Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Orthop. Apr 18, 2026; 17(4): 116521
Published online Apr 18, 2026. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v17.i4.116521
Published online Apr 18, 2026. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v17.i4.116521
Table 2 Outcome evaluations between intervention and control groups
| Ref. | Measured outcomes | Results |
| Almuhaya et al[12], 2023 | Kinesiophobia (TSK) | Improved TSK (P = 0.026) and ACL-RSI (P = 0.009) in cases than controls, no significant difference in IKDC (P = 0.42) between groups |
| Return to sport (ACL-RSI) | ||
| Functional status (IKDC) | ||
| Lee et al[14], 2023 | Knee strength (biodex isokinetic dynamometer) | No significant difference in muscle strength (P = 0.25 to 0.96), knee laxity (P = 0.96), and subjective knee evaluation (P = 0.99) between groups |
| Knee laxity (KT1000) | ||
| Functional status (IKDC) | ||
| D’Isanto et al[13], 2022 | Pain (VAS score) | Greater psychological readiness (P < 0.01) and lower postoperative pain in cases than controls |
| Psychological readiness (ACL-RSI) | ||
| Lyles et al[17], 2014 | Pain (VAS score) | Improved postoperative pain (P = 0.0018), AROM (P = 0.0004), PROM (P = 0.0011), and Lysholm score (P = 0.044) |
| ROM (AROM and PROM in flexion) | ||
| Functional status (Lysholm) | ||
| Rhim et al[8], 2020 | Kinesiophobia (TSK) | No significant difference in self-efficacy (P = 0.808), return to sport (P = 0.574), kinesiophobia (P = 0.888), and KOOS subscales (P = 0.236 to 0.916) between groups |
| Return to sport (ACL-RSI) | ||
| Self-efficacy (K-SES) | ||
| Functional status (KOOS) | ||
| Maddison et al[16], 2012 | Self-efficacy (AISEQ) | Improved postoperative knee laxity (P < 0.05) favoring the intervention |
| Knee strength (180/second, 60/second) | No significant difference for knee strength for extension at 180/second (P = 0.67) or 60/second (P = 0.48) | |
| Knee laxity (KT1000) | Fairly stable self-efficacy between weeks 6 to weeks 12 in cases than controls | |
| Lebon et al[4], 2012 | Preoperative perception of pain (0-100 scale) | Improved crutches (P < 0.01), walking (P = 0.01), and exercise (P < 0.05) SE in cases than controls only at predischarge, better IKDC 6 weeks postop, less crutches use time in cases than controls (P < 0.01) |
| Preoperative anxiety (STAI) | ||
| Self-efficacy (CSE, WSE, ESE) | ||
| Functional status (IKDC subjective and objective) | No significant difference in preoperative anxiety reduction, preoperative perception of pain reduction (P = 0.52), and postoperative ROM (P = 0.36) between groups | |
| ROM by goniometry | ||
| Crutches use time | ||
| Maddison et al[15], 2006 | Pain (0-10 scale) | Improved pain in cases than controls (P < 0.05). Greater post-op knee strength in cases than controls (P < 0.02). Reduced re-injury anxiety in cases than controls (P < 0.05) |
| Reinjury anxiety (0-10 scale) | ||
| Knee strength (cybex 6000) | ||
| Isokinetic dynamometer) |
- Citation: Salimi M, Mafhoumi A, Mosalamiaghili S, Arvin A, Keshtkar A, Lowe W, Akbari H. Effectiveness of motor imagery in postoperative outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. World J Orthop 2026; 17(4): 116521
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v17/i4/116521.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v17.i4.116521