Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for IKDC-SKF and KOOS at the 10-Year Follow-up After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Study From the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort.

Background: Clinicians need thresholds for the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and Treatment Failure to interpret group-based patient-reported outcome measures after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Validated thresholds that are crucial for accurately discerning patient symptom state and facilitating effective interpretation have not been determined for long-term follow-up after ACL injury. Purpose: To calculate and validate thresholds for PASS and Treatment Failure for the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales at the 10-year follow-up after ACL injury. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 163 participants with unilateral ACL injury (treated with reconstruction or rehabilitation alone) from the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort were included. Thresholds for PASS were calculated for IKDC-SKF and KOOS subscales using anchor-based predictive modeling and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Too few participants had self-reported Treatment Failure to calculate thresholds for that outcome. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to derive 95% CIs. The criterion validity of the predictive modeling and ROC-derived thresholds were assessed by comparing actual patient-reported PASS outcome with the calculated PASS outcome for each method of calculation and calculating their positive and negative predictive values with respect to the anchor questions. Results: A total of 127 (78%) participants reported satisfactory symptom state. Predictive modeling PASS thresholds (95% CIs) were 76.2 points (72.1-79.4 points) for IKDC-SKF, 85.4 points (80.9-89.2 points) for KOOS Pain, 76.5 points (67.8-84.7 points) for KOOS Symptoms, 93.8 points (90.1-96.9 points) for KOOS activities of daily living, 71.6 points (63.4-77.7 points) for KOOS Sports, and 59.0 points (53.7-63.9 points) for KOOS quality of life (QoL). Predictive modeling thresholds classified 81% to 93% of the participants as having satisfactory symptom state, whereas ROC-derived thresholds classified >50% as unsatisfied. The thresholds for IKDC-SKF, KOOS Sports, and KOOS QoL resulted in the most accurate percentages of PASS among all identified thresholds and therefore demonstrate the highest validity. Conclusion: Predictive modeling provided valid PASS thresholds for IKDC-SKF and KOOS at the 10-year follow-up after ACL injury. The thresholds for IKDC-SKF, KOOS Sports, and KOOS QoL should be used when determining satisfactory outcomes. ROC-derived thresholds result in substantial misclassification rates of the participants who reported satisfactory symptom state.

The Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort treatment algorithm yields superior outcomes to usual care 9-12 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes were compared between participants who followed the treatment algorithm of the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort, consisting of progressive preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation, patient education, clinical testing and shared decision-making about treatment choice, and those who followed usual care 9-12 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Participants with primary ACLR were included from the Norwegian arm of the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (usual care). The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale scores and the International Knee Documentation Committee-Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) scores were compared. KOOS scores for the usual care group were converted to IKDC-SKF scores with recently published validated crosswalk. The percentages of participants with scores above predefined thresholds for patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were also calculated. RESULTS: Eighty of 100 (80%) participants from the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and 1588 of 3248 (49%) from the usual care group participated in the follow-up. Participants from the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort had higher KOOS subscale (p < 0.001) and IKDC-SKF scores (p < 0.001), and a higher percentage reached PASS (84%-96% vs. 62%-76%, p ≤ 0.002) for KOOS Pain, symptoms, activities of daily living and sports compared to the usual care group. No significant differences were found for KOOS quality of life scores (not significant [n.s.]) or PASS percentages (80% vs. 74%, n.s.). CONCLUSION: Participants with ACLR who followed the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort treatment algorithm had reduced knee symptoms, superior function and higher percentages of satisfactory outcomes than participants who followed usual care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

OPTIKNEE 2022: consensus recommendations to optimise knee health after traumatic knee injury to prevent osteoarthritis.

The goal of the OPTIKNEE consensus is to improve knee and overall health, to prevent osteoarthritis (OA) after a traumatic knee injury. The consensus followed a seven-step hybrid process. Expert groups conducted 7 systematic reviews to synthesise the current evidence and inform recommendations on the burden of knee injuries; risk factors for post-traumatic knee OA; rehabilitation to prevent post-traumatic knee OA; and patient-reported outcomes, muscle function and functional performance tests to monitor people at risk of post-traumatic knee OA. Draft consensus definitions, and clinical and research recommendations were generated, iteratively refined, and discussed at 6, tri-weekly, 2-hour videoconferencing meetings. After each meeting, items were finalised before the expert group (n=36) rated the level of appropriateness for each using a 9-point Likert scale, and recorded dissenting viewpoints through an anonymous online survey. Seven definitions, and 8 clinical recommendations (who to target, what to target and when, rehabilitation approach and interventions, what outcomes to monitor and how) and 6 research recommendations (research priorities, study design considerations, what outcomes to monitor and how) were voted on. All definitions and recommendations were rated appropriate (median appropriateness scores of 7-9) except for two subcomponents of one clinical recommendation, which were rated uncertain (median appropriateness score of 4.5-5.5). Varying levels of evidence supported each recommendation. Clinicians, patients, researchers and other stakeholders may use the definitions and recommendations to advocate for, guide, develop, test and implement person-centred evidence-based rehabilitation programmes following traumatic knee injury, and facilitate data synthesis to reduce the burden of knee post-traumatic knee OA.

Measurement properties for muscle strength tests following anterior cruciate ligament and/or meniscus injury: What tests to use and where do we need to go? A systematic review with meta-analyses for the OPTIKNEE consensus.

OBJECTIVES: Critically appraise and summarise the measurement properties of knee muscle strength tests after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and/or meniscus injury using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias checklist. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analyses. The modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-guided assessment of evidence quality. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTSDiscus searched from inception to 5 May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies evaluating knee extensor or flexor strength test reliability, measurement error, validity, responsiveness or interpretability in individuals with ACL and/or meniscus injuries with a mean injury age of ≤30 years. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were included involving 31 different muscle strength tests (mode and equipment) in individuals following an ACL injury and/or an isolated meniscus injury. Strength tests were assessed for reliability (n=8), measurement error (n=7), construct validity (n=27) and criterion validity (n=7). Isokinetic concentric extensor and flexor strength tests were the best rated with sufficient intrarater reliability (very low evidence quality) and construct validity (moderate evidence quality). Isotonic extensor and flexor strength tests showed sufficient criterion validity, while isometric extensor strength tests had insufficient construct and criterion validity (high evidence quality). CONCLUSION: Knee extensor and flexor strength tests of individuals with ACL and/or meniscus injury lack evidence supporting their measurement properties. There is an urgent need for high-quality studies on these measurement properties. Until then, isokinetic concentric strength tests are most recommended, with isotonic strength tests a good alternative.

What tests should be used to assess functional performance in youth and young adults following anterior cruciate ligament or meniscal injury? A systematic review of measurement properties for the OPTIKNEE consensus.

OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise and summarise measurement properties of functional performance tests in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or meniscal injury. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were performed in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and SPORTSDiscus (EBSCO) on 7 July 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies evaluating at least one measurement property of a functional performance test including individuals following an ACL tear or meniscal injury with a mean injury age of ≤30 years. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess methodological quality. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessed evidence quality. RESULTS: Thirty studies evaluating 26 functional performance tests following ACL injury were included. No studies were found in individuals with an isolated meniscal injury. Included studies evaluated reliability (n=5), measurement error (n=3), construct validity (n=26), structural validity (n=1) and responsiveness (n=1). The Single Leg Hop and Crossover Hop tests showed sufficient intrarater reliability (high and moderate quality evidence, respectively), construct validity (low-quality and moderate-quality evidence, respectively) and responsiveness (low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Frequently used functional performance tests for individuals with ACL or meniscal injury lack evidence supporting their measurement properties. The Single Leg Hop and Crossover Hop are currently the most promising tests following ACL injury. High-quality studies are required to facilitate stronger recommendations of performance-based outcomes following ACL or meniscal injury.