Young Swan to undergo knee reco

[ugg]

Young Swan to undergo knee reco

Sydney Swan draftee Campbell Heath will not play football this year after injuring his knee

No soup for us!

[Legs Akimbo]

Young Swan to undergo knee reco

Sydney Swan draftee Campbell Heath will not play football this year after injuring his knee

No soup for us!

Hard cheese for young Heath Campbell.

Has anyone ever determined if there is an increased probability of doing a kneww if you have done one already? Preemptive surgery - rip out both ACLs and replace them with synthetic wonder plastic?

[liz]

Hard cheese for young Heath Campbell.

Has anyone ever determined if there is an increased probability of doing a kneww if you have done one already? Preemptive surgery - rip out both ACLs and replace them with synthetic wonder plastic?

In one of the many articles written about Malceski's knee surgery last year, there was a comment from someone (surgeon? physio?) who said that the biggest single predictor of a player doing a knee was that they had already done one - and that goes for either the "good" knee or the "bad" one. Suggests that some people are more susceptible than others, and if you've already done one, that is an indication that you are susceptible.

[goswannies]

Hard cheese for young Heath Campbell.

Has anyone ever determined if there is an increased probability of doing a kneww if you have done one already? Preemptive surgery - rip out both ACLs and replace them with synthetic wonder plastic?

There is potentially increased risk. Particularly during the early stage as a graft takes up to a couple of years to fully heal/mature. Return before the graft heals and the rigors of AFL football (running, twisting, landing) can easily damage it (eg Demon, David Schwartz). The graft is pretty good after 12 months though. There is also more risk if the muscle strength is compromised (ie wasting from disuse), ruducing "dynamic" (muscular) support to the knee. Also less proprioceptive input to the knee (it doesn't know where it is in space as well and the timing of muscle contraction can be a little off). Confidence is also lower. Having said that, in the perfect rehab world, the risk of re-injury should probably be similar to injuring it in the first place (you just have less donor tissue for the next reconstruction).

The "synthetic wonder plastic" (or LARS graft I assume your talking about) can either be used to augment a repaired ACL (it's most effective use, some would argue - and you need the ACL remnants in-place anyway, so why cut them out?) or to replace an irrepairable ACL (and this is supposedly prone to risk of re-damage, as the synthetic material isn't as strong as a natural ACL). Either way, it's not as good as a real intact normal ACL, otherwise God or evolution would have put it there in the first place. Many surgeons are still dubious about the LARS graft too.

Any surgery also has inherent risks too. Even just doing an arthoscopy (ie no recon or trimming, just stick a camera in and have a looksee) is believed to advance the wear of the knee.

In short, no one will likely preemptively reconstruct an ACL

P.S. Disclaimer: this is general information, not medical advice

[satchmopugdog]

That post was far too knowledgeable.......and scared the bejesus out of me as I have just driven backfrom Launceston from a Rmit scan on my knee as a prelude to kneesurgery.
Makes mefeel verysorry for theyoung Heath Campbell

[Legs Akimbo]

There is potentially increased risk. Particularly during the early stage as a graft takes up to a couple of years to fully heal/mature. Return before the graft heals and the rigors of AFL football (running, twisting, landing) can easily damage it (eg Demon, David Schwartz). The graft is pretty good after 12 months though. There is also more risk if the muscle strength is compromised (ie wasting from disuse), ruducing "dynamic" (muscular) support to the knee. Also less proprioceptive input to the knee (it doesn't know where it is in space as well and the timing of muscle contraction can be a little off). Confidence is also lower. Having said that, in the perfect rehab world, the risk of re-injury should probably be similar to injuring it in the first place (you just have less donor tissue for the next reconstruction).

The "synthetic wonder plastic" (or LARS graft I assume your talking about) can either be used to augment a repaired ACL (it's most effective use, some would argue - and you need the ACL remnants in-place anyway, so why cut them out?) or to replace an irrepairable ACL (and this is supposedly prone to risk of re-damage, as the synthetic material isn't as strong as a natural ACL). Either way, it's not as good as a real intact normal ACL, otherwise God or evolution would have put it there in the first place. Many surgeons are still dubious about the LARS graft too.

Any surgery also has inherent risks too. Even just doing an arthoscopy (ie no recon or trimming, just stick a camera in and have a looksee) is believed to advance the wear of the knee.

In short, no one will likely preemptively reconstruct an ACL

P.S. Disclaimer: this is general information, not medical advice

My god....someone on RWO who is knowledgeable and informed, speaking factually. Are you sure you are in the right forum buddy?

...seriously, thanks for the info, although my OP was in an irreverent vein.

[desredandwhite]

Just so we are clear on this everyone.... It is Campbell Heath. Not Heath Campbell..

I know, I know, the poor lad has a surname for a first name and a first name for a surname....but that's the decision his parents made

Bad luck to him, hope he recovers well, and is fit and firing when he moves up here at the end of the year!!