The Videoinsight® method: improving rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—a preliminary study

  • Stefano Zaffagnini
  • Rebecca Luciana Russo
  • Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli
  • Maurilio Marcacci
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this randomized double blind controlled study was to investigate if the vision of contemporary art video according to the Videoinsight® method could produce better short-term clinical and subjective outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

One-hundred and six patients treated with single-bundle ACL reconstruction plus extra-articular tenodesis were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to Group A (53 patients) and Group B (53 patients). Group A received one art video that was established to produce positive and therapeutic “insight”, while Group B received one art video with an “insight” unfavourable to the psychological recovery. All patients were instructed to watch the video 3 times a week for the first 2 months during the execution of the same rehabilitative protocol. Patients were evaluated pre-operatively and 3 months after surgery with Tegner, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), physical and mental SF-36 scores and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK). Time to crutches discharge was collected at final follow-up as well.

Results

Five patients were lost to follow-up and 101 patients (Group A: 51 patients; Group B: 50 patients) were available at mean 3.0 ± 0.2 months follow-up. Age at surgery was 33.0 ± 17.0 years. The two groups were homogeneous regarding pre-operative demographic data, meniscal lesions and clinical outcomes. Significant improvements were observed in Group A compared to Group B at final follow-up for subjective IKDC (82.0 ± 13.8 vs. 71.0 ± 19.7, p = 0.0470), TKS (28.1 ± 6.0 vs. 32.0 ± 5.8, p = 0.0141) and time to crutches discharge (20.9 ± 5.0 vs. 26.5 ± 8.2 days, p = 0.0012). A positive significant correlation between TSK and time to crutches discharge (r = 0.35, p = 0.0121) was observed.

Conclusions

The Videoinsight® method combined to adequate rehabilitation could be an effective tool in order to improve short-term clinical and functional outcomes in patients who underwent ACL reconstruction.

Level of evidence

I.

Keywords

Knee Rehabilitation Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Contemporary art video Videoinsight® method 

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 4182 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 4350 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Apolone G, Mosconi P (1998) The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1025–1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cupal D, Brewer B (2001) Effects of relaxation and guided imagery on knee strength, reinjury anxiety, and pain following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Rehabil Psychol 46:28–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Decarlo MS, Shelbourne KD, McCarroll JR, Rettig AC (1992) Traditional versus accelerated rehabilitation following ACL reconstruction: a one-year follow-up. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 15:309–316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flint F (1991) The psychological effects of modeling in athletic injury rehabilitation. University of Oregon, USA, EugeneGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ievleva L, Orlick T (1991) Mental links to enhanced recovery: an exploratory analysis. Sport Psychol 5:25–40Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levitt R, Deisinger JA, Remondet Wall J, Ford L, Cassisi JE (1995) EMG feedback-assisted postoperative rehabilitation of minor arthroscopic knee surgeries. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 35:218–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maddison R, Prapavessis H, Clatworthy M (2006) Modeling and rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Ann Behav Med 31:89–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Giordano G, Iacono F, Presti ML (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction associated with extra-articular tenodesis: a prospective clinical and radiographic evaluation with 10- to 13-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 37:707–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, Neri MP, Loreti I, Petitto A (1998) Arthroscopic intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with gracilis and semitendinosus tendons. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6:68–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monticone M, Giorgi I, Baiardi P, Barbieri M, Rocca B, Bonezzi C (2010) Development of the Italian version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-I): cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:1241–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Padua R, Bondi R, Ceccarelli E, Bondi L, Romanini E, Zanoli G, Campi S (2004) Italian version of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Arthroscopy 20:819–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ross MJ, Berger RS (1996) Effects of stress inoculation training on athletes’ postsurgical pain and rehabilitation after orthopedic injury. J Consult Clin Psychol 64:406–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Russo RL (2011) Videoinsight®. Healing with contemporary art. Silvana Editoriale, Cinisello BalsamoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Russo RL (2013) The Videoinsight® concept. CIC Edizioni Internazionali, RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schafer R (1954) Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing. Grune & Stratton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sordoni C, Hall C, Forwell L (2000) The use of imagery by athletes during injury rehabilitation. J Sport Rehabil 9:329–338Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sordoni C, Hall C, Forwell L (2002) The use of imagery in athletic injury rehabilitation and its relationship to self-efficacy. Physiother Can 54:177–185Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Theodorakis Y, Beneca A, Malliou P, Goudas M (1997) Examining psychological factors during injury rehabilitation. J Sport Rehabil 6:355–363Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zaffagnini S, Bruni D, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bonanzinga T, Lopomo N, Bignozzi S, Marcacci M (2011) Single-bundle patellar tendon versus non-anatomical double-bundle hamstrings ACL reconstruction: a prospective randomized study at 8-year minimum follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:390–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Zaffagnini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rebecca Luciana Russo
    • 3
  • Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli
    • 1
  • Maurilio Marcacci
    • 1
  1. 1.2nd Orthopaedic and Traumatology Clinic, Istituto Ortopedico RizzoliUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Laboratorio di Biomeccanica, Codivilla-Putti Research Center, Istituto Ortopedico RizzoliUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Videoinsight® CenterTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations