Digital Outpatient Services for Adults: Development of an Intervention and Protocol for a Multicenter Non-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health care services are being challenged by an increasing number of patients and limited resources. Hence, research investigating options to reduce costs and increase effectiveness is warranted. Digital outpatient services can provide flexible and tailored follow-up, improve patients' health literacy, and facilitate the identification of adverse courses of disease. However, previous research largely focused on disease-specific contexts and outcomes. Therefore, research on digital services investigating generic outcomes such as health literacy is warranted. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to describe the "digital outpatient service" intervention and present the protocol for an ongoing multicenter, nonrandomized trial evaluating this intervention. METHODS: Based on previous experiences and evidence-based knowledge, we developed this intervention through patient-journey maps in collaboration with each clinical specialty. The patients gain access to a mobile app for self-monitoring and patient-reported outcomes and a chat for contact between the patients and health care workers. The health care workers' dashboard includes a traffic light system to draw attention to the most urgent patient reports. In this multicenter, non-randomized controlled trial, patients are allocated to the control group receiving standard care or the 6-month intervention. Eligible patients are aged 18 years or older who receive outpatient care at the neurology, lung, pain, or cancer departments at 2 university hospitals in Norway. Our evaluation will include patient-reported outcomes, qualitative interviews, and clinical measures. The primary outcome will be health literacy using the Health Literacy Questionnaire. A sample size of 165 participants is split into a 1:2 ratio in favor of the intervention. We will analyze quantitative data in SPSS (IBM Corp) using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, and qualitative data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: This trial started in September 2021, and the intervention started in January 2022. Recruitment has ended, with 55 patients in the control group and 107 patients in the intervention group. Follow-up is expected to end in July 2023, with results expected to be obtained in December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate an intervention facilitated by an already certified digital multicomponent solution, with intervention content based on patient-reported outcomes, health literacy, and self-monitoring. The intervention is specifically tailored to each participating center and the needs of their patients using patient journey maps. The comprehensive and generic evaluation of this digital outpatient service intervention is a strength as it targets a heterogeneous sample of patients. Thus, this study will provide important knowledge about the applicability and effects of digital health care services. As a result, patients and health care workers will gain a new, evidence-based understanding of whether and how digital tools may be used in clinical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05068869; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05068869. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46649.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Recurrent lateral patella dislocation affects knee function as much as ACL deficiency - however patients wait five times longer for treatment.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of young patients with recurrent lateral patella dislocation (RLDP) is often recommended because of loss of knee function that compromises their level of activity or even their daily life functioning. This situation is comparable to young patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. The purpose of this study was therefore to explore the time from injury to surgery and the pre-operative symptoms and knee function of young RLPD patients scheduled for stabilizing surgery and compare this group to age and sex-matched ACL-deficient patients. METHOD: Forty-seven patients with unilateral RLPD listed for isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction were included in the study (RLPD-group). This group was compared to an age, sex and BMI matched ACL patient group obtained from the Norwegian knee ligament registry (ACL-group) for the following outcome measures: the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) assessed on the day of surgery and time from injury to surgery. RESULTS: The RLPD-group scored significantly lower than the ACL-group for the three KOOS subscales "Pain" (73.6 vs. 79.8, p < 0.05), "Symptoms" (71.7 vs. 79.3, p < 0.05) and "ADL" (84.7 vs 89.5, p < 0.05). The lowest KOOS values were found for Sports/Recreation (53.5 vs. 51.3, p = 0.65) and Quality of life (37.6 vs. 36.7, p = 0.81). The average time from primary injury to surgery was 6 months for the ACL group and 31 months for the RLPD group. CONCLUSION: RLPD affected knee function as much as ACL deficiency, and was associated with more pain. Still the RLDP patients waited on average 5 times longer for surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The patients with RLPD consisted of patients who were examined for possible recruitment for a concurrent prospective randomized controlled trial comparing conservative treatment and isolated surgical medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction (Clinical trials no: NCT02263807 , October 2014).

Chronic Widespread Pain in a tertiary pain clinic: classification overlap and use of a patient generated quality of life instrument.

Background and aims This study has two main aims: (1) To explore the overlap between classification criteria in patients with Chronic Widespread Pain (CWP) and (2) To explore the use of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) as a quality of life (QoL) measure in this patient group. Methods Patients with Widespread Pain (ICD-11: pain in four or more out of five bodily regions, i.e. the four quadrants and axially) in a tertiary pain outpatient clinic were assessed according to classification criteria for Fibromyalgia [FM, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1990, 2010, 2011 and 2016], Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [CFS, Fukuda, Canada and International Consensus Criteria (ICC)] and Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS). Furthermore, patients completed the PGI to assess QoL, and electronic questionnaires including demographic variables and standardised patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results All patients (n=33) fulfilled the criteria for musculoskeletal type single-organ BDS, 81.8% met the 2016 modified criteria for FM, 30.3% met the Canada criteria for CFS and 24.2% met the criteria for multi-organ type BDS. There was substantial agreement between the 2016 and the 2011 and 2010 criteria sets for FM compared to the 1990 criteria (κ=0.766 and 0.673 compared to 0.279). Patients generally scored low on the PGI, indicating poor QoL (mean PGI 28.9, SD 19.8, range 0-100). Conclusions Our findings support the use of the term musculoskeletal type single-organ BDS to describe patients with CWP and the 2016 revision of the FM criteria. The PGI provides useful clinical information which is not captured by standardised PROMs. Implications The terminology of CWP has become less ambiguous as the new ICD-11 is closely related to the generalised pain criterion of the modified 2016 FM definition. Studies based on the 1990 classification criteria for FM should not be directly compared to studies based on later criteria set. The PGI may be a supplement to other measurements to portray patients' individual concerns in patients with complex symptom disorders.

Meaningful Change Scores in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful change scores in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have not yet been established. PURPOSE: To define the minimal important change (MIC) for the KOOS after ACL reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: KOOS and anchor questions with 7-point scales ranging from "better, an important improvement" to "worse, an important worsening" were completed postoperatively by randomly chosen participants from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry. Presurgery KOOS scores were retrieved from the registry. The MIC for improvement was calculated with anchor-based approaches using the predictive modeling method adjusted for the proportion of improved patients, the mean change method, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. RESULTS: Complete data for at least one of the KOOS subscales were obtained from 542 (45.3%) participants. Predictive modeling MIC values were 12.1 for the KOOS subscales of Sport and Recreational Function and 18.3 for Knee-Related Quality of Life. These values aid in interpreting within-group improvement over time and can be used as responder criteria when comparing groups. The corresponding and much lower values for the subscales of Pain (2.5), Symptoms (-1.2), and Activities of Daily Living (2.4) are the results from patients reporting, on average, only mild problems with these domains preoperatively. Although 4% to 10% of patients reported subscale-specific worsening, MIC deterioration calculations were not possible. The ROC MIC values were associated with high degrees of misclassification. Values obtained by the mean change method were considered less reliable because these estimates are derived from subgroups of patients. Average KOOS change scores were approximately similar for patients reporting acceptable symptoms postoperatively and patients reporting important improvements on the anchor items after surgery. CONCLUSION: KOOS users should apply subscale-specific cutoffs for meaningful improvement. Our results confirm using the subscales of Sport and Recreational Function and Knee-Related Quality of Life as primary patient-reported outcomes after ACL reconstruction. The predictive modeling approach gave the most robust estimates of MIC values. Our data suggest that reporting acceptable symptoms postoperatively corresponds to reporting an important improvement after ACL reconstruction.

Risk of Revision Was Not Reduced by a Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction Technique: Results From the Scandinavian Registers.

BACKGROUND: Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has demonstrated improved biomechanical properties and moderately better objective outcomes compared with single-bundle reconstructions. This could make an impact on the rerupture rate and reduce the risk of revisions in patients undergoing double-bundle ACL reconstruction compared with patients reconstructed with a traditional single-bundle technique. The National Knee Ligament Registers in Scandinavia provide information that can be used to evaluate the revision outcome after ACL reconstructions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of the study were (1) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstructions, reconstructed with autologous hamstring tendon grafts; (2) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle hamstring tendon and single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts; and (3) to compare the hazard ratios for the same two research questions after Cox regression analysis was performed. METHODS: Data collection of primary ACL reconstructions from the National Knee Ligament Registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from July 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, was retrospectively analyzed. A total of 60,775 patients were included in the study; 994 patients were reconstructed with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, 51,991 with single-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, and 7790 with single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. The double-bundle ACL-reconstructed patients were compared with the two other groups. The risk of revision for each research question was detected by the risk ratio, hazard ratio, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival at 1, 2, and 5 years for the three different groups. Furthermore, a Cox proportional hazard regression model was applied and the hazard ratios were adjusted for country, age, sex, meniscal or chondral injury, and utilized fixation devices on the femoral and tibial sides. RESULTS: There were no differences in the crude risk of revision between the patients undergoing the double-bundle technique and the two other groups. A total of 3.7% patients were revised in the double-bundle group (37 of 994 patients) versus 3.8% in the single-bundle hamstring tendon group (1952 of 51,991; risk ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-1.39; p = 0.96), and 2.8% of the patients were revised in the bone-patellar tendon-bone group (219 of the 7790 bone-patellar tendon-bone patients; risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06; p = 0.11). Cox regression analysis with adjustment for country, age, sex, menisci or cartilage injury, and utilized fixation device on the femoral and tibial sides, did not reveal any further difference in the risk of revision between the single-bundle hamstring tendon and double-bundle hamstring tendon groups (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.85-1.62; p = 0.33), but the adjusted hazard ratio showed a lower risk of revision in the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group compared with the double-bundle group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; p = 0.01). Comparisons of the graft revision rates reported separately for each country revealed that double-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions in Sweden had a lower hazard ratio compared with the single-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions (hazard ratio, 1.00 versus 1.89; 95% CI, 1.09-3.29; p = 0.02). Survival at 5 years after index surgery was 96.0% for the double-bundle group, 95.4% for the single-bundle hamstring tendon group, and 97.0% for the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data from all three national registers, the risk of revision was not influenced by the reconstruction technique in terms of using single- or double-bundle hamstring tendons, although national differences in survival existed. Using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts lowered the risk of revision compared with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts. These findings should be considered when deciding what reconstruction technique to use in ACL-deficient knees. Future studies identifying the reasons for graft rerupture in single- and double-bundle reconstructions would be of interest to understand the findings of the present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Expectations of pain and functioning in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Research has suggested that patient expectations are associated with treatment outcome and evolve along with patient communication within the musculoskeletal field. However, few studies have investigated if or how physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) consultations affect the attending patients' expectations regarding pain and functional improvement. Hence, the aims of the present study were to compare patient expectations regarding pain and functional improvement before and after a PMR consultation and to assess patient characteristics, including diagnosis, that could perhaps predict changes in expectations. METHODS: The study design was cross-sectional. Eligible participants were first-time patients with neck/back or shoulder complaints who were referred to a PMR outpatient clinic between January and June 2013. Questionnaires (the Patient Shoulder Outcome Expectancies, or PSOE, questionnaire and a numeric rating scale, or NRS) focused on expectations regarding pain and functioning were completed immediately prior to and after a consultation with a PMR specialist. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were included. In total, 24% of the subjects expected a more positive outcome after the PMR consultation compared with before the consultation, while 10% of the subjects exhibited a negative change in expectations. Few patient characteristics other than sick leave were associated with changes in expectations; however, patients with shoulder complaints seemed to be more optimistic than patients with neck/back complaints. CONCLUSION: Expectations can be influenced by a single specialist consultation. Among clinical prognostic factors, only sick leave influenced the change expectations. However, patients with shoulder complaints seemed to be more optimistic than patients with neck/back complaints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Data Protection Office at Oslo University Hospital, 2012/2574. ISRCTN registration: 40963362  (registered retrospectively 12.12.2016).

Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia.

PURPOSE: The main purpose of the study was to provide an overview of injury mechanisms, concomitant injuries, and other relevant epidemiological data for patients treated in Scandinavia with posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) following a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury. METHODS: A total number of 1287 patients who underwent PCLR from 2004 to 2013 in the Scandinavian counties were included from the national ligament registries. The variables such as age, sex, activity, and graft used for reconstruction were collected. Then, injuries were sorted based on concomitant injuries. Finally, data from the different registries were compared. RESULTS: Average age of the treated patients was 32.7 years. Sex distribution ratio of male to female was 858:429 (66.7 %:33.3 %). Depending on definition, 26-37 % of the injuries treated were isolated PCL injuries. PCL injuries were most commonly encountered in sports with 35.4 % of the total number of PCL injuries in the study population. Soccer was the sport with the highest number of injuries (13.1 %). Cartilage lesions occurred in 26.1 % of PCL injuries and meniscal lesions in 21.0 %. Minimum one other additional ligament was injured in 62.2 %. CONCLUSION: Isolated PCL injuries are common, although the injury is most commonly associated with other ligament injuries. There is a high prevalence of cartilage injuries and meniscal lesions associated with PCL injuries. Sports are the leading cause of PCL injuries treated operatively. Epidemiological data are a necessary part of the basis for injury prevention in the future. The prevalence of concomitant injuries is also relevant and clinically important for the choice of surgical procedure and for the expected outcomes following surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Patients With Isolated PCL Injuries Improve From Surgery as Much as Patients With ACL Injuries After 2 Years.

BACKGROUND: Reports on outcome after posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction often contain both isolated PCL and combined knee ligament injuries. This makes it difficult to conclude on the outcome after reconstruction of isolated PCL injuries. PURPOSE: To investigate the outcome after PCL reconstruction in patients with an isolated PCL injury and to compare this with the outcome of patients treated with reconstruction after isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Seventy-one patients with an isolated PCL injury that was reconstructed surgically and who had registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry between 2004 and 2010 were included in this study. Patients with isolated ACL reconstructions (n = 9661) who had registered in the same period were included for comparison. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was used as the patient-reported outcome measure. Preoperative and 2-year postoperative KOOS scores were compared. Changes in KOOS score reported by the PCL patients were compared with changes reported by the ACL patients. RESULTS: At the 2-year postoperative follow-up of the PCL-reconstructed patients, the patient-reported outcome was improved, measured by KOOS as follows: pain, 15.1 (95% CI, 8.5-21.8; P < .001); symptoms, 0.9 (95% CI, -6.6 to 8.3; P = .82); activities of daily living, 13.2 (95% CI, 6.6-13.9; P < .001); sports, 20.7 (95% CI, 11.8-29.4; P < .001); and quality of life, 26.6 (95% CI, 18.9-34.2; P < .001). According to the KOOS, the incremental improvements were similar for PCL and ACL patients. Time from injury to surgery was longer for the PCL patients compared with ACL patients (median, 21.5 vs 8.0 months; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing PCL reconstruction can expect the same improvements in KOOS score as patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. However, PCL patients start out with an inferior score on average and consequently end up at a lower score compared with ACL patients for all KOOS subscales.

Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry of 4691 Patients: How Does Meniscal Repair or Resection Affect Short-term Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: While the effects of concurrent meniscal resection and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are known to decrease patient outcomes and increase the rate of osteoarthritis over the long term, overall short-term patient functional outcomes in a large cohort of patients are not well known. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare the preoperative and 2-year postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale scores after ACLR with and without meniscal injury. The hypothesis was that, in comparison with an isolated ACLR, patients with a medial meniscal (MM) or lateral meniscal (LM) resection with an ACLR would have significantly decreased 2-year postoperative KOOS outcomes, while those with an ACLR with an MM or LM repair would be indistinguishable from isolated ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR) was used to evaluate outcomes for a total of 4691 patients with primary ACLR. The KOOS scoring system was used to evaluate patients on 5 subscales (Pain, Other Symptoms, Activities of Daily Life [ADL], Sport and Recreation Function, and Quality of Life [QoL]) at time of surgery and at 2-year postoperative follow-up. Patients with isolated ACLR and ACLR with LM repair, LM resection, MM repair, or MM resection were compared using multiple linear regression modeling. RESULTS: Preoperatively, in comparison with isolated ACLR, patients who had an ACLR with either an MM repair or MM resection had significantly lower scores for all KOOS subscores, and LM repair had significantly decreased scores on the Other Symptoms, Pain, and ADL subscales. Postoperatively, in comparison with isolated ACLR, 2-year KOOS outcomes were not significantly different between patients with ACLR and LM repair, MM resection, or LM resection; however, those with MM repair had significantly lower scores on the Other Symptoms and QoL subscales. CONCLUSION: Patients with ACLR with meniscal resections do not exhibit decreased clinical outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. It is recommended that clinicians follow patients with ACLR and concurrent meniscal treatment for longer than 2 years postoperatively.

Associations between inadequate knee function detected by KOOS and prospective graft failure in an anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee.

PURPOSE: First, to evaluate whether the 2 year post-operative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs) was significantly different between patients that did not go on to have a subsequent revision after the 2 year post-operative control and the ones that did. Second, to test whether the "clinically failure" value of KOOS quality of life (QoL) < 44 was indicative of a clinically relevant difference in the risk of subsequent revision ACLR. METHODS: ACLRs reported to the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry between June 2004 and December 2009. 5,517 primary ACLRs with at least 2-year follow-up with KOOS QoL before revision surgery. RESULTS: There were clinically significant differences, adjusted and unadjusted, in both the KOOS Sport and Recreation and QoL subscales in patients with a later revision surgery compared to those that did not have a revision surgery. In adjusted models, the risk of later ACLR revision was 3.7 (95 % CI 2.2-6.0) higher in patients with a 2-year KOOS QoL < 44 compared to patients with a KOOS QoL ≥ 44. For every 10-point reduction in the KOOS QoL, a 33.6 % (95 % CI 21.2-47.5 %) higher risk for later ACLR revision was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals an association between inadequate knee function, as measured by KOOS, and a prospective ACL-reconstructed graft failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study (prospective cohort study), Level II.

Patient demographics and surgical characteristics in ACL revision: a comparison of French, Norwegian, and North American cohorts.

PURPOSE: The goal of this paper is to compare patient factors, intra-operative findings, and surgical techniques between patients followed in large cohorts in France, Norway, and North America. METHODS: Data collected on 2,286 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) were obtained. These data included 1,216 patients enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) in North America, 793 patients undergoing revision ACLR and recorded in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR), and 277 patients recorded in the revision ACL database of the Société Française d'Arthroscopie (SFA) in France. Data collected from each database included patient demographics (age, sex, height, and weight), graft choice and reason for failure of the primary ACLR, time from primary to revision ACLR, pre-revision patient-reported outcome scores (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee), associated intra-articular findings and treatments at revision, and graft choice for revision reconstruction. RESULTS: Patient demographics in the three databases were relatively similar. Graft choice for primary and revision ACLR varied significantly, with more allografts used in the MARS cohort. Hamstring autograft was favoured in the NKRL, while bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft was most common in the SFA cohort. Reasons for failure of the primary ACLR were comparable, with recurrent trauma noted in 46-56 % of patients in each of the three cohorts. Technical error was cited in 44-51 % of patients in the MARS and SFA cohorts, but was not clearly elucidated in the NKLR cohort. Biologic failure of the primary graft was more common in the MARS cohort. Differences in associated intra-articular findings were noted at the time of revision ACLR, with significantly more high-grade cartilage lesions noted in the MARS group. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences exist between patient populations followed in revision ACL cohorts throughout the world that should be considered when applying findings from such cohorts to different patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

Sport-specific injury pattern recorded during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are more commonly seen with certain cutting and pivoting sports. However, injury patterns associated with these sports have not been well described. PURPOSE: (1) To describe the patient demographics and injury pattern at the time of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) by activities that lead to ACL injuries and (2) to estimate the association of activities at the time of injury with the odds of isolated ACL injuries as well as with meniscus, cartilage, and multiligament injuries diagnosed at the time of ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study combined 2 ACLR registry cohorts, from Norway and the United States, from 2004 to 2011. A cohort of 10,958 primary ACLRs was included. The most prevalent sports activities at the time of injury were the following: soccer, skiing, American football, basketball, and team handball. The end points were the concurrent injury patterns at the time of ACLR: isolated ACL, meniscus, cartilage, and multiligament injuries. RESULTS: All sports were compared with the most prevalent injury mechanism: soccer. Skiing injuries were 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.27) times more likely to result in isolated ACL tears, 2.05 (95% CI, 1.01-4.16) times more likely to result in posterior cruciate ligament tears, 1.94 (95% CI, 1.51-2.49) times more likely to result in medial collateral ligament (MCL) tears, and 1.73 (95% CI, 1.38-2.17) times more likely to result in multiligament injuries. Athletes playing American football were 2.72 (95% CI, 1.32-5.62) times more likely to have MCL tears. Those injured playing basketball were 1.28 (95% CI, 1.06-1.54) times more likely to have lateral meniscus tears, 1.23 (95% CI, 1.01-1.51) times more likely to have cartilage damage, and 1.38 (95% CI, 1.11-1.72) times more likely to have meniscus and cartilage injuries. Athletes injured playing team handball were less likely to have MCL tears (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99) and more likely to have lateral meniscus injuries (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48). CONCLUSION: Injury patterns were associated with certain sports. Compared with soccer, American football has a higher likelihood of resulting in multiligament injuries, whereas basketball has a higher likelihood of resulting in cartilage and lateral meniscus injuries. Injury patterns seen at the time of surgery may reflect the forces applied to the knee by the specific sports performed.

An isolated rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament results in reduced preoperative knee function in comparison with an anterior cruciate ligament injury.

PURPOSE: To investigate differences in preoperative knee function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, KOOS), the time period from injury to surgery, and associated injuries when comparing primary isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. METHODS: Isolated primary ACL and PCL reconstructions registered in the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry from 2004 through 2010 were included (n = 71 primary PCLs and 9,649 primary ACLs). Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the preoperative KOOS subscale values. RESULTS: The preoperative KOOS in the PCL group (n = 71) and ACL group (n = 9,649) was significantly different for the subscales symptoms (mean difference, -8.4; 95% CI: -12.8 to -4.0), pain (mean difference, -15.9; 95% CI: -20.3 to -11.4), activities of daily living (mean difference, -12.9; 95% CI: -17.4 to -8.4), sport and recreation (mean difference, -15.9; 95% CI: -22.6 to -9.3), and quality of life (mean difference, -7.9; 95% CI: -12.4 to -3.5). The primary isolated PCL-reconstructed knees had a median time from injury to surgery of 21 months in comparison with 8 months for ACL injuries. The ACL-injured knees had more associated injuries (meniscus and full-thickness cartilage lesions) than the PCL-injured knees. CONCLUSION: Surgically treated knees with an isolated rupture of the PCL exhibited worse knee function preoperatively compared with knees with an isolated ACL injury; in addition, the delay to surgery was longer. Meniscal lesions were found more frequently in ACL-injured knees. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective cohort study, evidence Level I.

Registration rate in the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register: large-volume hospitals perform better.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register (NCLR) was founded in 2004. The purpose of the NCLR is to provide representative and reliable data for future research. In this study we evaluated the development of the registration rate in the NCLR. METHODS: The Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) and the electronic patient charts (EPCs) were used as reference data for public and private hospitals, respectively. Data were retrieved for all primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery during 2008-2009 in public hospitals and during 2008 in private hospitals. The NOMESCO classification of surgical procedures was used for identification of ACL surgeries. Public hospitals were divided into subgroups according to the annual number of operations in the NPR: small hospitals (< 30 operations) and large hospitals (≥ 30 operations). RESULTS: For the 2-year data extracted from public hospitals, 2,781 and 2,393 operations met the inclusion criteria according to the NPR and the NCLR, respectively, giving an average registration rate of 86% (95% CI: 0.85-0.87). The registration rate for small public hospitals was 69% (CI: 0.65-0.73), which was significantly less than for large public hospitals (89%, CI: 0.88-0.90; p < 0.001). In 2008, private hospitals reported 548 operations to the NCLR while 637 were found in the EPCs, giving a registration rate of 86% (CI: 0.83-0.89). In that year, the registration rate for public hospitals was 86%, which was similar to that for private hospitals. INTERPRETATION: The NCLR registration rate for the period 2008-09 was similar in both 2008 and 2009, and is satisfactory for research. There is room for improvement of registration rates, particularly in hospitals with a small volume of ACL operations.

Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft selection.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that a surgeon's experience and training are the most important factors associated with graft selection, but no studies have qualified this association. Graft usage prevalence has not been described for large anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) populations in the United States. PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of graft usage in a large community-based practice and evaluate the association of patient, surgeon, and site characteristics with choice of primary ACLR graft. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Primary ACLRs performed between February 2005 and June 2010 were selected for the study. A community-based ligament registry was used to identify cases and variables used for analysis. Graft choice (any allograft, hamstring autograft, and bone-patellar tendon-bone [BPTB] autograft) was compared by patient characteristics and surgeon and site characteristics. Associations between independent variables and graft choice were evaluated using a polychotomous regression model. RESULTS: Of the 9849 patients included in the study, 64% were male, and overall median age was 28 years. Of these, 2796 (28.4%) received BPTB autografts, 3013 (30.6%) received hamstring autografts, and 4040 (41.0%) received allografts. The prevalence of graft source by patients' gender, race, age, body mass index (BMI), as well as surgeons' fellowship training status, average volume, and site volume were significantly different (all P < .001). Adjusted models showed that patients' gender (P < .001), race (P = .018), age (P < .001), BMI (P < .001), as well as surgeons' fellowship training status (P < .001), average volume (P < .001), and site volume (P < .001) are associated with graft selection. Older and female patients with lower BMI were more likely to receive allografts and hamstring autografts than BPTB autografts. Cases performed by non-fellowship-trained surgeons, lower volume sites, and/or lower volume surgeons were also more likely to be performed with allografts or hamstring autografts than BPTB autografts. CONCLUSION: Gender, age, race, as well as facility and surgeon characteristics such as volume and location are associated with ACL graft choices.

[The Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry has a high degree of completeness]. / God rapportering til korsbåndsregisteret.

BACKGROUND: In 2010 the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry (NCLR) achieved status as a national medical quality registry. The study aimed at evaluating completeness of reporting on anterior cruciate ligament surgery to NCLF as compared to the Surgical Logbooks-Electronic Patient Journal (SL-EPJ) and the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were obtained electronically, by telephone or by manual counting from NCLR, SL-EPJ and NPR for 14 randomly selected hospitals in Norway for the period 01.10.05-28.02.06. SL-EPJ in hospitals were used as the gold standard. RESULTS: According SL-EPJ, 202 operations were recorded in the study period. Among these operations seven were missing in NCLR and 21 in NPR. One private hospital only reported to NCLR and not to NPR in the study period, and according to SL-EPJ this hospital performed 19 of the 21 operations missing in NPR. Exclusion of this hospital leads to a high degree of completeness in both NCLR (97 %) and NPR (99 %) as compared to the gold standard. INTERPRETATION: The result confirms that NCLR has a high degree of registration completeness two years after establishment, and that data from the registry can be used in future research.

Comparison of community-based ACL reconstruction registries in the U.S. and Norway.

INTRODUCTION: Joint registries have demonstrated value as a resource for the study of large numbers of patients, providing the opportunity to study rare occurrences and identify early failures of surgical procedures. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction registries have been established in Norway and the U.S. In this study, we compared the preoperative characteristics of the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR) and the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Registry (KP ACLRR) cohorts. METHODS: A cross-sectional comparison of the NKLR and KP ACLRR cohorts registered between 2005 and 2010 was performed. Aggregate level data including preoperative patient characteristics, mechanisms of injury, preoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), intraoperative findings, and adjusted revision rates were shared between the two registries, and a descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: During the study period, 10,468 primary ACL reconstructions were entered in the NKLR and 10,394, in the KP ACLRR. The age at the time of surgery was similar between the two cohorts (twenty-seven years in the NKLR versus twenty-eight years in the KP ACLRR), although the KP ACLRR had a higher proportion of males (65% versus 58%, p < 0.001). The revision rate per follow-up year was 0.9% in the NKLR and 1.5% in the KP ACLRR. Soccer was the most common mechanism of injury in both registries (40.0% in the NKLR and 26.6% in the KP ACLRR). The preoperative KOOS was statistically different, but the difference was not clinically relevant (defined as a change of >10 points). A higher prevalence of meniscal tears was seen in the KP ACLRR (61% versus 49%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline findings are so congruent between the NKLR and the KP ACLRR cohorts that comparisons between these two registries will likely provide information to the orthopaedic community that can be generalized.