Outcomes after selective nerve root blockade for lumbar radicular pain from lumbar disc hernia or lumbar spinal stenosis assessed by the PROMIS-29 - a prospective observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: Selective nerve root blocks (SNRB) are used both as a therapeutic and diagnostic tool for lumbar radicular pain. Most studies evaluate the effect of SNRB simply by its relation to pain reduction. It is well known that pain is associated with other factors such as depression, anxiety, inactivity and sleeping disorders, but these patient-related outcomes are seldom evaluated. This study evaluated the influence of SNRB on pain-related outcomes including depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, activity and sleep. METHODS: One hundred three patients with lumbar radicular pain were treated with a SNRB. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed with the PROMIS-29 for 12 weeks (84 days) following the SNRB. Patients were stratified based on their pain reduction at the 14-day follow up as responders (≥ 30% pain reduction) and non-responders (< 30% pain reduction). Post-treatment duration was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier analysis with return to baseline as an event. A paired t-test was used to compare pre- and post-treatment responses at specific time intervals. RESULTS: Forty-four percent (n = 45) of the patients were responders and showed significant improvement in all parameters throughout the 84-days follow-up, the exception was sleep that lost significance at day 70. The mean post-treatment duration among responders was 59 (52-67) days. Non-responders showed significant improvements in pain interference and pain intensity until day 35 and in ability for social participation until 21-day. CONCLUSION: SNRB can improve pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance and the ability to participate in social roles.

Subsequent surgery after primary ACLR results in a significantly inferior subjective outcome at a 2-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To analyze minimal important change (MIC), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) and treatment failure after reoperation within 2 years of primary ACL reconstruction and compare them with patients without additional surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective follow-up study of a cohort from a single-clinic database with all primary ACLRs enrolled between 2005 and 2015. Additional surgery within 2 years of the primary ACLR on the ipsilateral knee was identified using procedural codes and analysis of medical records. Patients who completed the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up were included in the study. MIC, PASS and treatment failure thresholds were applied using the aggregate KOOS (KOOS4) and the five KOOS subscales. RESULTS: The cohort included 6030 primary ACLR and from this 1112 (18.4%) subsequent surgeries were performed on 1018 (16.9%) primary ACLRs. 24 months follow-up for KOOS was obtained on 523 patients (54%) in the reoperation group and 2084 (44%) in the no-reoperation group. MIC; the no-reoperation group had a significantly higher improvement on all KOOS subscales, Pain 70.3 vs 60.2% (p < 0.01), Symptoms 72.1 vs 57.4% (p < 0.01), ADL 56.3 vs 51.2% (p < 0.01), Sport/Rec 67.3 vs 54.4% (p < 0.01), QoL 73.9 vs 56.3% (p < 0.01). PASS; 62% in the non-reoperation group reported their KOOS4 scores to be satisfactory, while only 35% reported satisfactory results in the reoperated cohort (p < 0.05). Treatment failure; 2% in the non-reoperation group and 6% (p < 0.05) in the reoperation group considered their treatment to have failed. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent subsequent surgeries within 2 years of primary ACLR reported significantly inferior outcomes in MIC, PASS and treatment failure compared to the non-reoperated counterpart at the 2-year follow-up. This study provides clinicians with important information and knowledge about the outcomes after an ACLR with subsequent additional surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Minimal graft site morbidity using autogenous semitendinosus graft from the uninjured leg: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To quantify the effect on strength of semitendinosus (ST) graft harvest by comparing isokinetic and isometric muscle strength. METHODS: A cohort of 140 patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) and were randomized to ipsilateral or contralateral ST graft harvest. Isokinetic and isometric muscle strength testing using a dynamometer were collected for the operated and non-operated leg. Patients were assessed pre-surgery and at 6, 12 and 24 months after reconstruction. RESULTS: ST graft harvest reduced isokinetic flexion muscle strength for 6 months. At 12 months follow up there was no significant difference between the two groups and they were all stronger than pre-injury. No other significant differences were found in any primary or secondary outcome measurements. CONCLUSION: Solitary ST graft harvest does not appear to result in a permanent reduced isometric or isokinetic quadriceps muscle strength on the side where the graft is harvested. A reduction in hamstring muscle strength of less than 10% can be seen at short-term follow-up with full recovery by 12 months. Most patients report little or no donor site pain. Given these findings, ST autograft is an alternative graft choice that could be used for various reconstructions in terms of donor site morbidity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Utilizing a contralateral hamstring autograft facilitates earlier isokinetic and isometric strength recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare muscle strength and patient reported outcomes following ACLR using a semitendinosus (ST) graft from the ipsilateral (IL) leg compared to a graft from the contralateral (CL) leg. METHODS: One-hundred and forty patients with an ACL injury were randomized to IL or CL ACLR. Patients were assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months with isokinetic and isometric muscle strength measured using Biodex. Patient-reported outcomes and manual stability measurements were also recorded. RESULTS: Patient-related outcomes improved over time for both groups with no significant differences between groups at any time point. No differences between groups in objective knee assessment scores or rerupture rates were found. The IL group was significantly weaker in knee flexion strength at all time points compared to the CL group, additionally the IL group did not recover flexor strength within 2 years. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that utilizing an ST graft harvested from the uninjured limb for ACLR facilitates early isokinetic and isometric strength recovery, with no significant adverse outcomes demonstrated in other measurements and therefore be performed to reduce the risk of long-term strength deficits in the injured leg LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Acute ACL reconstruction shows superior clinical results and can be performed safely without an increased risk of developing arthrofibrosis.

PURPOSE: To compare acute ACL reconstruction (ACLR) within 8 days of injury with delayed reconstruction after normalized range of motion (ROM), 6-10 weeks after injury. It was hypothesized that acute ACL reconstruction with modern techniques is safe and can be beneficial in terms of patient-reported outcomes and range of motion. METHODS: The effect of acute and delayed ACLR was randomized studied on 70 patients with high recreational activity level, Tegner level 6 or more, between 2006 and 2013. Patient-reported outcomes, objective IKDC, KOOS, and manual stability measurements were documented during the 24-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The acute ACLR group did not result in increased stiffness and showed superior outcome regarding strength and how the patient felt their knee functioning at 24 months. In addition, the acute group was not inferior to the delayed group in any assessment. Regarding patient-related outcomes in KOOS, both groups showed significant improvements in all subscales, but no difference was found between the groups. Functional return (FR) rate was almost double compared to the Swedish knee ligament register and treatment failure (TF) rate was reduced by half, no significant difference between the groups. No difference regarding cyclops removal, re-injury of ACL or meniscus was found between the two surgical timing groups. CONCLUSION: Acute ACLR within 8 days of injury does not appear to adversely affect ROM or result in increased stiffness in the knee joint and was not inferior to the delayed group in any assessment when compared to delayed surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Acute reconstruction results in less sick-leave days and as such fewer indirect costs to the individual and society compared to delayed reconstruction for ACL injuries.

PURPOSE: To compare the total number of sick-leave days caused by the knee injury from the day of injury and over the first year between acute (within 8 days) and delayed (6-10 weeks) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and also assess other clinical outcomes during this period. METHODS: Seventy patients with an acute ACL injury and Tegner level of 6 or more were randomized to acute (within 8 days) or delayed (after 6-10 weeks) ACLR. Patient-reported outcomes; objective IKDC and manual stability measurements were assessed at 6 and 12 months. With data from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Försäkringskassan) information about the number of sick-leave days due to the knee injury over the following 12 months was collected and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent received compensation for sick leave (26 in the acute versus 23 in the delayed group). The mean number of sick-leave days for the acute group was significantly lower (M = 56.9, SD = 36.4) compared to the delayed group (M = 88.5, SD = 50.2), p < 0.05. The acute group was also significantly stronger in flexion in both slow and fast angle velocities according to Biodex®. No other differences were found between the groups in other clinical assessments or in terms of associated injuries. CONCLUSION: Acute and delayed ACLR provided comparable clinical outcomes after 12 months. Acute reconstruction resulted in less sick-leave days and as such fewer indirect costs to the individual and society. These findings suggest that if patients requiring ACLR can be identified early and ACLR can be performed in the acute phase, socioeconomic costs can potentially be reduced by minimizing time off work. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

No risk of arthrofibrosis after acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare acute ACL reconstruction (ACLR) within 8 days of injury with delayed reconstruction after normalized range of motion (ROM), 6-10 weeks after injury. It was hypothesized that acute ACL reconstruction with modern techniques is safe and can be beneficial in terms of patient-reported outcomes and range of motion. METHODS: Sample size calculation indicated 64 patients would be required to find a 5° difference in ROM at 3 months. Seventy patients with high recreational activity level, Tegner level 6 or more, were randomized to acute (within 8 days) or delayed (6-10 weeks) ACLR between 2006 and 2013. During the first 3 months following surgery patients were contacted weekly by SMS and asked 'How is your knee functioning?', with answers given on a Visual-Analog Scale (0-10). ROM was assessed after 3 months by the rehab physiotherapist. Patient-reported outcomes, objective IKDC and manual stability measurements were collected by an independent physiotherapist not involved in the rehab at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: At 3-month follow-up, 91% of the patients were assessed with no significant differences in flexion, extension or total ROM demonstrated between groups. At the 6-month follow-up, the acute group had significantly less muscle atrophy of the thigh muscle compared to the contralateral leg. Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the acute group passed or were close to passing the one leg hop test (47 versus 21%, p = 0.009). No difference was found between the groups in the other clinical assessments. Additionally, no significant difference between the groups was found in terms of associated injuries. CONCLUSION: Acute ACLR within 8 days of injury does not appear to adversely affect ROM or result in increased stiffness in the knee joint when compared to delayed surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Item-reduced Forgotten Joint Score provides adequate psychometric properties in ACLR patients.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate content validity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, responsiveness and floor/ceiling effects of Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) for assessing functions in activities of daily living (ADL) following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and perform an item reduction of FJS. Methods: Swedish-speaking ACLR patients in one surgical clinic were eligible. Content validity was evaluated through patient responses and patient and expert clinician relevance ratings, omitting items with low relevance. Principal component factor analysis, Cronbach's ⍺, paired t test, correlations between FJS and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Cohen's d effect sizes (ESs) and standardized response mean (SRM) were used to evaluate internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. Floor/ceiling effects were calculated. FJS was expected to reveal one dominant factor, a Cronbach's ⍺ between 0.70 and 0.95, correlations >0.50 to all KOOS subscores, highest for ADL, moderate ES and SRM, floor/ceiling effects <15%. Results: One hundred and seventy-six participants (103 for assessing internal consistency, construct validity, responsiveness and floor/ceiling effects; 73 for assessing test-retest reliability and content validity) were included. Item reduction yielded a nine-item FJS (FJS-9). FJS-12 and FJS-9 demonstrated sufficient content validity (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-3.1, respectively, 2.9-3.3). FJS-9 was found unidimensional, and FJS-12 was multidimensional. Cronbach's ⍺ was 0.94 for FJS, and the intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.90. FJS showed significant correlations >0.65 to all KOOS subscales, moderate ES and SRM > 0.50. No floor/ceiling effects were found. Conclusion: FJS-9 demonstrated adequate validity for the evaluation of joint awareness in ACLR patients and can be a valuable tool to assess ADL and joint awareness. Level of Eidence: Level III.

Suture tape reinforcement of hamstring tendon graft reduces postoperative knee laxity after primary ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare subjective and objective knee outcomes following hamstring tendon (HT) and quadriceps tendon (QT) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with or without suture tape (ST) reinforcement. It was hypothesized that the addition of an intra-articular synthetic augmentation with a ST would reduce postoperative knee laxity and graft ruptures after ACLR. METHODS: A 1:1 matched-cohort comparison of patients who underwent HT and QT autograft ACLR with or without ST reinforcement was performed. Patients with ST reinforcement were consecutively assigned to the study groups until a number of 20 in each group was achieved. Medical records were reviewed for demographic characteristics and additional injuries. Laxity measurements with KT-1000, strength measurements and physical examination findings were collected both preoperatively and at 6 months and patient reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected both preoperatively and at 12 months, and comparison was made HT vs HT + ST and QT vs QT + ST. Reoperations and re-ruptures were recorded during the 24-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Overall, 80 patients who underwent ACLR were included. Patients with HT + ST had significant less laxity postoperatively compared to HT at 6 months, 1.9 vs 0.8 mm, p < 0.05. No differences were found between the QT and QT + ST group. At 6 weeks patients treated with ST, both QT and HT, had a significant deficit in flexion compared to those without ST. However, this resolved at 6 months. There were no significant differences between HT + ST vs HT, or QT + ST vs QT, regarding postoperative PROs or strength measurements. Furthermore, the incidence of subsequent surgery and graft rupture was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: ACLR with HT + ST reduces laxity at 6 months compared to ACLR without ST, a difference not seen when ACLR was performed using QT with or without ST. No other differences were seen between the two techniques comparing subjective and objective findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.