In search of the perfect ACL brace
Alexander, A.H.
American Journal of Orthopedics 24(4): 328-336
1995
ISSN/ISBN: 1078-4519 PMID: 7788312 Document Number: 451768
Following my own acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and reconstruction, I embarked on a subjective evaluation of ACL functional braces voluntarily supplied by vendors. Both custom and off-the-shelf braces were evaluated during daily activities and running. Scored subjectively on an ascending scale of 1 to 3 were Comfort (including freedom from slippage, abrasions, and pressure phenomena), Convenience (ease of application), Control (perceived resistance to anterior tibial translation), and Cosmesis (appearance, profile). On this rating scale, 1 represents below average, 2 is average, and 3 is above average. The Comfort score was doubled, as this feature determined whether the brace would be worn. The individual scores were then totaled for an overall rating. To avoid bias, I did all trials prior to reviewing the literature. Scores for custom braces were: Townsend, 14; Omni Scientific Elite, 11; Innovation Sports C.Ti.2, 10; 3M Lenox Hill Spectralite, 9; Orthotech Performer, 9; DonJoy Defiance, 9; and Sutter Talon, 9. Scores for OTS braces were: DonJoy Goldpoint, 13; Orthotech Controller, 11; Bledsoe Force III Light, 11; 3M Lenox Hill OTS, 10; Innovation Sports MVP, 8; Bledsoe Force II, 8; Bledsoe Force II Light, 8; Omni Scientific Spectrum, 7; Townsend OTS, 7; and DonJoy Playmaker, 6. This study does not validate the requirement for a functional orthosis following ACL reconstruction, but if one is desired, I prefer the custom Townsend and the OTS DonJoy Goldpoint. Two other higher scoring OTS braces also proved satisfactory (OTS Orthotech Controller and OTS Bledsoe Force III Light). To accommodate the majority of patients, orthopedic surgeons may need to provide a variety of OTS braces.