Concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions do not affect patient-reported outcomes at minimum 10-year follow-up after ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare patients with a concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesion and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury to patients with an isolated ACL injury at 10-15 years post ACL reconstruction. METHODS: This is a longitudinal follow-up of a cohort of 89 patients that were identified in the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry and included in the index study in 2007. The study group consisted of 30 patients that underwent ACL reconstruction and had a concomitant, isolated full-thickness cartilage lesion (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade 3-4). Each study patient was matched with two control patients who underwent ACL reconstruction but had no cartilage lesions (ICRS grade 1-4) (n = 59). At a median follow-up of 10.2 years (range 9.9-15.6), 65 patients (74%) completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which was the main outcome measure, resulting in 23 pairs after matching. RESULTS: At a follow-up of 10-15 years after ACL reconstruction, no significant differences in KOOS were found between patients with a concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesion and patients without cartilage lesions. There was also no significant difference between the two groups when comparing the change over time in KOOS scores from preoperative to follow-up. Both groups showed significant improvement in all KOOS subscales from preoperative to follow-up, except for in the Symptoms subscale for the control group. The greatest improvement was in the QoL subscale for the study group. CONCLUSION: ACL-reconstructed patients with a full-thickness cartilage lesion did not report worse outcomes at 10-15 years after surgery compared with patients with an isolated ACL injury. Our findings support that there is no long-term negative effect of a concomitant cartilage lesion in an ACL-reconstructed knee. These findings should be considered when discussing treatment and informing about the expected long-term outcome after ACL reconstruction to patients with such combined injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES: Gain an overview of expected response rates (RRs) to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical quality registry-based studies and long-term cohorts in order to better evaluate the validity of registries and registry-based studies. Examine the trends of RRs over time and how they vary with study type, questionnaire format, and the use of reminders. DESIGN: Literature review with systematic search. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, kvalitetsregistre.no, kvalitetsregister.se and sundhed.dk. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles in all areas of medical research using registry-based data or cohort design with at least two follow-up time points collecting PROMs and reporting RRs. Annual reports of registries including PROMs that report RRs for at least two time points. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: RRs to PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 10 articles, 12 registry reports and 6 registry articles were included in the review. The overall RR at baseline was 75%±22.1 but decreased over time. Cohort studies had a markedly better RR (baseline 97%±4.7) compared with registry-based data at all time points (baseline 72%±21.8). For questionnaire formats, paper had the highest RR at 86%±19.4, a mix of electronic and paper had the second highest at 71%±15.1 and the electronic-only format had a substantially lower RR at 42%±8.7. Sending one reminder (82%±16.5) or more than one reminder (76%±20.9) to non-responders resulted in a higher RR than sending no reminders (39%±6.7). CONCLUSIONS: The large variation and downward trend of RRs to PROMs in cohort and registry-based studies are of concern and should be assessed and addressed when using registry data in both research and clinical practice.