ACL Reconstruction Protocol
ACL rehab protocol after reconstruction, by week to 12 months: phases, brace and weight bearing, graft and meniscus repair options, test gates for running and return to sport, with cited sources and a free printable PDF.
Written for adults. For athletes aged 10 to 18, an international consensus is stricter: more than 95% symmetry, and rehab to 12 months for younger athletes[5].
At a glance (Patellar tendon autograft): WBAT with crutches from day 0 · brace only if prescribed · full extension by wk 2 · open chain 90–45° from wk 4, full range from wk 12 · running from wk 12 once the criteria are met · pivoting sport from 9 mo. Criteria-based, test-gated.
Timeline
Currently showing: Patellar tendon autograft · Version 2026.10
Phase
Weight bearing
Brace (if prescribed)
Motion
Strength
Care
Restrictions
Milestones
Phase 1 · Protect and extend
wk 0–2Goals
Allowed
- Knee motion and weight bearing from the first week[1]
- Quad sets with NMES, started in week 1[12, 1]
- Self patellar mobilization in the home program[7]
- Patellar tendon graft: patellar mobilization emphasized, and watch for patellar tendon pain during quadriceps loading[15, 7]
- Heel props or prone hangs if extension is not full[5, 7]
Avoid
- Open-chain knee extension past 45° (none before wk 4) (until wk 12)
- Driving, until emergency braking is safe (until wk 6)
- Pool work until the wound has fully healed (about wk 3–4)[1]
Advance to Phase 2 when
- Full passive knee extension, equal to the other knee[7, 6] (yes/no check) test: Knee ROM
- Straight leg raise without extension lag[7, 6] (yes/no check) test: SLR, no lag
- Effusion 1+ or less on the modified stroke test[7] (yes/no check) test: Stroke test
Exercises
How protocols differ: The compared protocols end their first stage at wk 2, wk 3 or wk 6[27, 26, 28].
Key milestones by week
How this protocol compares with published ACL reconstruction protocols, on a shared week scale (pivoting sport on a 12-month scale). Criteria-based: advance only when each phase's criteria are met.
Want the patient's dates here? (or weeks post-op).
| Milestone | This protocol | 0816243252 wk Range in published protocols | Published range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brace off | wk 4 | wk 4–6[26, 27, 28]two of three at about wk 6 | |
| Open chain 90–45° | wk 4 | early post-op to wk 8[26, 27, 28]two of three at wk 6 | |
| Open chain, full range | wk 12 | wk 12 to 4 mo[26, 28]two give a week: wk 12 and 4 mo | |
| Running | wk 12 | 3 to 5 mo[26, 27, 28]all three include 4 mo | |
| Pivoting sport | from 9 mo | months scale: 0–12 mo | 9–12 mo[27, 28]two of three at 9–12 mo; one gives no month |
All phases
Allowed
- Knee motion and weight bearing from the first week[1]
- Quad sets with NMES, started in week 1[12, 1]
- Self patellar mobilization in the home program[7]
- Patellar tendon graft: patellar mobilization emphasized, and watch for patellar tendon pain during quadriceps loading[15, 7]
- Heel props or prone hangs if extension is not full[5, 7]
Avoid
- Open-chain knee extension past 45° (none before wk 4) (until wk 12)
- Driving, until emergency braking is safe (until wk 6)
- Pool work until the wound has fully healed (about wk 3–4)[1]
Exercises
Advance to Phase 2 when
- Full passive knee extension, equal to the other knee[7, 6] (yes/no check) test: Knee ROM
- Straight leg raise without extension lag[7, 6] (yes/no check) test: SLR, no lag
- Effusion 1+ or less on the modified stroke test[7] (yes/no check) test: Stroke test
Avoid
- Open-chain knee extension past 45° (none before wk 4) (until wk 12)
- Driving, until emergency braking is safe (until wk 6)
- Pool work until the wound has fully healed (about wk 3–4)[1]
Exercises
Exercises
Advance to Phase 4 when
- At least 12 weeks since surgery[1]
- Quadriceps strength ≥ 80% of the other leg[1, 7] test: Quad strength
- Effusion trace or less on the modified stroke test[7, 1] (yes/no check) test: Stroke test
- Full knee ROM, equal to the other knee[1, 7] (yes/no check) test: Knee ROM
Exercises
Advance to Phase 5 when
- Quadriceps strength ≥ 90% of the other leg[7, 18] test: Quad strength
- All four hop tests ≥ 90% of the other leg (single, triple, crossover and 6 m timed hop)[7, 18] tests: Single hop, Triple hop, Crossover hop, 6 m timed hop
Exercises
Discharge from PT when
- At least 9 months since surgery[18, 6]
- Quadriceps strength ≥ 90% of the other leg[7, 18] test: Quad strength
- All four hop tests ≥ 90% of the other leg (single, triple, crossover and 6 m timed hop)[7, 18] tests: Single hop, Triple hop, Crossover hop, 6 m timed hop
- ACL-RSI ≥ 65[21] test: ACL-RSI
- At least 4–6 weeks of full team training before competition[5] (yes/no check)
- Shared clearance with the surgeon and the team[3]
Return to pivoting sport when
- At least 9 months since surgery[18, 6]
- Quadriceps strength ≥ 90% of the other leg[7, 18] test: Quad strength
- All four hop tests ≥ 90% of the other leg (single, triple, crossover and 6 m timed hop)[7, 18] tests: Single hop, Triple hop, Crossover hop, 6 m timed hop
- ACL-RSI ≥ 65[21] test: ACL-RSI
- At least 4–6 weeks of full team training before competition[5] (yes/no check)
- Shared clearance with the surgeon and the team[3]
How published protocols differ
Published protocols agree on early motion and weight bearing and on criteria-based progress, and differ most on the brace, when open-chain knee extension starts, when running starts and the return-to-sport cut-offs.
| Decision point | This protocol | Sanford Health[26]source ↗ · rev. Apr 2026 · checked Oct 2026 | Mass General Brigham[27]source ↗ · rev. Aug 2024 · checked Oct 2026 | Gundersen Health System[28]source ↗ · updated Nov 2019 · checked Oct 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post-op brace | Only if the surgeon prescribes one; unlocked once a straight leg raise has no lag; off when the surgeon discontinues it (typically wk 4–6) | Drop-lock brace for 6 wk, locked straight for walking; unlocked once a straight leg raise has no lag | Locked at first; unlocked once a straight leg raise has no lag; off after 6 wk per the surgeon | Not every patient; locked for walking and sleep in wk 0–1, then unlocked with good quad control; off at wk 4 |
| Weight bearing | WBAT with crutches from day 0, unless the surgeon restricts it | From day 0 with the brace locked straight; crutches as needed for 7–14 days | WBAT with the brace locked; partial weight bearing for 6 wk after a hamstring graft or allograft | WBAT from day 0; crutches off once heel-to-toe gait is normal |
| Open-chain knee extension | 90–45° from wk 4; full range from wk 12 | 90–45° from early post-op, opening 10° a week; 90–0° at wk 12 | Isometrics at 90° and 60° in wk 0–2; 90–45° with resistance from wk 6–8; no later range given | No resisted open chain before wk 6; then 90–30°; full range at 4 mo |
| Running | From wk 12, once quadriceps strength is ≥ 80%, effusion trace or less and ROM full | 4 mo, after Level 1 testing and a ready-to-run test | Months 3–5, after over 80% on its functional assessment | 3–4 mo (its benchmarks say at least 4 mo), with quad and hamstring strength at 75% |
| Return to sport | From 9 mo; quadriceps and all four hops ≥ 90%; ACL-RSI ≥ 65 | After Level 2 testing at 7+ mo; symmetry ≥ 90%; ACL-RSI over 90% | Full play at about 9–12 mo; strength and hops ≥ 95%; ACL-RSI 90% or more | 9–12 mo; isokinetic strength and hops 90%; ACL-RSI collected, no cut-off |
| Meniscus repair covered? | Yes (add-on) | Not in the ACL guideline | Yes, the more conservative plan; no numbers | Yes, its meniscus program for wk 0–8 |
Different numbers from the surgeon?
Match the surgeon's protocol →Opens HEP Drop · Free during early access
Each value is a fact in our words, linked to its source with the version and the date we checked it. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the institutions listed.
Tests and measures
Strength and hop results are limb symmetry: the operated leg as a share of the other. Symmetry can flatter the knee, since the other leg also weakens; comparing with the leg's capacity before surgery is stricter[22].
| Test | Phase 1 exit | Phase 2 exit | Phase 3 exit · return to running | Phase 4 exit | Discharge · return to pivoting sport |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modified stroke test | effusion 1+ or less | effusion trace or less | effusion trace or less | ||
| Knee effusion, graded zero, trace, 1+, 2+ or 3+. Stroke test on the knee; trace or less is the usual gate for running and hop testing[7] | |||||
| Knee range of motion | full passive extension | full extension, flexion ≥120° | full knee ROM | ||
| Knee extension and flexion, compared with the other knee. Measured against the other knee; full extension means matching it[5, 7] | |||||
| Straight leg raise without extension lag | SLR without lag | ||||
| Quadriceps control at full extension. The knee stays fully straight through a straight leg raise[5, 7] | |||||
| Quadriceps strength on a dynamometer | ≥ 80% | ≥ 90% | ≥ 90% | ||
| Quadriceps strength of the operated leg as a share of the other leg (limb symmetry index). Isokinetic at 60°/s, or isometric at 60° of knee flexion; operated ÷ other leg × 100. Manual muscle testing is not a valid strength measure[1, 7, 18] | |||||
| Single hop for distance | ≥ 90% | ≥ 90% | |||
| Single-leg hop distance, as limb symmetry. Hop battery: 2 practice and 2 measured trials per leg[7, 18] | |||||
| Triple hop for distance | ≥ 90% | ≥ 90% | |||
| Three consecutive single-leg hops, distance as limb symmetry. Hop battery: 2 practice and 2 measured trials per leg[7, 18] | |||||
| Crossover hop for distance | ≥ 90% | ≥ 90% | |||
| Three single-leg hops crossing a line, distance as limb symmetry. Hop battery: 2 practice and 2 measured trials per leg[7, 18] | |||||
| 6 m timed hop | ≥ 90% | ≥ 90% | |||
| Single-leg hop speed over 6 m, as limb symmetry. Hop battery: 2 practice and 2 measured trials per leg[7, 18] | |||||
| Lateral step-down (movement quality) | Tracked, not a gate | ||||
| Movement quality in a single-leg step-down. Watched or filmed; no published pass mark, so tracked, not a gate[5] | |||||
| Y balance test | Tracked, not a gate | ||||
| Single-leg dynamic balance (reach distance), compared with the other side. No published pass mark, so tracked, not a gate; reach deficits often remain at return to sport[3] | |||||
| IKDC Subjective Knee Form | Tracked, not a gate | ||||
| Self-reported knee symptoms, function and sport activity. Scored 0 to 100; acceptable symptom state 75.9, minimal important change 11.5[4, 24] Copyrighted instrument: named and linked, never reproduced. About the instrument ↗ | |||||
| ACL Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI) | ≥ 65 points | ||||
| Psychological readiness to return to sport. Self-reported; scores rise early after surgery and then change little for years[21, 23] Copyrighted instrument: named and linked, never reproduced. About the instrument ↗ | |||||
Each pass mark is this protocol's clinical call, cited to its sources. Questionnaires are named and linked, never reproduced.
References and basis
What backs each recommendation
Our summary, in our own words, of what each source supports. "Strongest evidence" is the study design as published; a review that pools only cadaver studies is listed as a lab study. "Limited evidence" means no randomized trial or systematic review of patient studies is among that row's sources; we do not grade our own recommendations.
| Recommendation | This protocol | Based on | Strongest evidence | What's uncertain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 · Protect and extend · wk 0–2 | ||||
| Weight bearing | as tolerated with crutches from day 0, unless the surgeon restricts it; no crutches typically wk 1–2 | [1] Kotsifaki 2023[15] Briem 2026 | Guideline Limited evidence | One meta-analysis tied full weight bearing within 2 weeks to more laxity, with better IKDC scores[8]. |
| Brace | only if the surgeon prescribes one; unlocked once a straight leg raise has no lag (typically wk 1–2); off when the surgeon discontinues it (typically wk 4–6) | [9] Lin 2025[2] Brophy 2023[7] Adams 2012 | Systematic review | The evidence recommends no routine brace[9, 2], and no source gives a locked angle; the compared protocols all use one, and the typical weeks (unlock wk 1–2, off wk 4–6) come from them, not from the literature (see How protocols differ). |
| Full extension | by wk 2 | [7] Adams 2012[5] van Melick 2023 | Consensus Limited evidence | |
| Phase 1 criteria | full passive extension, a straight leg raise without lag, effusion 1+ or less | [7] Adams 2012[6] Filbay 2019 | Narrative review Limited evidence | The literature's first-phase exits ask for trace or no effusion[5, 6]; 1+ or less is our clinical call. |
| Phase 2 · Motion and gait · wk 2–6 | ||||
| Open-chain knee extension | 90–45° from wk 4; full range from wk 12 | [1] Kotsifaki 2023[15] Briem 2026 | Guideline Limited evidence | Very low certainty with strong expert agreement for 90–45° from wk 4[1]; no source gives a week for full range after a patellar tendon or hamstring graft or an allograft, so wk 12 is our default. |
| Phase 3 · Strength · wk 6–12 | ||||
| Running | from wk 12: quadriceps ≥ 80%, effusion trace or less, full ROM | [1] Kotsifaki 2023[7] Adams 2012 | Guideline Limited evidence | The running criteria are expert opinion[1]; other sources start at 8 weeks[7] or at 70% strength[17, 5]. |
| Phase 5 · Return to sport · wk 24–52 | ||||
| Pivoting sport | from 9 mo: quadriceps and all four hops ≥ 90%, ACL-RSI ≥ 65, 4–6 weeks of full training | [18] Grindem 2016[6] Filbay 2019[7] Adams 2012[21] Webster 2020[5] van Melick 2023 | Cohort study Limited evidence | Whether passing a test battery lowers reinjury is not clear[1, 20], and symmetry can flatter the knee, since the other leg also weakens[22]. |
| Modifiers | ||||
| Hamstring graft | no resisted knee flexion to wk 8; hamstring isometrics from wk 4Graft toggle | [15] Briem 2026[7] Adams 2012 | Scoping review Limited evidence | 6–8 weeks across guidelines[15], 12 weeks in one program[7]; no consensus[6]. |
| Quad tendon graft | the same weeks as the default; mobility first, and the tendon limits plyometricsGraft toggle | [14] Solie 2023[15] Briem 2026 | Scoping review Limited evidence | Quadriceps tendon grafts are thin in the evidence: one commentary and one guideline in a review[14, 15]. |
| Allograft | the same weeks as the default; do not advance faster because pain is lowerGraft toggle | [7] Adams 2012[19] Wiggins 2016[2] Brophy 2023 | Systematic review | |
| Meniscus repair add-on | no weight-bearing flexion past 45° to wk 4, past 90° to wk 8; full weight bearing in extensionMeniscus toggle | [7] Adams 2012[16] Spang 2018 | Systematic review | No consensus on rehab after meniscal repair, from low-quality studies; accelerated protocols were not linked to more failures[16]. |
- Weight bearing: One meta-analysis tied full weight bearing within 2 weeks to more laxity, with better IKDC scores[8].
- Phase 1 criteria: The literature's first-phase exits ask for trace or no effusion[5, 6]; 1+ or less is our clinical call.
- Open-chain knee extension: Very low certainty with strong expert agreement for 90–45° from wk 4[1]; no source gives a week for full range after a patellar tendon or hamstring graft or an allograft, so wk 12 is our default.
- Running: The running criteria are expert opinion[1]; other sources start at 8 weeks[7] or at 70% strength[17, 5].
- Pivoting sport: Whether passing a test battery lowers reinjury is not clear[1, 20], and symmetry can flatter the knee, since the other leg also weakens[22].
- Hamstring graft: 6–8 weeks across guidelines[15], 12 weeks in one program[7]; no consensus[6].
- Quad tendon graft: Quadriceps tendon grafts are thin in the evidence: one commentary and one guideline in a review[14, 15].
Bibliography
- 1.Kotsifaki R, Korakakis V, King E, et al. Aspetar clinical practice guideline on rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med. 2023;57(9):500–514.Guideline (Aspetar CPG, GRADE, 140 RCTs, recommendations with expert agreement) · PMC11785408 (free full text) · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-106158 · CC BY-NC 4.0 · cited, not reproduced · Used for: Weight bearing · Open-chain knee extension · Running
- 2.Brophy RH, Lowry KJ. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline Summary: Management of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023;31(11):531–537.Guideline (AAOS CPG 2022, summary of 8 recommendations and 7 options) · PMC10168113 (free full text) · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-22-01020 · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · cited, not reproduced · Used for: Brace · Allograft
- 3.Meredith SJ, Rauer T, Chmielewski TL, et al. Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(6):2325967120930829.Consensus statement (Panther Symposium 2019, return to sport (11 statements)) · PMC7328222 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/2325967120930829 · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
- 4.Svantesson E, Hamrin Senorski E, Webster KE, et al. Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injury clinical outcomes consensus group. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(8):2415–2434.Consensus statement (Panther Symposium 2019, clinical outcome measures (9 statements)) · PMC7429530 (free full text) · doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06061-x · CC BY 4.0 · cited
- 5.van Melick N, Dietvorst M, van Oort MIAM, et al. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rehabilitation for the 10- to 18-Year-Old Adolescent Athlete: Practice Guidelines Based on International Delphi Consensus. Orthop J Sports Med. 2023;11(7):23259671231172454.Consensus statement (international Delphi, rehab for athletes aged 10 to 18) · PMC10363891 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/23259671231172454 · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · cited, not reproduced · Used for: Full extension · Pivoting sport
- 6.Filbay SR, Grindem H. Evidence-based recommendations for the management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2019;33(1):33–47.Narrative review (evidence-based management, 5 phases with goals and return-to-sport criteria) · PMC6723618 (free full text) · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2019.01.018 · CC BY 4.0 · cited · Used for: Phase 1 criteria · Pivoting sport
- 7.Adams D, Logerstedt DS, Hunter-Giordano A, et al. Current concepts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a criterion-based rehabilitation progression. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(7):601–614.Narrative review (Delaware criterion-based progression with milestones (clinical commentary)) · PMC3576892 (free full text) · doi:10.2519/jospt.2012.3871 · © publisher · cited only · Used for: Brace · Full extension · Phase 1 criteria · Running · Pivoting sport · Hamstring graft · Allograft · Meniscus repair add-on
- 8.Fan Z, Yan J, Zhou Z, et al. Delayed versus Accelerated Weight-bearing Rehabilitation Protocol Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2022;54:jrm00260.Systematic review (accelerated vs delayed weight bearing, 9 studies) · PMC8892302 (free full text) · doi:10.2340/jrm.v53.1438 · CC BY-NC 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
- 9.Lin Q, Li Z, Li M, et al. Effects of postoperative knee bracing on knee function and stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025;33(12):4398–4411.Systematic review (post-op brace vs none, 11 studies, n = 785) · PMC12684331 (free full text) · doi:10.1002/ksa.70098 · CC BY 4.0 · cited · Used for: Brace
- 10.D'Amore T, Rao S, Corvi J, et al. The Utility of Continuous Passive Motion After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(6):23259671211013841.Systematic review (CPM vs none, 12 studies, n = 808) · PMC8246506 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/23259671211013841 · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
- 11.Yang JH, Hwang KT, Lee MK, et al. Comparison of a Cryopneumatic Compression Device and Ice Packs for Cryotherapy Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Clin Orthop Surg. 2023;15(2):234–240.RCT (cold-compression device vs ice packs, n = 56) · PMC10060780 (free full text) · doi:10.4055/cios21246 · CC BY-NC 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
- 12.Li Z, Jin L, Chen Z, et al. Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Quadriceps Femoris Muscle Strength and Knee Joint Function in Patients After ACL Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Orthop J Sports Med. 2025;13(1):23259671241275071.Systematic review (NMES added to rehab, 11 RCTs, n = 202) · PMC11729445 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/23259671241275071 · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
- 13.Colombo V, Valenčič T, Steiner K, et al. Comparison of Blood Flow Restriction Interventions to Standard Rehabilitation After an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Systematic Review. Am J Sports Med. 2024;52(14):3641–3650.Systematic review (blood flow restriction vs standard rehab, 5 studies) · PMC11608515 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/03635465241232002 · CC BY-NC 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
- 14.Solie B, Monson J, Larson C. Graft-Specific Surgical and Rehabilitation Considerations for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with the Quadriceps Tendon Autograft. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2023;18(2):493–512.Narrative review (quadriceps tendon graft surgery and rehab (clinical commentary, level 5)) · PMC10069402 (free full text) · doi:10.26603/001c.73797 · CC BY-NC 4.0 · cited, not reproduced · Used for: Quad tendon graft
- 15.Briem K, Zebis MK, Haraldsson BÞ, et al. Rehabilitation guidelines after autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction need more graft-specific exercise recommendations-A scoping review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2026;34(1):83–101.Scoping review (exercise recommendations by graft in 17 guidelines) · PMC12747633 (free full text) · doi:10.1002/ksa.12666 · CC BY 4.0 · cited · Used for: Weight bearing · Open-chain knee extension · Hamstring graft · Quad tendon graft
- 16.Spang Iii RC, Nasr MC, Mohamadi A, et al. Rehabilitation following meniscal repair: a systematic review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2018;4(1):e000212.Systematic review (rehab after meniscal repair, 17 clinical studies) · PMC5905745 (free full text) · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2016-000212 · CC BY-NC 4.0 · cited, not reproduced · Used for: Meniscus repair add-on
- 17.Buckthorpe M, Della Villa F. Recommendations for Plyometric Training after ACL Reconstruction - A. Clinical Commentary. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2021;16(3):879–895.Narrative review (4-stage plyometric program with entry criteria (clinical commentary)) · PMC8169025 (free full text) · doi:10.26603/001c.23549 · CC BY-NC 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
- 18.Grindem H, Snyder-Mackler L, Moksnes H, et al. Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(13):804–808.Cohort study (n = 106, Delaware-Oslo, return-to-sport timing, criteria and reinjury) · PMC4912389 (free full text) · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031 · © publisher · cited only · Used for: Pivoting sport
- 19.Wiggins AJ, Grandhi RK, Schneider DK, et al. Risk of Secondary Injury in Younger Athletes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(7):1861–1876.Systematic review (second ACL injury rates, 19 studies) · PMC5501245 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/0363546515621554 · © publisher · cited only · Used for: Allograft
- 20.Zhou W, Liu X, Hong Q, et al. Association between passing return-to-sport testing and re-injury risk in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2024;12:e17279.Systematic review (passing return-to-sport tests and reinjury, 9 studies, n = 1410) · PMC11064852 (free full text) · doi:10.7717/peerj.17279 · CC BY 4.0 · cited
- 21.Webster KE, Feller JA. Who Passes Return-to-Sport Tests, and Which Tests Are Most Strongly Associated With Return to Play After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(12):2325967120969425.Cohort study (n = 450, which 6-month tests go with return to sport at 12 months) · PMC7750778 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/2325967120969425 · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · cited, not reproduced · Used for: Pivoting sport
- 22.Wellsandt E, Failla MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Limb Symmetry Indexes Can Overestimate Knee Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;47(5):334–338.Cohort study (n = 70, limb symmetry vs estimated pre-injury capacity) · PMC5483854 (free full text) · doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7285 · © publisher · cited only
- 23.Sell TC, Zerega R, King V, et al. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury Scale (ACL-RSI) Scores over Time After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Med Open. 2024;10(1):49.Systematic review (ACL-RSI scores over time, 83 studies) · PMC11061071 (free full text) · doi:10.1186/s40798-024-00712-w · CC BY 4.0 · cited
- 24.Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, et al. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63 Suppl 11:S208–28.Narrative review (measurement properties of IKDC, KOOS, Lysholm, Tegner and others) · PMC4336550 (free full text) · doi:10.1002/acr.20632 · © publisher · cited only
- 25.Salem HS, Park DH, Friedman JL, et al. Return to Driving After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(1):2325967120968556.Systematic review (return to driving, 5 studies) · PMC7829529 (free full text) · doi:10.1177/2325967120968556 · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · cited, not reproduced
Published protocols compared (26–29)
Compared, not endorsed. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the institutions listed. Versions and checked dates match the How published protocols differ table.
- 26.Sanford Health. ACL reconstruction rehabilitation guideline [PDF]. Revised Apr 2026.Published protocol · Protocol PDF (www.sanfordhealth.org/-/media/org/files/medical-professionals/resources-and-education/acl-reconstruction-guideline.pdf) · checked Oct 2026 · Compared, not endorsed · Used for: How protocols differ · Key milestones: published ranges
- 27.Mass General Brigham. Rehabilitation protocol for ACL reconstruction [PDF]. Revised Aug 2024.Published protocol · Protocol PDF (www.massgeneralbrigham.org/content/dam/unified-xwalk/pdf/patient-education/english/rehabilitation-protocol-for-acl.pdf) · checked Oct 2026 · Compared, not endorsed · Used for: How protocols differ · Key milestones: published ranges
- 28.Gundersen Health System. ACL reconstruction rehabilitation program [PDF]. Version updated Nov 2019.Published protocol · Protocol PDF (www.gundersenhealth.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/Sports-Medicine-Protocol-ACL-Reconstruction.pdf) · checked Oct 2026 · Compared, not endorsed · Used for: How protocols differ · Key milestones: published ranges
- 29.UW Health. ACL reconstruction in the adult athlete with quadriceps tendon graft [PDF]. Version © 2025.Published protocol · Guideline PDF (bynder.uwhealth.org/m/7b41045306bae87f/original/ACL-Reconstruction-in-the-Adult-Athlete-with-QT-graft.pdf) · checked Oct 2026 · Compared, not endorsed
Licenses and adaptation. All are licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). No warranties are given by the original authors.
[2] Brophy 2023, [3] Meredith 2020, [5] van Melick 2023, [10] D'Amore 2021, [12] Li 2025, [21] Webster 2020 and [25] Salem 2021 are CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 and [1] Kotsifaki 2023, [8] Fan 2022, [11] Yang 2023, [13] Colombo 2024, [14] Solie 2023, [16] Spang 2018 and [17] Buckthorpe 2021 are CC BY-NC 4.0: we summarize their findings in our own words and reproduce no text, tables or figures. [7] Adams 2012, [18] Grindem 2016, [19] Wiggins 2016, [22] Wellsandt 2017, [24] Collins 2011 and [29] UW Health are not openly licensed (all rights reserved): we state their findings and numbers in our own words and reproduce no text, tables or figures.
Published protocols [26]–[29] are compared, not endorsed. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the institutions listed.
Changelog
| Version | Date | What changed | Type | Recommendations affected | Reviewed by | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026.10 | Oct 2026 | First published version | — | All | Licensed PT | 29 |
ACL Reconstruction Protocol · Patellar tendon autograft · Version 2026.10 · hepdrop.com/p/acl · The operating surgeon's protocol takes precedence.