.015.
10. Woods C, Hawkins R, Hulse M, Hodson A. The football association medical research programme: an audit of injuries in professional football-analysis of preseason injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36(6):436-441. doi:10.1136/bjsm.36.6.436.
11. Chomiak J, Junge A, Peterson L, Dvorak J. Severe injuries in football players. Influencing factors. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5 Suppl):S58-68. doi:10.1177/28.suppl_5.s-58.
12. Ostenberg A, Roos H. Injury risk factors in female European football. a prospective study of 123 players during one season. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(5):279-285. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010005279.x.
13. Backous DD, Friedl KE, Smith NJ, Parr TJ, Carpine WD. Soccer injuries and their relation to physical maturity. Am J Dis Child. 1988;142(8):839-842. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1988.02150080045019.
14. Grimm NL, Jacobs JC, Kim J, Denney BS, Shea KG. Anterior cruciate ligament and knee injury prevention programs for soccer players: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):2049-2056. doi:10.1177/0363546514556737.
15. Dick R, Putukian M, Agel J, Evans TA, Marshall SW. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's soccer injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through 2002-2003. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):278-285.
16. Renstrom P, Ljungqvist A, Arendt E, et al. Non-contact ACL injuries in female athletes: an International Olympic Committee current concepts statement. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(6):394-412. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.048934.
17. Guskiewicz KM, Weaver NL, Padua DA, Garrett WE. Epidemiology of concussion in collegiate and high school football players. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5):643-650. doi:10.1177/03635465000280050401.
18. Levy IM, Skovron ML, Agel J. Living with artificial grass: a knowledge update. Part 1: Basic science. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(4):406-412. doi:10.1177/036354659001800413.
19. Meyers MC. Incidence, Mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate men's soccer injuries on fieldturf and natural grass surfaces: a 6-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):708-718. doi:10.1177/0363546516671715.
20. Ekstrand J, Hägglund M, Fuller CW. Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and female elite football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(6):824-832. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01118.x.
21. Meyers MC. Incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate women's soccer injuries on FieldTurf and natural grass surfaces: a 5-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2409-2420. doi:10.1177/0363546513498994.
22. Dragoo JL, Braun HJ, Harris AH. The effect of playing surface on the incidence of ACL injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association American Football. Knee. 2013;20(3):191-195. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2012.07.006.
23. Rothenberg P, Grau L, Kaplan L, Baraga MG. Knee injuries in american football: an epidemiological review. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):368-373.
24. Waldén M, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, Ekstrand J. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in elite football: a prospective three-cohort study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(1):11-19. doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1170-9.
25. Waldén M, Krosshaug T, Bjørneboe J, Andersen TE, Faul O, Hägglund M. Three distinct mechanisms predominate in non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in male professional football players: a systematic video analysis of 39 cases. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(22):1452-1460. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-094573.
26. Olsen OE, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L, Bahr R. Injury mechanisms for anterior cruciate ligament injuries in team handball: a systematic video analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(4):1002-1012. doi:10.1177/0363546503261724.
27. Giza E, Mithöfer K, Farrell L, Zarins B, Gill T. Injuries in women's professional soccer. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(4):212-216; discussion 212-216. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.011973.
28. Grassi A, Smiley SP, Roberti di Sarsina T, et al. Mechanisms and situations of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in professional male soccer players: a YouTube-based video analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(7):967-981. doi:10.1007/s00590-017-1905-0.
29. Brophy RH, Stepan JG, Silvers HJ, Mandelbaum BR. Defending puts the anterior cruciate ligament at risk during soccer: a gender-based analysis. Sports Health. 2015;7(3):244-249. doi:10.1177/1941738114535184.
30. Faude O, Junge A, Kindermann W, Dvorak J. Risk factors for injuries in elite female soccer players. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(9):785-790. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.027540.
31. Agel J, Arendt EA, Bershadsky B. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in national collegiate athletic association basketball and soccer: a 13-year review. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(4):524-530. doi:10.1177/0363546504269937.
32. Gwinn DE, Wilckens JH, McDevitt ER, Ross G, Kao TC. The relative incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in men and women at the United States Naval Academy. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(1):98-102. doi:10.1177/03635465000280012901.
33. Arendt E, Dick R. Knee injury patterns among men and women in collegiate basketball and soccer. NCAA data and review of literature. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(6):694-701. doi:10.1177/036354659502300611.
34. Mihata LC, Beutler AI, Boden BP. Comparing the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in collegiate lacrosse, soccer, and basketball players: implications for anterior cruciate ligament mechanism and prevention. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(6):899-904. doi:10.1177/0363546505285582.
35. Prodromos CC, Han Y, Rogowski J, Joyce B, Shi K. A meta-analysis of the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears as a function of gender, sport, and a knee injury-reduction regimen. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(12):1320-1325.e1326. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.07.003.
36. Allen MM, Pareek A, Krych AJ, et al. Are female soccer players at an increased risk of second anterior cruciate ligament injury compared with their athletic peers? Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(10):2492-2498. doi:10.1177/0363546516648439.
37. Farber J, Harris JD, Kolstad K, McCulloch PC. Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries by major league soccer team physicians. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(11):2325967114559892. doi:10.1177/2325967114559892.
38. Mascarenhas R, Tranovich M, Karpie JC, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD. Patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the high-demand patient: evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(9 Suppl):S58-66. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.01.004.
39. Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, et al. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health. 2011;3(1):73-81. doi:10.1177/1941738110386185.
40. Pallis M, Svoboda SJ, Cameron KL, Owens BD. Survival comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at the United States Military Academy. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(6):1242-1246. doi:10.1177/0363546512443945.
41. Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, et al. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2319-2328. doi:10.1177/0363546514548164.
42. Mohammadi F, Salavati M, Akhbari B, Mazaheri M, Mohsen Mir S, Etemadi Y. Comparison of functional outcome measures after ACL reconstruction in competitive soccer players: a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(14):1271-1277. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00724.
43. van der List JP, DiFelice GS. Arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament repair with suture augmentation. Arthrosc Tech. 2017;6(5):e1529-e1534. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.009.
44. Murray MM, Flutie BM, Kalish LA, et al. The bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair (BEAR) procedure: an early feasibility cohort study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(11):2325967116672176. doi:10.1177/2325967116672176.
45. DiFelice GS, van der List JP. Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears are maintained at mid-term follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(4):1085-1093. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.10.028.
46. Howard JS, Lembach ML, Metzler AV, Johnson DL. Rates and determinants of return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in national collegiate athletic association division I soccer athletes: a study of the southeastern conference. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):433-439. doi:10.1177/0363546515614315.
47. Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Cvetanovich GL, et al. Performance and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in male major league soccer players. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1(2):2325967113497189. doi:10.1177/2325967113497189.
48. Arundale AJH, Silvers-Granelli HJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Career length and injury incidence after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in major league soccer players. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(1):2325967117750825. doi:10.1177/2325967117750825.
49. Brophy RH, Schmitz L, Wright RW, et al. Return to play and future ACL injury risk after ACL reconstruction in soccer athletes from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2517-2522. doi:10.1177/0363546512459476.
50. Zaffagnini S, Grassi A, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, et al. Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in professional soccer players. Knee. 2014;21(3):731-735. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.005.
51. Waldén M, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, Ekstrand J. ACL injuries in men's professional football: a 15-year prospective study on time trends and return-to-play rates reveals only 65% of players still play at the top level 3 years after ACL rupture. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(12):744-750. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095952.
52. Andernord D, Desai N, Björnsson H, Ylander M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K. Patient predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 16,930 patients with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):121-127. doi:10.1177/0363546514552788.
53. Kramer DE, Miller PE, Berrahou IK, Yen YM, Heyworth BE. Collateral ligament knee injuries in pediatric and adolescent athletes. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000001112.
54. Krutsch W, Zeman F, Zellner J, Pfeifer C, Nerlich M, Angele P. Increase in ACL and PCL injuries after implementation of a new professional football league. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(7):2271-2279. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3357-y.
55. Lundblad M, Waldén M, Magnusson H, Karlsson J, Ekstrand J. The UEFA injury study: 11-year data concerning 346 MCL injuries and time to return to play. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(12):759-762. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092305.
56. Stanley LE, Kerr ZY, Dompier TP, Padua DA. Sex differences in the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament, and meniscal injuries in collegiate and high school sports: 2009-2010 Through 2013-2014. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1565-1572. doi:10.1177/0363546516630927.
57. Lind M, Jakobsen BW, Lund B, Hansen MS, Abdallah O, Christiansen SE. Anatomical reconstruction of the medial collateral ligament and posteromedial corner of the knee in patients with chronic medial collateral ligament instability. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(6):1116-1122. doi:10.1177/0363546509332498.
58. Wijdicks CA, Griffith CJ, Johansen S, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF. Injuries to the medial collateral ligament and associated medial structures of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1266-1280. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01229.
59. Marchant MH, Tibor LM, Sekiya JK, Hardaker WT, Garrett WE, Taylor DC. Management of medial-sided knee injuries, part 1: medial collateral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(5):1102-1113. doi:10.1177/0363546510385999.
60. Corten K, Hoser C, Fink C, Bellemans J. Case reports: a Stener-like lesion of the medial collateral ligament of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):289-293. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0992-6
61. Fanelli GC, Edson CJ. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients: Part II. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):526-529. doi:10.1016/0749-8063(95)90127-2.
62. Schulz MS, Russe K, Weiler A, Eichhorn HJ, Strobel MJ. Epidemiology of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(4):186-191. doi:10.1007/s00402-002-0471-y.
63. Fowler PJ, Messieh SS. Isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15(6):553-557. doi:10.1177/036354658701500606.
64. Patel DV, Allen AA, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Simonian PT. The nonoperative treatment of acute, isolated (partial or complete) posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees: an intermediate-term follow-up study. HSS J. 2007;3(2):137-146. doi:10.1007/s11420-007-9058-z.
65. Owesen C, Sandven-Thrane S, Lind M, Forssblad M, Granan LP, Årøen A. Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(8):2384-2391. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3786-2.
66. LaPrade CM, Civitarese DM, Rasmussen MT, LaPrade RF. Emerging updates on the posterior cruciate ligament: a review of the current literature. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(12):3077-3092. doi:10.1177/0363546515572770.
67. Anderson CL. High rate of osteoarthritis of the knee in former soccer players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1986;18(1):141.
68. Arliani GG, Astur DC, Yamada RK, et al. Early osteoarthritis and reduced quality of life after retirement in former professional soccer players. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014;69(9):589-594. doi:10.6061/clinics/2014(09)03.
69. Wong P, Hong Y. Soccer injury in the lower extremities. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(8):473-482. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.015511.
70. Thelin N, Holmberg S, Thelin A. Knee injuries account for the sports-related increased risk of knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16(5):329-333. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00497.x.
71. Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1756-1769. doi:10.1177/0363546507307396.
72. Mithöfer K, Peterson L, Mandelbaum BR, Minas T. Articular cartilage repair in soccer players with autologous chondrocyte transplantation: functional outcome and return to competition. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(11):1639-1646. doi:10.1177/0363546505275647
73. Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Rodrigo JJ, Kocher MS, Gill TJ, Rodkey WG. Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(5):477-484. doi:10.1053/jars.2003.50112.
74. Hangody L, Ráthonyi GK, Duska Z, Vásárhelyi G, Füles P, Módis L. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A Suppl 1:65-72.
75. Sherman SL, Garrity J, Bauer K, Cook J, Stannard J, Bugbee W. Fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation for the knee: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(2):121-133. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-22-02-121.
76. Andrade R, Vasta S, Papalia R, et al. Prevalence of articular cartilage lesions and surgical clinical outcomes in football (soccer) players' knees: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(7):1466-1477. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.055.
77. Görtz S, Williams RJ, Gersoff WK, Bugbee WD. Osteochondral and meniscal allograft transplantation in the football (soccer) player. Cartilage. 2012;3(1 Suppl):37S-42S. doi:10.1177/1947603511416974.
78. Junge A, Grimm K, Feddermann N, Dvorak J. Precompetition orthopedic assessment of international elite football players. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19(4):326-328. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181b21b56.
79. Salzmann GM, Preiss S, Zenobi-Wong M, Harder LP, Maier D, Dvorák J. Osteoarthritis in Football. Cartilage. 2017;8(2):162-172. doi:10.1177/1947603516648186.
80. Makris EA, Hadidi P, Athanasiou KA. The knee meniscus: structure-function, pathophysiology, current repair techniques, and prospects for regeneration. Biomaterials. 2011;32(30):7411-7431. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.037
81. Freutel M, Seitz AM, Ignatius A, Dürselen L. Influence of partial meniscectomy on attachment forces, superficial strain and contact mechanics in porcine knee joints. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(1):74-82. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2951-3.
82. Papalia R, Del Buono A, Osti L, Denaro V, Maffulli N. Meniscectomy as a risk factor for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2011;99:89-106. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq043.
83. Nawabi DH, Cro S, Hamid IP, Williams A. Return to play after lateral meniscectomy compared with medial meniscectomy in elite professional soccer players. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(9):2193-2198. doi:10.1177/0363546514540271.
84. Alentorn-Geli E, Vázquez RS, Díaz PA, Cuscó X, Cugat R. Arthroscopic meniscal transplants in soccer players: outcomes at 2- to 5-year follow-up. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(5):340-343. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181f207dc.
85. Marcacci M, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Grassi A, et al. Arthroscopic meniscus allograft transplantation in male professional soccer players: a 36-month follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):382-388. doi:10.1177/0363546513508763.
86. Bizzini M, Dvorak J. FIFA 11+: an effective programme to prevent football injuries in various player groups worldwide-a narrative review. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(9):577-579. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094765.
87. Junge A, Lamprecht M, Stamm H, et al. Countrywide campaign to prevent soccer injuries in Swiss amateur players. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1):57-63. doi:10.1177/0363546510377424.
88. Al Attar WSA, Soomro N, Pappas E, Sinclair PJ, Sanders RH. Adding a post-training FIFA 11+ exercise program to the pre-training FIFA 11+ injury prevention program reduces injury rates among male amateur soccer players: a cluster-randomised trial. J Physiother. 2017;63(4):235-242. doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2017.08.004.
ABSTRACT
As one of the most popular sports in the world, soccer injury rates involving the knee continue to rise. An alarming trend of knee injuries, including increased anterior cruciate ligament ruptures, underscores the need to review our current understanding of these injuries in soccer players. This article includes a critical review of the epidemiology of knee injuries in soccer, anterior cruciate ligament and other ligamentous injuries, cartilage and meniscal injury, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, as well as current prevention initiatives.
Continue to: EPIDEMIOLOGY...
EPIDEMIOLOGY
There are currently 28 players on each of the Major League Soccer (MLS) teams, and during the 2013 to 2014 academic year, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) reported that 417,419 boys and 374,564 girls played high school soccer and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reported that 23,602 males and 26,358 females played collegiate soccer.5 As such, knee injuries in this population are a major concern for those involved in sports medicine. Several injuries occurring during soccer involve the lower extremity, particularly the knee.1 In fact, multiple reports estimate that up to 17.6% of soccer-related injuries presenting to the emergency room involved the knee.1,6-9 The majority of these injuries are noncontact injuries, although contact injuries do still occur.10,11
Risk factors for injuries in soccer may be non-modifiable (such as age and gender) and modifiable (such as level of conditioning, force, balance, and flexibility). Inadequate lower motor coordination may result in injury in the adolescent population, and advanced age >28 years in males and >25 years in females is considered as a high-risk factor for injury.12,13 Importantly, gender and age have been reported to play a significant role as risk factors for ACL injury.6 In fact, female players have a 3 to 5 times higher risk of significant knee injury, including ACL injuries, than male players.4,14-16 Preventative programs such as the FIFA 11+ program have been set forth to augment conditioning as part of managing the modifiable risk factors.
Like American football, playing on artificial turf has been questioned as a contributor to injury compared to playing on natural grass.17,18 In recent years, newer generations of artificial turf have been developed to more closely replicate the characteristics of natural grass. Meyers19 compared the incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate men’s soccer injuries on artificial turf and those on natural grass and demonstrated no significant difference in knee injuries between the 2 surfaces. This finding was consistent with previous studies that reported no difference in the incidence of knee injuries on either surface in women’s collegiate and elite-level soccer.15,20,21
Continue to: ACL INJURIES...
ACL INJURIES
ACL injuries are life-changing events that can significantly affect the career of a soccer athlete. As a major stabilizer of the knee, the ACL primarily prevents anterior tibial translation with the anteromedial bundle and secondarily resists tibial rotation with the posterolateral bundle. The ligament takes origin from the posteromedial aspect of the lateral femoral condyle and inserts anterior to the tibial intercondylar eminence. Grading of ACL injuries is based on the Lachman test, which is performed between 20°and 30° of knee flexion and measures the amount of anterior tibial translation relative to the femur (A = firm endpoint, B = no endpoint; grade I: 3-5 mm, grade II (A/B): 5-10 mm, grade III (A/B): >10 mm).
ACL injury may occur via contact or noncontact mechanisms. Noncontact mechanisms of ACL injury in soccer athletes contribute to about 85% of injuries.6,22-25 Typical noncontact mechanism of injury involves a forceful valgus collapse with the knee near full extension and combined external or internal rotation of the tibia23,26 (Figure 1). This on-field scenario generally involves cutting and torsional movement, as well as landing after a jump, particularly in 1-legged stance. Similarly, a disturbance in balance caused by the opponent may incite a noncontact mechanism resulting in ACL rupture.6,27 Video analyses of professional soccer players have also demonstrated a higher risk of noncontact ACL injury within the first 9 minutes of the match, with the most common playing situation resulting in injury being pressing, followed by kicking and heading.24,25,28 Contact mechanisms resulting in ACL injury, however, are not an uncommon occurrence in soccer players with higher risk for certain positions. Brophy and colleagues29 reviewed ACL injuries in professional and collegiate soccer players and reported a higher risk of ACL injury during defending and tackling. Similarly, Faude and colleagues30 found the risk of injury to be higher in defenders and strikers than in goalkeepers and midfielders.
Female athletes participating in elite-level athletics, especially soccer, represent a high-risk group for ACL injury. In fact, these soccer athletes experience ACL injury at an incidence 3 times higher than that in male athletes.31-35 Female soccer athletes may also be at risk for reinjury to the ACL and contralateral ACL injury. Female gender, in combination with participation in soccer, thus represents a high-risk group for ACL tear in athletics. Allen and colleagues36 retrospectively reviewed 180 female patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction (ACLR) (90 soccer players and 90 non-soccer players) over a mean period of 68.8 months. In their series, soccer players sustained significantly more ACL injuries than non-soccer players, including graft failures (11% vs 1%) and contralateral ACL tears (17% vs 4%).
ACLR is the gold standard treatment for elite soccer athletes. A recent survey of MLS team orthopedic surgeons revealed several important details regarding decision-making in ACLR in this population. From a technical standpoint, the vast majority of surgeons used a single incision, arthroscopically assisted, single-bundle reconstruction (91%). Femoral tunnel drilling was almost equally split between transtibial (51%) and use of an accessory medial portal (46%). Bone-patella-tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft was the most preferred graft choice (68%), and quadriceps tendon autograft was the least preferred. The majority of surgeons preformed ACLR within 4 weeks and permitted return to sport (RTS) without restrictions at 6 to 8 months.37
Continue to: There is a scarcity of literature regarding...
There is a scarcity of literature regarding the use of soft tissue and BPTB allografts in soccer athletes. However, one study reported no difference in patient-reported outcomes and return to preinjury level of activity (including soccer) with the use of either autograft or allograft BPTB in ACLR.38 The authors’ preference was to avoid the use of allograft in elite-level soccer athletes as the reported rate of ACL re-tear was 4 to 8 times higher than that with autograft reconstruction, as shown in athletes and military personnel.39,40 BPTB autograft and hamstring autograft (semitendinosus and/or gracilis) are common graft choices for soccer athletes. Gifstad and colleagues41 compared BPTB autograft and hamstring autograft in 45,998 primary ACLRs performed in Scandinavia. Although the cohort included, but was not limited to, soccer players, the authors reported an overall risk of revision that was significantly lower in the BPTB autograft group than in the hamstring autograft group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.74).41 Mohammadi and colleagues42 prospectively compared the functional outcomes of 42 competitive soccer players who underwent ACLR with BPTB autograft vs those who underwent ACLR with hamstring autograft at the time of RTS. Players who had undergone ACLR with hamstring autograft demonstrated greater quadriceps torque, as well as better performance with triple-hop, crossover-hop, and jump-landing tests; however, both groups demonstrated similar hamstring torque and performance in 2 other hop tests.42 In the authors’ opinion, there may be a concern regarding the use of hamstring autograft in elite soccer players considering that hamstring strains are extremely common in this athletic population; however, further research would be necessary to elucidate whether this is an actual or a theoretical risk. Although not yet studied in elite-level athletes, early clinical results of ACL repair with suture augmentation show promise for certain injury patterns. These include proximal femoral ACL avulsion injuries (Sherman type 1) of excellent tissue quality that have the ability to be reapproximated to the femoral origin43 (Figures 2A, 2B). In a recent series,43-45 early clinical outcomes were found to be excellent and maintained at midterm follow-up.
In the NCAA soccer athletes, an overall RTS rate of 85% has been reported in those undergoing ACLR, with a significantly higher rate observed in scholarship versus non-scholarship athletes.46 Howard and colleagues46 reported median time to unrestricted game play of 6.1 months, with 75% returning to the same or higher level position on the depth chart. Among their studied collegiate soccer athletes, 32% reported continued participation in soccer on some level after college (recreational, semiprofessional, or professional).46 RTS rates for MLS soccer players have also been reported to be high, ranging from 74% to 77%, most of them returning within the following season at 10 ± 2.8 months.47,48 These findings were consistent with the RTS rate of 72% reported by the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group, which analyzed 100 female and male soccer players undergoing ACLR at a minimum 7-year follow-up. In this series, Brophy and colleagues29,49 reported an RTS at 12 ± 14.3 months, with 85% returning to the same or a higher level of play prior to their injury. Erickson and colleagues47 analyzed a series of 57 ACLRs performed in MLS athletes and reported no significant difference in preinjury or postoperative performance, or between cases and uninjured controls. Arundale and colleagues48 demonstrated no significantly increased risk of lower extremity injury in MLS athletes after ACLR, but the athletes had significantly shorter careers than their uninjured counterparts. Curiously, RTS rates for European professional soccer athletes have been reported to be substantially higher at 95% to 97%.50,51 Although we can only speculate the reasons for such a discrepancy, the difference in RTS rates for similar athletes highlights a need for objective criteria to determine and report RTS rates, while also providing guidelines to prevent reinjury. Such a consensus among orthopedists is not yet present in the literature.
Soccer players and adolescent age in combination have been shown to portend a 3-fold increased risk of revision surgery for ACL failure in a cohort of 16,930 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.52 Published data regarding ACL failure and management of revision ACLR in elite-level soccer athletes are currently lacking. However, low failure rates of 3% to 10% requiring revision reconstruction have been reported.47,49 Arundale and colleagues48 reported 2 incidences of players with ACL graft failures, 1 BPTB autograft and 1 BPTB allograft, both of whom were able to return to MLS after revision ACLR. It is the authors’ preference to use ipsilateral hamstring autograft or contralateral BPTB autograft when an ACL revision reconstruction is required.
Continue to: OTHER LIGAMENTOUS INJURIES...
OTHER LIGAMENTOUS INJURIES
The majority of research efforts regarding knee injuries in this population are focused on the ACL. Correspondingly, literature regarding injury to the collateral ligaments and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in soccer players is sparse. The lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and the medial collateral ligament (MCL) play important roles as primary stabilizers to varus and valgus forces, respectively. The PCL is the primary posterior stabilizer of the knee, preventing posterior translation of the tibia. Injury to these structures may result in significant time lost from soccer and risk of reinjury.53,54
The MCL is the one of the most commonly injured ligaments in sports, including soccer.53,55 The injury mechanism generally involves contact with a resulting valgus force applied to the knee.55 Grading of MCL injuries is based on the amount of medial joint gapping with applied valgus force during examination (grade I: <5 mm, grade II: 5-10 mm, grade III: >10 mm). Kramer and colleagues53 reviewed collateral ligament injuries in the adolescent population and found that MCL injuries occurred 4 times more often than LCL injuries and about 25% were grade III injuries, most commonly occurring in American football and soccer players. Soccer also touts the highest sport-specific MCL injury rate for high school and collegiate athletics, particularly for female NCAA soccer players.56 At the professional level, Lundblad and colleagues55 reported 346 MCL injuries in 27 European teams over an 11-year period, of which 70% were contact-related, and the average time-off from soccer was 28 days.
Most surgeons treat isolated MCL injuries nonoperatively, regardless of grade.57,58 This includes activity modification, use of a hinged knee brace, quadriceps strengthening, and progressive return to play. The literature currently lacks substantial data to guide MCL injury management, specifically in elite soccer athletes. In our experience, grade I injuries are managed nonoperatively and RTS is allowed at 4 to 6 weeks. Grade II injuries are also managed nonoperatively and RTS is allowed at 6 to 8 weeks. Grade III injuries are generally allowed RTS at 8 to 12 weeks and may be considered for surgery in the context of concomitant injuries (eg, posteromedial capsular injury, multiligamentous knee injuries, and meniscal injuries). In some athletes, we consider using a varus unloader brace to help maximize decreased stress on the MCL while still allowing the athlete to be fully weight-bearing. We have found it less ideal to limit weight-bearing in elite athletes, which may negatively affect overall lower extremity neuromuscular proprioception and potentially prolong a safe return to play. Some athletes may experience prolonged soreness at the MCL femoral or tibial attachment despite being able to return to play. It is important to counsel athletes about these prolonged symptoms to set expectations, as this may even occur with grade I MCL injuries. Other rare instances where surgical management may be indicated include persistent pain and instability following nonoperative treatment of grade III injuries and highly displaced tibial avulsions of the ligament resulting in poor healing.59,60
Data regarding LCL injuries in soccer are extremely sparse. In our experience, treatment and RTS rates for isolated LCL injuries are similar to those for MCL injuries. However, it is worth noting that one-quarter of LCL injuries may occur in combination with injury to other posterolateral corner structures.53
PCL injuries are more commonly associated with vehicular trauma but have also been reported to occur in sports at a rate of 33% to 40%.61,62 The mechanism of injury in athletes generally involves a fall onto the hyperflexed knee with the foot in plantarflexion or a direct blow to the anterior tibia in a flexed knee.62,63 Classification of PCL injuries is based on posterior translation of the tibia relative to the femur with the knee flexed to 90°(grade I: 1-5 mm, grade II: 6-10 mm, grade III: >10 mm). In one cohort of 62 patients with isolated PCL injuries, soccer was found to be among the top 5 causes of injury.64 A Scandinavian review of 1287 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction found soccer to be the sport with the highest number of injuries (13.1%).65 The goalkeeper was most commonly subjected to this injury.62 Krutsch and colleagues54 compared PCL injuries in new, professional soccer players to those in players at the closest amateur level of play. In their series, 90% of PCL injuries occurred during preseason in players who were at a lower level of play in the previous season. This finding suggested that a rapid increase in training and playing intensity may have been a significant risk factor for PCL injury. Substantial literature supporting nonoperative or operative management of PCL injuries in soccer athletes is currently lacking. Historically, nonoperative treatment has been the initial management for isolated PCL injuries; however, surgical intervention has become increasingly used for both isolated and combined PCL injuries.66
Continue to: CARTILAGE AND MENISCAL INJURIES...
CARTILAGE AND MENISCAL INJURIES
The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) in retired soccer players is high.67,68 Articular cartilage degeneration with subsequent OA occurs in up to 32% of soccer players and ultimately leads to significant disability and retirement from the sport. High physical demands and concomitant knee injuries probably predispose to the development of posttraumatic OA.69-71
Several techniques addressing cartilage débridement or restoration have been reported, with successful RTS but with variable durability.72-75 Recently, Andrade and colleagues76 performed a systematic review of 217 articular cartilage defects in soccer players that were treated using restoration techniques, including chondroplasty, microfracture, autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and osteochondral autograft. Although no superior technique could be ascertained, microfracture and osteochondral autograft procedures led to the quickest return to play, and ACI techniques enhanced long-standing clinical and functional results.76 More recently, osteochondral allograft transplantation has also been described with an 84% return to some level of activity (including soccer) and 60% of athletes returning to high-level sports participation at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years77 (Figures 3A-3C). Although chondroplasty may be successful and allow for a quicker return to play in some soccer players (return to play from 6-12 weeks), the authors believe that a strong cartilage scaffold repair strategy with early weight-bearing, including osteochondral autograft and allograft procedures (return to play from 6-9 months), must also be considered in focal chondral defects to optimize both short-term and potential long-term success.
Meniscal injuries are also prevalent in the soccer population, and consistent with ACL injuries, female players are at least twice as likely to sustain a meniscal tear.78,79 Meniscal damage can occur in isolation or in association with ACL rupture. Repair techniques should be strongly considered as chondral changes in the setting of meniscal deficiency are a significant short- and long-term concern for elite athletes. However, due to intrinsically poor healing potential, partial meniscectomy is unfortunately more often performed.79,80 In either case, meniscal deficiency is recognized as a precursor to the development of OA as meniscal functionality is lost and the articular cartilage is subjected to increased biomechanical loading.81,82 Nawabi and colleagues83 analyzed RTS in 90 professional soccer players following partial meniscectomy. Median RTS was at 7 weeks for lateral meniscectomies and at 5 weeks for medial meniscectomies. RTS probability was 5.99 times greater after medial meniscectomy at all time points. Lateral meniscectomies were associated with an increased risk of postoperative adverse events, reoperation, and a significantly lower rate of return to play.83 In the case of severe meniscal deficiency, particularly post-meniscectomy, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) may be considered. In a series of MATs in lower division Spanish players, 12/14 (85.7%) returned to play at an average of 7.6 months.84 A more recent series of professional players reported 9/12 (75%) RTS as professionals and 2/12 (17%) as semiprofessionals at an average of 10.5 months.85 The authors’ strong preference is to perform meniscus-saving procedures whenever possible. Due to the longer recovery and return to play associated with meniscus repair than partial meniscectomy, most of the soccer players will often prefer to proceed with partial meniscectomy. Despite the ultimate treatment, it is critical that the surgeon and the soccer player have an in-depth conversation concerning the risks and benefits for each procedure and individualize treatment to the individual soccer player accordingly.
Continue to: INJURY PREVENTION...
INJURY PREVENTION
Given the breadth and the prevalence of soccer-related injuries, the FIFA11+ program was developed in 2006 as an injury prevention measure (Figure 4). The warm-up program includes 15 structured exercises emphasizing core stabilization, thigh muscle training, proprioception, dynamic stabilization, and plyometric exercises. The routine is believed to be easily executed and effective at preventing the incidence of noncontact injuries.86,87 Recently, Sadigursky and colleagues1 performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of FIFA11+. The authors reported a reduction in injuries by 30% and a relative risk of 0.70 for lower limb injuries, highlighting the significant preventative importance of the program.1 Post-training programs may also be beneficial as it has been shown that performing FIFA11+ both before and after training reduced overall injury rates in male, amateur soccer players.88 Regardless of the prevention program, it is critical that every league, team, medical team, and athlete have a thorough injury prevention strategy to help keep players healthy and not wait until they have instead sustained a significant injury.
CONCLUSION
Knee injuries are common in soccer, with an alarming number of ACL injuries, as well as other significant pathology. Understanding the unique epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and injury prevention strategies is critically important in helping medical professionals provide care for all levels of elite soccer players.
ABSTRACT
As one of the most popular sports in the world, soccer injury rates involving the knee continue to rise. An alarming trend of knee injuries, including increased anterior cruciate ligament ruptures, underscores the need to review our current understanding of these injuries in soccer players. This article includes a critical review of the epidemiology of knee injuries in soccer, anterior cruciate ligament and other ligamentous injuries, cartilage and meniscal injury, post-traumatic osteoarthritis, as well as current prevention initiatives.
Continue to: EPIDEMIOLOGY...
EPIDEMIOLOGY
There are currently 28 players on each of the Major League Soccer (MLS) teams, and during the 2013 to 2014 academic year, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) reported that 417,419 boys and 374,564 girls played high school soccer and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reported that 23,602 males and 26,358 females played collegiate soccer.5 As such, knee injuries in this population are a major concern for those involved in sports medicine. Several injuries occurring during soccer involve the lower extremity, particularly the knee.1 In fact, multiple reports estimate that up to 17.6% of soccer-related injuries presenting to the emergency room involved the knee.1,6-9 The majority of these injuries are noncontact injuries, although contact injuries do still occur.10,11
Risk factors for injuries in soccer may be non-modifiable (such as age and gender) and modifiable (such as level of conditioning, force, balance, and flexibility). Inadequate lower motor coordination may result in injury in the adolescent population, and advanced age >28 years in males and >25 years in females is considered as a high-risk factor for injury.12,13 Importantly, gender and age have been reported to play a significant role as risk factors for ACL injury.6 In fact, female players have a 3 to 5 times higher risk of significant knee injury, including ACL injuries, than male players.4,14-16 Preventative programs such as the FIFA 11+ program have been set forth to augment conditioning as part of managing the modifiable risk factors.
Like American football, playing on artificial turf has been questioned as a contributor to injury compared to playing on natural grass.17,18 In recent years, newer generations of artificial turf have been developed to more closely replicate the characteristics of natural grass. Meyers19 compared the incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate men’s soccer injuries on artificial turf and those on natural grass and demonstrated no significant difference in knee injuries between the 2 surfaces. This finding was consistent with previous studies that reported no difference in the incidence of knee injuries on either surface in women’s collegiate and elite-level soccer.15,20,21
Continue to: ACL INJURIES...
ACL INJURIES
ACL injuries are life-changing events that can significantly affect the career of a soccer athlete. As a major stabilizer of the knee, the ACL primarily prevents anterior tibial translation with the anteromedial bundle and secondarily resists tibial rotation with the posterolateral bundle. The ligament takes origin from the posteromedial aspect of the lateral femoral condyle and inserts anterior to the tibial intercondylar eminence. Grading of ACL injuries is based on the Lachman test, which is performed between 20°and 30° of knee flexion and measures the amount of anterior tibial translation relative to the femur (A = firm endpoint, B = no endpoint; grade I: 3-5 mm, grade II (A/B): 5-10 mm, grade III (A/B): >10 mm).
ACL injury may occur via contact or noncontact mechanisms. Noncontact mechanisms of ACL injury in soccer athletes contribute to about 85% of injuries.6,22-25 Typical noncontact mechanism of injury involves a forceful valgus collapse with the knee near full extension and combined external or internal rotation of the tibia23,26 (Figure 1). This on-field scenario generally involves cutting and torsional movement, as well as landing after a jump, particularly in 1-legged stance. Similarly, a disturbance in balance caused by the opponent may incite a noncontact mechanism resulting in ACL rupture.6,27 Video analyses of professional soccer players have also demonstrated a higher risk of noncontact ACL injury within the first 9 minutes of the match, with the most common playing situation resulting in injury being pressing, followed by kicking and heading.24,25,28 Contact mechanisms resulting in ACL injury, however, are not an uncommon occurrence in soccer players with higher risk for certain positions. Brophy and colleagues29 reviewed ACL injuries in professional and collegiate soccer players and reported a higher risk of ACL injury during defending and tackling. Similarly, Faude and colleagues30 found the risk of injury to be higher in defenders and strikers than in goalkeepers and midfielders.
Female athletes participating in elite-level athletics, especially soccer, represent a high-risk group for ACL injury. In fact, these soccer athletes experience ACL injury at an incidence 3 times higher than that in male athletes.31-35 Female soccer athletes may also be at risk for reinjury to the ACL and contralateral ACL injury. Female gender, in combination with participation in soccer, thus represents a high-risk group for ACL tear in athletics. Allen and colleagues36 retrospectively reviewed 180 female patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction (ACLR) (90 soccer players and 90 non-soccer players) over a mean period of 68.8 months. In their series, soccer players sustained significantly more ACL injuries than non-soccer players, including graft failures (11% vs 1%) and contralateral ACL tears (17% vs 4%).
ACLR is the gold standard treatment for elite soccer athletes. A recent survey of MLS team orthopedic surgeons revealed several important details regarding decision-making in ACLR in this population. From a technical standpoint, the vast majority of surgeons used a single incision, arthroscopically assisted, single-bundle reconstruction (91%). Femoral tunnel drilling was almost equally split between transtibial (51%) and use of an accessory medial portal (46%). Bone-patella-tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft was the most preferred graft choice (68%), and quadriceps tendon autograft was the least preferred. The majority of surgeons preformed ACLR within 4 weeks and permitted return to sport (RTS) without restrictions at 6 to 8 months.37
Continue to: There is a scarcity of literature regarding...
There is a scarcity of literature regarding the use of soft tissue and BPTB allografts in soccer athletes. However, one study reported no difference in patient-reported outcomes and return to preinjury level of activity (including soccer) with the use of either autograft or allograft BPTB in ACLR.38 The authors’ preference was to avoid the use of allograft in elite-level soccer athletes as the reported rate of ACL re-tear was 4 to 8 times higher than that with autograft reconstruction, as shown in athletes and military personnel.39,40 BPTB autograft and hamstring autograft (semitendinosus and/or gracilis) are common graft choices for soccer athletes. Gifstad and colleagues41 compared BPTB autograft and hamstring autograft in 45,998 primary ACLRs performed in Scandinavia. Although the cohort included, but was not limited to, soccer players, the authors reported an overall risk of revision that was significantly lower in the BPTB autograft group than in the hamstring autograft group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.74).41 Mohammadi and colleagues42 prospectively compared the functional outcomes of 42 competitive soccer players who underwent ACLR with BPTB autograft vs those who underwent ACLR with hamstring autograft at the time of RTS. Players who had undergone ACLR with hamstring autograft demonstrated greater quadriceps torque, as well as better performance with triple-hop, crossover-hop, and jump-landing tests; however, both groups demonstrated similar hamstring torque and performance in 2 other hop tests.42 In the authors’ opinion, there may be a concern regarding the use of hamstring autograft in elite soccer players considering that hamstring strains are extremely common in this athletic population; however, further research would be necessary to elucidate whether this is an actual or a theoretical risk. Although not yet studied in elite-level athletes, early clinical results of ACL repair with suture augmentation show promise for certain injury patterns. These include proximal femoral ACL avulsion injuries (Sherman type 1) of excellent tissue quality that have the ability to be reapproximated to the femoral origin43 (Figures 2A, 2B). In a recent series,43-45 early clinical outcomes were found to be excellent and maintained at midterm follow-up.
In the NCAA soccer athletes, an overall RTS rate of 85% has been reported in those undergoing ACLR, with a significantly higher rate observed in scholarship versus non-scholarship athletes.46 Howard and colleagues46 reported median time to unrestricted game play of 6.1 months, with 75% returning to the same or higher level position on the depth chart. Among their studied collegiate soccer athletes, 32% reported continued participation in soccer on some level after college (recreational, semiprofessional, or professional).46 RTS rates for MLS soccer players have also been reported to be high, ranging from 74% to 77%, most of them returning within the following season at 10 ± 2.8 months.47,48 These findings were consistent with the RTS rate of 72% reported by the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group, which analyzed 100 female and male soccer players undergoing ACLR at a minimum 7-year follow-up. In this series, Brophy and colleagues29,49 reported an RTS at 12 ± 14.3 months, with 85% returning to the same or a higher level of play prior to their injury. Erickson and colleagues47 analyzed a series of 57 ACLRs performed in MLS athletes and reported no significant difference in preinjury or postoperative performance, or between cases and uninjured controls. Arundale and colleagues48 demonstrated no significantly increased risk of lower extremity injury in MLS athletes after ACLR, but the athletes had significantly shorter careers than their uninjured counterparts. Curiously, RTS rates for European professional soccer athletes have been reported to be substantially higher at 95% to 97%.50,51 Although we can only speculate the reasons for such a discrepancy, the difference in RTS rates for similar athletes highlights a need for objective criteria to determine and report RTS rates, while also providing guidelines to prevent reinjury. Such a consensus among orthopedists is not yet present in the literature.
Soccer players and adolescent age in combination have been shown to portend a 3-fold increased risk of revision surgery for ACL failure in a cohort of 16,930 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.52 Published data regarding ACL failure and management of revision ACLR in elite-level soccer athletes are currently lacking. However, low failure rates of 3% to 10% requiring revision reconstruction have been reported.47,49 Arundale and colleagues48 reported 2 incidences of players with ACL graft failures, 1 BPTB autograft and 1 BPTB allograft, both of whom were able to return to MLS after revision ACLR. It is the authors’ preference to use ipsilateral hamstring autograft or contralateral BPTB autograft when an ACL revision reconstruction is required.
Continue to: OTHER LIGAMENTOUS INJURIES...
OTHER LIGAMENTOUS INJURIES
The majority of research efforts regarding knee injuries in this population are focused on the ACL. Correspondingly, literature regarding injury to the collateral ligaments and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in soccer players is sparse. The lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and the medial collateral ligament (MCL) play important roles as primary stabilizers to varus and valgus forces, respectively. The PCL is the primary posterior stabilizer of the knee, preventing posterior translation of the tibia. Injury to these structures may result in significant time lost from soccer and risk of reinjury.53,54
The MCL is the one of the most commonly injured ligaments in sports, including soccer.53,55 The injury mechanism generally involves contact with a resulting valgus force applied to the knee.55 Grading of MCL injuries is based on the amount of medial joint gapping with applied valgus force during examination (grade I: <5 mm, grade II: 5-10 mm, grade III: >10 mm). Kramer and colleagues53 reviewed collateral ligament injuries in the adolescent population and found that MCL injuries occurred 4 times more often than LCL injuries and about 25% were grade III injuries, most commonly occurring in American football and soccer players. Soccer also touts the highest sport-specific MCL injury rate for high school and collegiate athletics, particularly for female NCAA soccer players.56 At the professional level, Lundblad and colleagues55 reported 346 MCL injuries in 27 European teams over an 11-year period, of which 70% were contact-related, and the average time-off from soccer was 28 days.
Most surgeons treat isolated MCL injuries nonoperatively, regardless of grade.57,58 This includes activity modification, use of a hinged knee brace, quadriceps strengthening, and progressive return to play. The literature currently lacks substantial data to guide MCL injury management, specifically in elite soccer athletes. In our experience, grade I injuries are managed nonoperatively and RTS is allowed at 4 to 6 weeks. Grade II injuries are also managed nonoperatively and RTS is allowed at 6 to 8 weeks. Grade III injuries are generally allowed RTS at 8 to 12 weeks and may be considered for surgery in the context of concomitant injuries (eg, posteromedial capsular injury, multiligamentous knee injuries, and meniscal injuries). In some athletes, we consider using a varus unloader brace to help maximize decreased stress on the MCL while still allowing the athlete to be fully weight-bearing. We have found it less ideal to limit weight-bearing in elite athletes, which may negatively affect overall lower extremity neuromuscular proprioception and potentially prolong a safe return to play. Some athletes may experience prolonged soreness at the MCL femoral or tibial attachment despite being able to return to play. It is important to counsel athletes about these prolonged symptoms to set expectations, as this may even occur with grade I MCL injuries. Other rare instances where surgical management may be indicated include persistent pain and instability following nonoperative treatment of grade III injuries and highly displaced tibial avulsions of the ligament resulting in poor healing.59,60
Data regarding LCL injuries in soccer are extremely sparse. In our experience, treatment and RTS rates for isolated LCL injuries are similar to those for MCL injuries. However, it is worth noting that one-quarter of LCL injuries may occur in combination with injury to other posterolateral corner structures.53
PCL injuries are more commonly associated with vehicular trauma but have also been reported to occur in sports at a rate of 33% to 40%.61,62 The mechanism of injury in athletes generally involves a fall onto the hyperflexed knee with the foot in plantarflexion or a direct blow to the anterior tibia in a flexed knee.62,63 Classification of PCL injuries is based on posterior translation of the tibia relative to the femur with the knee flexed to 90°(grade I: 1-5 mm, grade II: 6-10 mm, grade III: >10 mm). In one cohort of 62 patients with isolated PCL injuries, soccer was found to be among the top 5 causes of injury.64 A Scandinavian review of 1287 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction found soccer to be the sport with the highest number of injuries (13.1%).65 The goalkeeper was most commonly subjected to this injury.62 Krutsch and colleagues54 compared PCL injuries in new, professional soccer players to those in players at the closest amateur level of play. In their series, 90% of PCL injuries occurred during preseason in players who were at a lower level of play in the previous season. This finding suggested that a rapid increase in training and playing intensity may have been a significant risk factor for PCL injury. Substantial literature supporting nonoperative or operative management of PCL injuries in soccer athletes is currently lacking. Historically, nonoperative treatment has been the initial management for isolated PCL injuries; however, surgical intervention has become increasingly used for both isolated and combined PCL injuries.66
Continue to: CARTILAGE AND MENISCAL INJURIES...
CARTILAGE AND MENISCAL INJURIES
The prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) in retired soccer players is high.67,68 Articular cartilage degeneration with subsequent OA occurs in up to 32% of soccer players and ultimately leads to significant disability and retirement from the sport. High physical demands and concomitant knee injuries probably predispose to the development of posttraumatic OA.69-71
Several techniques addressing cartilage débridement or restoration have been reported, with successful RTS but with variable durability.72-75 Recently, Andrade and colleagues76 performed a systematic review of 217 articular cartilage defects in soccer players that were treated using restoration techniques, including chondroplasty, microfracture, autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), and osteochondral autograft. Although no superior technique could be ascertained, microfracture and osteochondral autograft procedures led to the quickest return to play, and ACI techniques enhanced long-standing clinical and functional results.76 More recently, osteochondral allograft transplantation has also been described with an 84% return to some level of activity (including soccer) and 60% of athletes returning to high-level sports participation at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years77 (Figures 3A-3C). Although chondroplasty may be successful and allow for a quicker return to play in some soccer players (return to play from 6-12 weeks), the authors believe that a strong cartilage scaffold repair strategy with early weight-bearing, including osteochondral autograft and allograft procedures (return to play from 6-9 months), must also be considered in focal chondral defects to optimize both short-term and potential long-term success.
Meniscal injuries are also prevalent in the soccer population, and consistent with ACL injuries, female players are at least twice as likely to sustain a meniscal tear.78,79 Meniscal damage can occur in isolation or in association with ACL rupture. Repair techniques should be strongly considered as chondral changes in the setting of meniscal deficiency are a significant short- and long-term concern for elite athletes. However, due to intrinsically poor healing potential, partial meniscectomy is unfortunately more often performed.79,80 In either case, meniscal deficiency is recognized as a precursor to the development of OA as meniscal functionality is lost and the articular cartilage is subjected to increased biomechanical loading.81,82 Nawabi and colleagues83 analyzed RTS in 90 professional soccer players following partial meniscectomy. Median RTS was at 7 weeks for lateral meniscectomies and at 5 weeks for medial meniscectomies. RTS probability was 5.99 times greater after medial meniscectomy at all time points. Lateral meniscectomies were associated with an increased risk of postoperative adverse events, reoperation, and a significantly lower rate of return to play.83 In the case of severe meniscal deficiency, particularly post-meniscectomy, meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) may be considered. In a series of MATs in lower division Spanish players, 12/14 (85.7%) returned to play at an average of 7.6 months.84 A more recent series of professional players reported 9/12 (75%) RTS as professionals and 2/12 (17%) as semiprofessionals at an average of 10.5 months.85 The authors’ strong preference is to perform meniscus-saving procedures whenever possible. Due to the longer recovery and return to play associated with meniscus repair than partial meniscectomy, most of the soccer players will often prefer to proceed with partial meniscectomy. Despite the ultimate treatment, it is critical that the surgeon and the soccer player have an in-depth conversation concerning the risks and benefits for each procedure and individualize treatment to the individual soccer player accordingly.
Continue to: INJURY PREVENTION...
INJURY PREVENTION
Given the breadth and the prevalence of soccer-related injuries, the FIFA11+ program was developed in 2006 as an injury prevention measure (Figure 4). The warm-up program includes 15 structured exercises emphasizing core stabilization, thigh muscle training, proprioception, dynamic stabilization, and plyometric exercises. The routine is believed to be easily executed and effective at preventing the incidence of noncontact injuries.86,87 Recently, Sadigursky and colleagues1 performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of FIFA11+. The authors reported a reduction in injuries by 30% and a relative risk of 0.70 for lower limb injuries, highlighting the significant preventative importance of the program.1 Post-training programs may also be beneficial as it has been shown that performing FIFA11+ both before and after training reduced overall injury rates in male, amateur soccer players.88 Regardless of the prevention program, it is critical that every league, team, medical team, and athlete have a thorough injury prevention strategy to help keep players healthy and not wait until they have instead sustained a significant injury.
CONCLUSION
Knee injuries are common in soccer, with an alarming number of ACL injuries, as well as other significant pathology. Understanding the unique epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and injury prevention strategies is critically important in helping medical professionals provide care for all levels of elite soccer players.
1. Sadigursky D, Braid JA, De Lira DNL, Machado BAB, Carneiro RJF, Colavolpe PO. The FIFA 11+ injury prevention program for soccer players: a systematic review. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2017;9:18. doi:10.1186/s13102-017-0083-z.
2. Junge A, Dvorak J. Soccer injuries: a review on incidence and prevention. Sports Med. 2004;34(13):929-938. doi:10.2165/00007256-200434130-00004.
3. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):311-319.
4. Agel J, Rockwood T, Klossner D. Collegiate ACL Injury rates across 15 sports: National collegiate athletic association injury surveillance system data update (2004-2005 Through 2012-2013). Clin J Sport Med. 2016;26(6):518-523. doi:10.1097/JSM.0000000000000290.
5. Kerr ZY, Pierpoint LA, Currie DW, Wasserman EB, Comstock RD. Epidemiologic comparisons of soccer-related injuries presenting to emergency departments and reported within high school and collegiate settings. Inj Epidemiol. 2017;4(1):19. doi:10.1186/s40621-017-0116-9.
6. Volpi P, Bisciotti GN, Chamari K, Cena E, Carimati G, Bragazzi NL. Risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament injury in football players: a systematic review of the literature. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2016;6(4):480-485. doi:10.11138/mltj/2016.6.4.480.
7. Smith NA, Chounthirath T, Xiang H. Soccer-related injuries treated in emergency departments: 1990-2014. Pediatrics. 2016;138(4). doi:10.1542/peds.2016-0346.
8. Leininger RE, Knox CL, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of 1.6 million pediatric soccer-related injuries presenting to US emergency departments from 1990 to 2003. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):288-293. doi:10.1177/0363546506294060.
9. Adams AL, Schiff MA. Childhood soccer injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(5):571-574. doi:10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.015.
10. Woods C, Hawkins R, Hulse M, Hodson A. The football association medical research programme: an audit of injuries in professional football-analysis of preseason injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36(6):436-441. doi:10.1136/bjsm.36.6.436.
11. Chomiak J, Junge A, Peterson L, Dvorak J. Severe injuries in football players. Influencing factors. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5 Suppl):S58-68. doi:10.1177/28.suppl_5.s-58.
12. Ostenberg A, Roos H. Injury risk factors in female European football. a prospective study of 123 players during one season. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(5):279-285. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010005279.x.
13. Backous DD, Friedl KE, Smith NJ, Parr TJ, Carpine WD. Soccer injuries and their relation to physical maturity. Am J Dis Child. 1988;142(8):839-842. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1988.02150080045019.
14. Grimm NL, Jacobs JC, Kim J, Denney BS, Shea KG. Anterior cruciate ligament and knee injury prevention programs for soccer players: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):2049-2056. doi:10.1177/0363546514556737.
15. Dick R, Putukian M, Agel J, Evans TA, Marshall SW. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's soccer injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through 2002-2003. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):278-285.
16. Renstrom P, Ljungqvist A, Arendt E, et al. Non-contact ACL injuries in female athletes: an International Olympic Committee current concepts statement. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(6):394-412. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.048934.
17. Guskiewicz KM, Weaver NL, Padua DA, Garrett WE. Epidemiology of concussion in collegiate and high school football players. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5):643-650. doi:10.1177/03635465000280050401.
18. Levy IM, Skovron ML, Agel J. Living with artificial grass: a knowledge update. Part 1: Basic science. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(4):406-412. doi:10.1177/036354659001800413.
19. Meyers MC. Incidence, Mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate men's soccer injuries on fieldturf and natural grass surfaces: a 6-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):708-718. doi:10.1177/0363546516671715.
20. Ekstrand J, Hägglund M, Fuller CW. Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and female elite football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(6):824-832. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01118.x.
21. Meyers MC. Incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate women's soccer injuries on FieldTurf and natural grass surfaces: a 5-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2409-2420. doi:10.1177/0363546513498994.
22. Dragoo JL, Braun HJ, Harris AH. The effect of playing surface on the incidence of ACL injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association American Football. Knee. 2013;20(3):191-195. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2012.07.006.
23. Rothenberg P, Grau L, Kaplan L, Baraga MG. Knee injuries in american football: an epidemiological review. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):368-373.
24. Waldén M, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, Ekstrand J. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in elite football: a prospective three-cohort study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(1):11-19. doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1170-9.
25. Waldén M, Krosshaug T, Bjørneboe J, Andersen TE, Faul O, Hägglund M. Three distinct mechanisms predominate in non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in male professional football players: a systematic video analysis of 39 cases. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(22):1452-1460. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-094573.
26. Olsen OE, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L, Bahr R. Injury mechanisms for anterior cruciate ligament injuries in team handball: a systematic video analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(4):1002-1012. doi:10.1177/0363546503261724.
27. Giza E, Mithöfer K, Farrell L, Zarins B, Gill T. Injuries in women's professional soccer. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(4):212-216; discussion 212-216. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.011973.
28. Grassi A, Smiley SP, Roberti di Sarsina T, et al. Mechanisms and situations of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in professional male soccer players: a YouTube-based video analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(7):967-981. doi:10.1007/s00590-017-1905-0.
29. Brophy RH, Stepan JG, Silvers HJ, Mandelbaum BR. Defending puts the anterior cruciate ligament at risk during soccer: a gender-based analysis. Sports Health. 2015;7(3):244-249. doi:10.1177/1941738114535184.
30. Faude O, Junge A, Kindermann W, Dvorak J. Risk factors for injuries in elite female soccer players. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(9):785-790. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.027540.
31. Agel J, Arendt EA, Bershadsky B. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in national collegiate athletic association basketball and soccer: a 13-year review. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(4):524-530. doi:10.1177/0363546504269937.
32. Gwinn DE, Wilckens JH, McDevitt ER, Ross G, Kao TC. The relative incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in men and women at the United States Naval Academy. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(1):98-102. doi:10.1177/03635465000280012901.
33. Arendt E, Dick R. Knee injury patterns among men and women in collegiate basketball and soccer. NCAA data and review of literature. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(6):694-701. doi:10.1177/036354659502300611.
34. Mihata LC, Beutler AI, Boden BP. Comparing the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in collegiate lacrosse, soccer, and basketball players: implications for anterior cruciate ligament mechanism and prevention. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(6):899-904. doi:10.1177/0363546505285582.
35. Prodromos CC, Han Y, Rogowski J, Joyce B, Shi K. A meta-analysis of the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears as a function of gender, sport, and a knee injury-reduction regimen. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(12):1320-1325.e1326. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.07.003.
36. Allen MM, Pareek A, Krych AJ, et al. Are female soccer players at an increased risk of second anterior cruciate ligament injury compared with their athletic peers? Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(10):2492-2498. doi:10.1177/0363546516648439.
37. Farber J, Harris JD, Kolstad K, McCulloch PC. Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries by major league soccer team physicians. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(11):2325967114559892. doi:10.1177/2325967114559892.
38. Mascarenhas R, Tranovich M, Karpie JC, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD. Patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the high-demand patient: evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(9 Suppl):S58-66. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.01.004.
39. Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, et al. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health. 2011;3(1):73-81. doi:10.1177/1941738110386185.
40. Pallis M, Svoboda SJ, Cameron KL, Owens BD. Survival comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at the United States Military Academy. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(6):1242-1246. doi:10.1177/0363546512443945.
41. Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, et al. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2319-2328. doi:10.1177/0363546514548164.
42. Mohammadi F, Salavati M, Akhbari B, Mazaheri M, Mohsen Mir S, Etemadi Y. Comparison of functional outcome measures after ACL reconstruction in competitive soccer players: a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(14):1271-1277. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00724.
43. van der List JP, DiFelice GS. Arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament repair with suture augmentation. Arthrosc Tech. 2017;6(5):e1529-e1534. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.009.
44. Murray MM, Flutie BM, Kalish LA, et al. The bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair (BEAR) procedure: an early feasibility cohort study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(11):2325967116672176. doi:10.1177/2325967116672176.
45. DiFelice GS, van der List JP. Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears are maintained at mid-term follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(4):1085-1093. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.10.028.
46. Howard JS, Lembach ML, Metzler AV, Johnson DL. Rates and determinants of return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in national collegiate athletic association division I soccer athletes: a study of the southeastern conference. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):433-439. doi:10.1177/0363546515614315.
47. Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Cvetanovich GL, et al. Performance and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in male major league soccer players. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1(2):2325967113497189. doi:10.1177/2325967113497189.
48. Arundale AJH, Silvers-Granelli HJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Career length and injury incidence after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in major league soccer players. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(1):2325967117750825. doi:10.1177/2325967117750825.
49. Brophy RH, Schmitz L, Wright RW, et al. Return to play and future ACL injury risk after ACL reconstruction in soccer athletes from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2517-2522. doi:10.1177/0363546512459476.
50. Zaffagnini S, Grassi A, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, et al. Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in professional soccer players. Knee. 2014;21(3):731-735. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.005.
51. Waldén M, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, Ekstrand J. ACL injuries in men's professional football: a 15-year prospective study on time trends and return-to-play rates reveals only 65% of players still play at the top level 3 years after ACL rupture. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(12):744-750. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095952.
52. Andernord D, Desai N, Björnsson H, Ylander M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K. Patient predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 16,930 patients with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):121-127. doi:10.1177/0363546514552788.
53. Kramer DE, Miller PE, Berrahou IK, Yen YM, Heyworth BE. Collateral ligament knee injuries in pediatric and adolescent athletes. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000001112.
54. Krutsch W, Zeman F, Zellner J, Pfeifer C, Nerlich M, Angele P. Increase in ACL and PCL injuries after implementation of a new professional football league. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(7):2271-2279. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3357-y.
55. Lundblad M, Waldén M, Magnusson H, Karlsson J, Ekstrand J. The UEFA injury study: 11-year data concerning 346 MCL injuries and time to return to play. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(12):759-762. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092305.
56. Stanley LE, Kerr ZY, Dompier TP, Padua DA. Sex differences in the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament, and meniscal injuries in collegiate and high school sports: 2009-2010 Through 2013-2014. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1565-1572. doi:10.1177/0363546516630927.
57. Lind M, Jakobsen BW, Lund B, Hansen MS, Abdallah O, Christiansen SE. Anatomical reconstruction of the medial collateral ligament and posteromedial corner of the knee in patients with chronic medial collateral ligament instability. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(6):1116-1122. doi:10.1177/0363546509332498.
58. Wijdicks CA, Griffith CJ, Johansen S, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF. Injuries to the medial collateral ligament and associated medial structures of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1266-1280. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01229.
59. Marchant MH, Tibor LM, Sekiya JK, Hardaker WT, Garrett WE, Taylor DC. Management of medial-sided knee injuries, part 1: medial collateral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(5):1102-1113. doi:10.1177/0363546510385999.
60. Corten K, Hoser C, Fink C, Bellemans J. Case reports: a Stener-like lesion of the medial collateral ligament of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):289-293. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0992-6
61. Fanelli GC, Edson CJ. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients: Part II. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):526-529. doi:10.1016/0749-8063(95)90127-2.
62. Schulz MS, Russe K, Weiler A, Eichhorn HJ, Strobel MJ. Epidemiology of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(4):186-191. doi:10.1007/s00402-002-0471-y.
63. Fowler PJ, Messieh SS. Isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15(6):553-557. doi:10.1177/036354658701500606.
64. Patel DV, Allen AA, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Simonian PT. The nonoperative treatment of acute, isolated (partial or complete) posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees: an intermediate-term follow-up study. HSS J. 2007;3(2):137-146. doi:10.1007/s11420-007-9058-z.
65. Owesen C, Sandven-Thrane S, Lind M, Forssblad M, Granan LP, Årøen A. Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(8):2384-2391. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3786-2.
66. LaPrade CM, Civitarese DM, Rasmussen MT, LaPrade RF. Emerging updates on the posterior cruciate ligament: a review of the current literature. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(12):3077-3092. doi:10.1177/0363546515572770.
67. Anderson CL. High rate of osteoarthritis of the knee in former soccer players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1986;18(1):141.
68. Arliani GG, Astur DC, Yamada RK, et al. Early osteoarthritis and reduced quality of life after retirement in former professional soccer players. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014;69(9):589-594. doi:10.6061/clinics/2014(09)03.
69. Wong P, Hong Y. Soccer injury in the lower extremities. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(8):473-482. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.015511.
70. Thelin N, Holmberg S, Thelin A. Knee injuries account for the sports-related increased risk of knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16(5):329-333. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00497.x.
71. Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1756-1769. doi:10.1177/0363546507307396.
72. Mithöfer K, Peterson L, Mandelbaum BR, Minas T. Articular cartilage repair in soccer players with autologous chondrocyte transplantation: functional outcome and return to competition. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(11):1639-1646. doi:10.1177/0363546505275647
73. Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Rodrigo JJ, Kocher MS, Gill TJ, Rodkey WG. Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(5):477-484. doi:10.1053/jars.2003.50112.
74. Hangody L, Ráthonyi GK, Duska Z, Vásárhelyi G, Füles P, Módis L. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A Suppl 1:65-72.
75. Sherman SL, Garrity J, Bauer K, Cook J, Stannard J, Bugbee W. Fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation for the knee: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(2):121-133. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-22-02-121.
76. Andrade R, Vasta S, Papalia R, et al. Prevalence of articular cartilage lesions and surgical clinical outcomes in football (soccer) players' knees: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(7):1466-1477. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.055.
77. Görtz S, Williams RJ, Gersoff WK, Bugbee WD. Osteochondral and meniscal allograft transplantation in the football (soccer) player. Cartilage. 2012;3(1 Suppl):37S-42S. doi:10.1177/1947603511416974.
78. Junge A, Grimm K, Feddermann N, Dvorak J. Precompetition orthopedic assessment of international elite football players. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19(4):326-328. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181b21b56.
79. Salzmann GM, Preiss S, Zenobi-Wong M, Harder LP, Maier D, Dvorák J. Osteoarthritis in Football. Cartilage. 2017;8(2):162-172. doi:10.1177/1947603516648186.
80. Makris EA, Hadidi P, Athanasiou KA. The knee meniscus: structure-function, pathophysiology, current repair techniques, and prospects for regeneration. Biomaterials. 2011;32(30):7411-7431. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.037
81. Freutel M, Seitz AM, Ignatius A, Dürselen L. Influence of partial meniscectomy on attachment forces, superficial strain and contact mechanics in porcine knee joints. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(1):74-82. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2951-3.
82. Papalia R, Del Buono A, Osti L, Denaro V, Maffulli N. Meniscectomy as a risk factor for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2011;99:89-106. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq043.
83. Nawabi DH, Cro S, Hamid IP, Williams A. Return to play after lateral meniscectomy compared with medial meniscectomy in elite professional soccer players. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(9):2193-2198. doi:10.1177/0363546514540271.
84. Alentorn-Geli E, Vázquez RS, Díaz PA, Cuscó X, Cugat R. Arthroscopic meniscal transplants in soccer players: outcomes at 2- to 5-year follow-up. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(5):340-343. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181f207dc.
85. Marcacci M, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Grassi A, et al. Arthroscopic meniscus allograft transplantation in male professional soccer players: a 36-month follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):382-388. doi:10.1177/0363546513508763.
86. Bizzini M, Dvorak J. FIFA 11+: an effective programme to prevent football injuries in various player groups worldwide-a narrative review. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(9):577-579. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094765.
87. Junge A, Lamprecht M, Stamm H, et al. Countrywide campaign to prevent soccer injuries in Swiss amateur players. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1):57-63. doi:10.1177/0363546510377424.
88. Al Attar WSA, Soomro N, Pappas E, Sinclair PJ, Sanders RH. Adding a post-training FIFA 11+ exercise program to the pre-training FIFA 11+ injury prevention program reduces injury rates among male amateur soccer players: a cluster-randomised trial. J Physiother. 2017;63(4):235-242. doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2017.08.004.
1. Sadigursky D, Braid JA, De Lira DNL, Machado BAB, Carneiro RJF, Colavolpe PO. The FIFA 11+ injury prevention program for soccer players: a systematic review. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2017;9:18. doi:10.1186/s13102-017-0083-z.
2. Junge A, Dvorak J. Soccer injuries: a review on incidence and prevention. Sports Med. 2004;34(13):929-938. doi:10.2165/00007256-200434130-00004.
3. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):311-319.
4. Agel J, Rockwood T, Klossner D. Collegiate ACL Injury rates across 15 sports: National collegiate athletic association injury surveillance system data update (2004-2005 Through 2012-2013). Clin J Sport Med. 2016;26(6):518-523. doi:10.1097/JSM.0000000000000290.
5. Kerr ZY, Pierpoint LA, Currie DW, Wasserman EB, Comstock RD. Epidemiologic comparisons of soccer-related injuries presenting to emergency departments and reported within high school and collegiate settings. Inj Epidemiol. 2017;4(1):19. doi:10.1186/s40621-017-0116-9.
6. Volpi P, Bisciotti GN, Chamari K, Cena E, Carimati G, Bragazzi NL. Risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament injury in football players: a systematic review of the literature. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2016;6(4):480-485. doi:10.11138/mltj/2016.6.4.480.
7. Smith NA, Chounthirath T, Xiang H. Soccer-related injuries treated in emergency departments: 1990-2014. Pediatrics. 2016;138(4). doi:10.1542/peds.2016-0346.
8. Leininger RE, Knox CL, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of 1.6 million pediatric soccer-related injuries presenting to US emergency departments from 1990 to 2003. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(2):288-293. doi:10.1177/0363546506294060.
9. Adams AL, Schiff MA. Childhood soccer injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(5):571-574. doi:10.1197/j.aem.2005.12.015.
10. Woods C, Hawkins R, Hulse M, Hodson A. The football association medical research programme: an audit of injuries in professional football-analysis of preseason injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36(6):436-441. doi:10.1136/bjsm.36.6.436.
11. Chomiak J, Junge A, Peterson L, Dvorak J. Severe injuries in football players. Influencing factors. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5 Suppl):S58-68. doi:10.1177/28.suppl_5.s-58.
12. Ostenberg A, Roos H. Injury risk factors in female European football. a prospective study of 123 players during one season. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(5):279-285. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010005279.x.
13. Backous DD, Friedl KE, Smith NJ, Parr TJ, Carpine WD. Soccer injuries and their relation to physical maturity. Am J Dis Child. 1988;142(8):839-842. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1988.02150080045019.
14. Grimm NL, Jacobs JC, Kim J, Denney BS, Shea KG. Anterior cruciate ligament and knee injury prevention programs for soccer players: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):2049-2056. doi:10.1177/0363546514556737.
15. Dick R, Putukian M, Agel J, Evans TA, Marshall SW. Descriptive epidemiology of collegiate women's soccer injuries: National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through 2002-2003. J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):278-285.
16. Renstrom P, Ljungqvist A, Arendt E, et al. Non-contact ACL injuries in female athletes: an International Olympic Committee current concepts statement. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(6):394-412. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.048934.
17. Guskiewicz KM, Weaver NL, Padua DA, Garrett WE. Epidemiology of concussion in collegiate and high school football players. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5):643-650. doi:10.1177/03635465000280050401.
18. Levy IM, Skovron ML, Agel J. Living with artificial grass: a knowledge update. Part 1: Basic science. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(4):406-412. doi:10.1177/036354659001800413.
19. Meyers MC. Incidence, Mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate men's soccer injuries on fieldturf and natural grass surfaces: a 6-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):708-718. doi:10.1177/0363546516671715.
20. Ekstrand J, Hägglund M, Fuller CW. Comparison of injuries sustained on artificial turf and grass by male and female elite football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(6):824-832. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01118.x.
21. Meyers MC. Incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate women's soccer injuries on FieldTurf and natural grass surfaces: a 5-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2409-2420. doi:10.1177/0363546513498994.
22. Dragoo JL, Braun HJ, Harris AH. The effect of playing surface on the incidence of ACL injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association American Football. Knee. 2013;20(3):191-195. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2012.07.006.
23. Rothenberg P, Grau L, Kaplan L, Baraga MG. Knee injuries in american football: an epidemiological review. Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):368-373.
24. Waldén M, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, Ekstrand J. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in elite football: a prospective three-cohort study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(1):11-19. doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1170-9.
25. Waldén M, Krosshaug T, Bjørneboe J, Andersen TE, Faul O, Hägglund M. Three distinct mechanisms predominate in non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in male professional football players: a systematic video analysis of 39 cases. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(22):1452-1460. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-094573.
26. Olsen OE, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L, Bahr R. Injury mechanisms for anterior cruciate ligament injuries in team handball: a systematic video analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(4):1002-1012. doi:10.1177/0363546503261724.
27. Giza E, Mithöfer K, Farrell L, Zarins B, Gill T. Injuries in women's professional soccer. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(4):212-216; discussion 212-216. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.011973.
28. Grassi A, Smiley SP, Roberti di Sarsina T, et al. Mechanisms and situations of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in professional male soccer players: a YouTube-based video analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(7):967-981. doi:10.1007/s00590-017-1905-0.
29. Brophy RH, Stepan JG, Silvers HJ, Mandelbaum BR. Defending puts the anterior cruciate ligament at risk during soccer: a gender-based analysis. Sports Health. 2015;7(3):244-249. doi:10.1177/1941738114535184.
30. Faude O, Junge A, Kindermann W, Dvorak J. Risk factors for injuries in elite female soccer players. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(9):785-790. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.027540.
31. Agel J, Arendt EA, Bershadsky B. Anterior cruciate ligament injury in national collegiate athletic association basketball and soccer: a 13-year review. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(4):524-530. doi:10.1177/0363546504269937.
32. Gwinn DE, Wilckens JH, McDevitt ER, Ross G, Kao TC. The relative incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in men and women at the United States Naval Academy. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(1):98-102. doi:10.1177/03635465000280012901.
33. Arendt E, Dick R. Knee injury patterns among men and women in collegiate basketball and soccer. NCAA data and review of literature. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23(6):694-701. doi:10.1177/036354659502300611.
34. Mihata LC, Beutler AI, Boden BP. Comparing the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury in collegiate lacrosse, soccer, and basketball players: implications for anterior cruciate ligament mechanism and prevention. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(6):899-904. doi:10.1177/0363546505285582.
35. Prodromos CC, Han Y, Rogowski J, Joyce B, Shi K. A meta-analysis of the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears as a function of gender, sport, and a knee injury-reduction regimen. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(12):1320-1325.e1326. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.07.003.
36. Allen MM, Pareek A, Krych AJ, et al. Are female soccer players at an increased risk of second anterior cruciate ligament injury compared with their athletic peers? Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(10):2492-2498. doi:10.1177/0363546516648439.
37. Farber J, Harris JD, Kolstad K, McCulloch PC. Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries by major league soccer team physicians. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(11):2325967114559892. doi:10.1177/2325967114559892.
38. Mascarenhas R, Tranovich M, Karpie JC, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD. Patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the high-demand patient: evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(9 Suppl):S58-66. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2010.01.004.
39. Kaeding CC, Aros B, Pedroza A, et al. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort. Sports Health. 2011;3(1):73-81. doi:10.1177/1941738110386185.
40. Pallis M, Svoboda SJ, Cameron KL, Owens BD. Survival comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at the United States Military Academy. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(6):1242-1246. doi:10.1177/0363546512443945.
41. Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, et al. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2319-2328. doi:10.1177/0363546514548164.
42. Mohammadi F, Salavati M, Akhbari B, Mazaheri M, Mohsen Mir S, Etemadi Y. Comparison of functional outcome measures after ACL reconstruction in competitive soccer players: a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(14):1271-1277. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00724.
43. van der List JP, DiFelice GS. Arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament repair with suture augmentation. Arthrosc Tech. 2017;6(5):e1529-e1534. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2017.06.009.
44. Murray MM, Flutie BM, Kalish LA, et al. The bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair (BEAR) procedure: an early feasibility cohort study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(11):2325967116672176. doi:10.1177/2325967116672176.
45. DiFelice GS, van der List JP. Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears are maintained at mid-term follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(4):1085-1093. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.10.028.
46. Howard JS, Lembach ML, Metzler AV, Johnson DL. Rates and determinants of return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in national collegiate athletic association division I soccer athletes: a study of the southeastern conference. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(2):433-439. doi:10.1177/0363546515614315.
47. Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Cvetanovich GL, et al. Performance and return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in male major league soccer players. Orthop J Sports Med. 2013;1(2):2325967113497189. doi:10.1177/2325967113497189.
48. Arundale AJH, Silvers-Granelli HJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Career length and injury incidence after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in major league soccer players. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(1):2325967117750825. doi:10.1177/2325967117750825.
49. Brophy RH, Schmitz L, Wright RW, et al. Return to play and future ACL injury risk after ACL reconstruction in soccer athletes from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2517-2522. doi:10.1177/0363546512459476.
50. Zaffagnini S, Grassi A, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, et al. Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in professional soccer players. Knee. 2014;21(3):731-735. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.005.
51. Waldén M, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, Ekstrand J. ACL injuries in men's professional football: a 15-year prospective study on time trends and return-to-play rates reveals only 65% of players still play at the top level 3 years after ACL rupture. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(12):744-750. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095952.
52. Andernord D, Desai N, Björnsson H, Ylander M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K. Patient predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 16,930 patients with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):121-127. doi:10.1177/0363546514552788.
53. Kramer DE, Miller PE, Berrahou IK, Yen YM, Heyworth BE. Collateral ligament knee injuries in pediatric and adolescent athletes. J Pediatr Orthop. 2017. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000001112.
54. Krutsch W, Zeman F, Zellner J, Pfeifer C, Nerlich M, Angele P. Increase in ACL and PCL injuries after implementation of a new professional football league. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(7):2271-2279. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3357-y.
55. Lundblad M, Waldén M, Magnusson H, Karlsson J, Ekstrand J. The UEFA injury study: 11-year data concerning 346 MCL injuries and time to return to play. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(12):759-762. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092305.
56. Stanley LE, Kerr ZY, Dompier TP, Padua DA. Sex differences in the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament, and meniscal injuries in collegiate and high school sports: 2009-2010 Through 2013-2014. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1565-1572. doi:10.1177/0363546516630927.
57. Lind M, Jakobsen BW, Lund B, Hansen MS, Abdallah O, Christiansen SE. Anatomical reconstruction of the medial collateral ligament and posteromedial corner of the knee in patients with chronic medial collateral ligament instability. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(6):1116-1122. doi:10.1177/0363546509332498.
58. Wijdicks CA, Griffith CJ, Johansen S, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF. Injuries to the medial collateral ligament and associated medial structures of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1266-1280. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01229.
59. Marchant MH, Tibor LM, Sekiya JK, Hardaker WT, Garrett WE, Taylor DC. Management of medial-sided knee injuries, part 1: medial collateral ligament. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(5):1102-1113. doi:10.1177/0363546510385999.
60. Corten K, Hoser C, Fink C, Bellemans J. Case reports: a Stener-like lesion of the medial collateral ligament of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):289-293. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0992-6
61. Fanelli GC, Edson CJ. Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients: Part II. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):526-529. doi:10.1016/0749-8063(95)90127-2.
62. Schulz MS, Russe K, Weiler A, Eichhorn HJ, Strobel MJ. Epidemiology of posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003;123(4):186-191. doi:10.1007/s00402-002-0471-y.
63. Fowler PJ, Messieh SS. Isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1987;15(6):553-557. doi:10.1177/036354658701500606.
64. Patel DV, Allen AA, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Simonian PT. The nonoperative treatment of acute, isolated (partial or complete) posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees: an intermediate-term follow-up study. HSS J. 2007;3(2):137-146. doi:10.1007/s11420-007-9058-z.
65. Owesen C, Sandven-Thrane S, Lind M, Forssblad M, Granan LP, Årøen A. Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(8):2384-2391. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3786-2.
66. LaPrade CM, Civitarese DM, Rasmussen MT, LaPrade RF. Emerging updates on the posterior cruciate ligament: a review of the current literature. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(12):3077-3092. doi:10.1177/0363546515572770.
67. Anderson CL. High rate of osteoarthritis of the knee in former soccer players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1986;18(1):141.
68. Arliani GG, Astur DC, Yamada RK, et al. Early osteoarthritis and reduced quality of life after retirement in former professional soccer players. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014;69(9):589-594. doi:10.6061/clinics/2014(09)03.
69. Wong P, Hong Y. Soccer injury in the lower extremities. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(8):473-482. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.015511.
70. Thelin N, Holmberg S, Thelin A. Knee injuries account for the sports-related increased risk of knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16(5):329-333. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00497.x.
71. Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1756-1769. doi:10.1177/0363546507307396.
72. Mithöfer K, Peterson L, Mandelbaum BR, Minas T. Articular cartilage repair in soccer players with autologous chondrocyte transplantation: functional outcome and return to competition. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(11):1639-1646. doi:10.1177/0363546505275647
73. Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Rodrigo JJ, Kocher MS, Gill TJ, Rodkey WG. Outcomes of microfracture for traumatic chondral defects of the knee: average 11-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2003;19(5):477-484. doi:10.1053/jars.2003.50112.
74. Hangody L, Ráthonyi GK, Duska Z, Vásárhelyi G, Füles P, Módis L. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A Suppl 1:65-72.
75. Sherman SL, Garrity J, Bauer K, Cook J, Stannard J, Bugbee W. Fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation for the knee: current concepts. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(2):121-133. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-22-02-121.
76. Andrade R, Vasta S, Papalia R, et al. Prevalence of articular cartilage lesions and surgical clinical outcomes in football (soccer) players' knees: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(7):1466-1477. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.055.
77. Görtz S, Williams RJ, Gersoff WK, Bugbee WD. Osteochondral and meniscal allograft transplantation in the football (soccer) player. Cartilage. 2012;3(1 Suppl):37S-42S. doi:10.1177/1947603511416974.
78. Junge A, Grimm K, Feddermann N, Dvorak J. Precompetition orthopedic assessment of international elite football players. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19(4):326-328. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181b21b56.
79. Salzmann GM, Preiss S, Zenobi-Wong M, Harder LP, Maier D, Dvorák J. Osteoarthritis in Football. Cartilage. 2017;8(2):162-172. doi:10.1177/1947603516648186.
80. Makris EA, Hadidi P, Athanasiou KA. The knee meniscus: structure-function, pathophysiology, current repair techniques, and prospects for regeneration. Biomaterials. 2011;32(30):7411-7431. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.06.037
81. Freutel M, Seitz AM, Ignatius A, Dürselen L. Influence of partial meniscectomy on attachment forces, superficial strain and contact mechanics in porcine knee joints. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(1):74-82. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-2951-3.
82. Papalia R, Del Buono A, Osti L, Denaro V, Maffulli N. Meniscectomy as a risk factor for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Br Med Bull. 2011;99:89-106. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq043.
83. Nawabi DH, Cro S, Hamid IP, Williams A. Return to play after lateral meniscectomy compared with medial meniscectomy in elite professional soccer players. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(9):2193-2198. doi:10.1177/0363546514540271.
84. Alentorn-Geli E, Vázquez RS, Díaz PA, Cuscó X, Cugat R. Arthroscopic meniscal transplants in soccer players: outcomes at 2- to 5-year follow-up. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(5):340-343. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e3181f207dc.
85. Marcacci M, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Grassi A, et al. Arthroscopic meniscus allograft transplantation in male professional soccer players: a 36-month follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):382-388. doi:10.1177/0363546513508763.
86. Bizzini M, Dvorak J. FIFA 11+: an effective programme to prevent football injuries in various player groups worldwide-a narrative review. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(9):577-579. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094765.
87. Junge A, Lamprecht M, Stamm H, et al. Countrywide campaign to prevent soccer injuries in Swiss amateur players. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1):57-63. doi:10.1177/0363546510377424.
88. Al Attar WSA, Soomro N, Pappas E, Sinclair PJ, Sanders RH. Adding a post-training FIFA 11+ exercise program to the pre-training FIFA 11+ injury prevention program reduces injury rates among male amateur soccer players: a cluster-randomised trial. J Physiother. 2017;63(4):235-242. doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2017.08.004.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Soccer is one of the most popular sports in the world and has a high incidence of resultant knee injuries.
- Significant, identifiable risk factors put soccer players at risk for serious knee injuries, such as ACL ruptures; age, female sex, and position played influence injury susceptibility.
- ACL injury most commonly occurs via non-contact mechanisms, and female players are at a significantly higher risk of ACL injury than male counterparts.
- The prevalence of osteoarthritis in retired soccer players is high, underscoring the need to be familiar with meniscal and cartilage repair/restoration techniques and associated outcomes.
- The FIFA11+ program reduces injury by 30%, with reported relative risk of 0.70 for lower limb injuries, highlighting the significant preventative importance of this warm-up program.