The Swedish version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality Of Life measure (ACL-QOL): translation and measurement properties.

PURPOSE: To translate the ACL-QOL from English to Swedish and evaluate measurement properties for use after surgical and non-surgical management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. METHODS: The ACL-QOL was translated from English to Swedish and data were pooled from 13 cohorts to enable a comprehensive evaluation of measurement properties in line with COSMIN guidelines. We evaluated internal consistency, test-re-test reliability, measurement error, structural validity [confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)], construct validity and responsiveness (hypothesis testing), and floor/ceiling effects. Results were stratified by time since injury (≤ 1.5 years; 2-10 years, 15-25 years; > 30 years) and ACL management strategy [surgical (n = 1163), non-surgical (n = 570)]. RESULTS: The Swedish ACL-QOL had sufficient internal consistency (total and domain scores) for use in surgically managed (Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.744) and non-surgically managed (≥ 0.770) ACL-injured individuals at all time-points. Test-re-test reliability was sufficient [intraclass correlation coefficients: all domains > 0.80, total score 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.96)]. The standard error of measurement was 5.6 for the total score and ranged from 7.0 to 10.3 for each domain. CFA indicated sufficient SRMR values when using the total score or five domains; however, CFI and RMSEA values did not meet cut-offs for good model fit. Hypothesis testing indicated sufficient construct validity and responsiveness. Floor effects were negligible and ceiling effects were negligible or minor. CONCLUSION: The Swedish version of the ACL-QOL has sufficient internal consistency, test-re-test reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, for use in people with ACL injury managed with or without ACL surgery. Model fit could be improved and investigation into the source of misfit is warranted.

Treatment decision-making process after an anterior cruciate ligament injury: patients', orthopaedic surgeons' and physiotherapists' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the treatment decision-making process after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury from patients', orthopaedic surgeons' and physiotherapists' perspectives. METHODS: The study is a part of the NACOX study, which is designed to describe the natural corollaries after ACL injury. For the present study, a subgroup 101 patients were included. Patients, their orthopaedic surgeons and their physiotherapists, answered a Shared Decision-Making Process (SDMP) questionnaire, when treatment decision for ACL reconstruction surgery (ACLR) or non-reconstruction (non-ACLR) was taken. The SDMP questionnaire covers four topics: " informed patient", " to be heard", " involvement" and " agreement". RESULTS: Most (75-98%) patients considered their needs met in terms of being heard and agreement with the treatment decision. However, fewer in the non-ACLR group compared to the ACLR group reported satisfaction with information from the orthopaedic surgeon (67% and 79%), or for their own involvement in the treatment decision process (67% and 97%). CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Most patients and caregivers considered that patients' needs to be informed, heard and involved, and to agree with the decision about the treatment process, were fulfilled to a high extent. However, patients where a non-ACLR decision was taken experienced being involved in the treatment decision to a lower extent. This implies that the non-ACLR treatment decision process needs further clarification, especially from the patient involvement perspective.

Activity demands and instability are the most important factors for recommending to treat ACL injuries with reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to (1) study and compare the factors that Swedish orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists consider important for recommending ACL reconstruction and, (2) to assess how orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists consider their own and each others, as well as patients', roles are in the treatment decision. METHODS: A web-based survey assessing the relevance of 21 predetermined factors, in the choice to recommend ACL reconstruction, was sent to orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists. Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of the assessment made by themselves, the other clinician (physical therapists rated the importance of surgeons, surgeons rated the importance of physical therapists), and the patients' preferences. RESULT: Orthopaedic surgeons agreed of eight, and physical therapists of seven factors as important in the choice to recommend ACL reconstruction. The factors both groups reported as important were; "patient's wishes to return to contact/pivoting sports", "instability in physical activity", "instability in activities of daily living despite adequate rehabilitation", "physically demanding occupation", and "young age". Both professions rated their own and each others assessments as well as patient's wishes as important for the decision to recommend ACL reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists agree about factors that are important for their decision to recommend ACL reconstruction, showing that both professions share a common ground in perceptions of factors that are important in recommending ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study: Level III.

The measurement properties of the IKDC-subjective knee form.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the methodological quality of studies reporting on the measurement properties of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form (IKDC-SKF) and to evaluate their results following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. METHODS: Systematic search of articles published about the measurement properties of the IKDC-SKF, review of the studies' methodological quality, and synthesis of the results using the COSMIN guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were identified and reviewed. There was strong evidence for good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. There was moderate evidence for good content and structural validity. With the SF36 as a gold standard, the level of evidence for criterion validity was indeterminate. There was conflicting evidence for hypothesis testing and not enough evidence to evaluate measurement error and cross-cultural validity. There were no floor or ceiling effects. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the IKDC-SKF is a measurement instrument with good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, content and structural validity, and responsiveness and interpretability (no floor and ceiling effects). Further evaluation of measurement error, minimal important change, and hypotheses testing is recommended. The IKDC-SKF seems to be useful as a general instrument for all kinds of knee injuries, which might facilitate its clinical use in situations in which time is a factor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level III.

Decision Making for Treatment After ACL Injury From an Orthopaedic Surgeon and Patient Perspective: Results From the NACOX Study.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, there is little evidence of when and why a decision for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) or nonoperative treatment (non-ACLR) is made. PURPOSE: To (1) describe the key characteristics of ACL injury treatment decisions and (2) compare patient-reported knee instability, function, and preinjury activity level between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A total of 216 patients with acute ACL injury were evaluated during the first year after injury. The treatment decision was non-ACLR in 73 patients and ACLR in 143. Reasons guiding treatment decision were obtained from medical charts and questionnaires to patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Patient-reported instability and function were obtained via questionnaires and compared between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. The ACLR treatment group was classified retrospectively by decision phase: acute phase (decision made between injury day and 31 days after injury), subacute phase (decision made between 32 days and up to 5 months after injury), and late phase (decision made 5-12 months after injury). Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and group comparisons were made using parametric or nonparametric tests as appropriate. RESULTS: The main reasons for a non-ACLR treatment decision were no knee instability and no problems with knee function. The main reasons for an ACLR treatment decision were high activity demands and knee instability. Patients in the non-ACLR group were significantly older (P = .031) and had a lower preinjury activity level than did those in the acute-phase (P < .01) and subacute-phase (P = .006) ACLR decision groups. There were no differences in patient-reported instability and function between treatment decision groups at baseline, 4 weeks after injury, or 3 months after injury. CONCLUSION: Activity demands, not patient-reported knee instability, may be the most important factor in the decision-making process for treatment after ACL injury. We suggest a decision-making algorithm for patients with ACL injuries and no high activity demands; waiting for >3 months can help distinguish those who need surgical intervention from those who can undergo nonoperative management. REGISTRATION: NCT02931084 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

PATIENTS FOCUS ON PERFORMANCE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, KNEE STABILITY AND ADVICE FROM CLINICIANS WHEN MAKING DECISIONS CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF THEIR ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT INJURY.

BACKGROUND: When deciding medical treatment, patients' perspectives are important. There is limited knowledge about patients' views when choosing non-operative treatment or anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) after ACL injury. PURPOSE: To describe reasons that influenced patients' decisions for non-operative treatment or ACLR after ACL injury. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: This study recruited a total of 223 patients (50% men), aged 28 ± 8 years who had sustained ACL injury, either unilateral or bilateral. Subjects were, at different time points after injury, asked to fill out a questionnaire about their choice of treatment, where an ACLR treatment decision was made, some responded before and some after the ACLR treatment. A rating of the strength of 10 predetermined reasons in their choice of treatment graded as 0 (no reason) to 3 (very strong reason), was done. RESULTS: Patients with unilateral ACL injury treated with ACLR (110 patients) rated "inability to perform physical activity at the same level as before the injury due to impaired knee function" (96%), "fear of increased symptoms during activity" (87%) and "giving way episodes" (83%) as strong or very strong reasons in their treatment decision. Patients with bilateral ACL injury treated with ACLR (109 knees) rated similar reasons as patients with unilateral ACLR and also "low confidence in the ability to perform at the preinjury activity level without ACLR" (80%) as strong or very strong reasons. Patients with unilateral ACL injury treated non-operatively (46 patients) rated "advice from clinician" (69%) as a strong or very strong reason. Patients with bilateral ACL injury treated non-operatively (25 knees) rated "absence of giving way episodes" (62%), and "no feeling of instability" (62%) as strong or very strong reasons. CONCLUSION: Inability to perform physical activity, fear of increased symptoms, and giving way episodes were reasons that patients with ACL injury considered when making decisions about ACLR. When choosing non-operative treatment, patients considered the absence of instability or giving way symptoms, being able to perform physical activity, and advice from clinicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.