No sign of weakness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hip and calf muscle strength after anterior cruciate ligament injury.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine hip and lower-leg muscle strength in people after ACL injury compared with an uninjured control group (between people) and the uninjured contralateral limb (between limbs). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL and SportDiscus to 28 February 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary ACL injury with mean age 18-40 years at time of injury. Studies had to measure hip and/or lower-leg muscle strength quantitatively (eg, dynamometer) and report muscle strength for the ACL-injured limb compared with: (i) an uninjured control group and/or (ii) the uninjured contralateral limb. Risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane Collaboration domains. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included (n=23 measured strength ≤12 months post-ACL reconstruction). Most examined hip abduction (16 studies), hip extension (12 studies) and hip external rotation (7 studies) strength. We found no meaningful difference in muscle strength between people or between limbs for hip abduction, extension, internal rotation, flexion or ankle plantarflexion, dorsiflexion (estimates ranged from -9% to +9% of comparator). The only non-zero differences identified were in hip adduction (24% stronger on ACL limb (95% CI 8% to 42%)) and hip external rotation strength (12% deficit on ACL limb (95% CI 6% to 18%)) compared with uninjured controls at follow-ups >12 months, however both results stemmed from only two studies. Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes and comparisons, and drawn primarily from the first year post-ACL reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Our results do not show widespread or substantial muscle weakness of the hip and lower-leg muscles after ACL injury, contrasting deficits of 10%-20% commonly reported for knee extensors and flexors. As it is unclear if deficits in hip and lower-leg muscle strength resolve with appropriate rehabilitation or no postinjury or postoperative weakness occurs, individualised assessment should guide training of hip and lower-leg strength following ACL injury. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020216793.

Trajectory of knee health in runners with and without heightened osteoarthritis risk: the TRAIL prospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Running is one of the most popular recreational activities worldwide, due to its low cost and accessibility. However, little is known about the impact of running on knee joint health in runners with and without a history of knee surgery. The primary aim of this longitudinal cohort study is to compare knee joint structural features on MRI and knee symptoms at baseline and 4-year follow-up in runners with and without a history of knee surgery. Secondary aims are to explore the relationships between training load exposures (volume and/or intensity) and changes in knee joint structure and symptoms over 4 years; explore the relationship between baseline running biomechanics, and changes in knee joint structure and symptoms over 4 years. In addition, we will explore whether additional variables confound, modify or mediate these associations, including sex, baseline lower-limb functional performance, knee muscle strength, psychological and sociodemographic factors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A convenience sample of at least 200 runners (sex/gender balanced) with (n=100) and without (n=100) a history of knee surgery will be recruited. Primary outcomes will be knee joint health (MRI) and knee symptoms (baseline; 4 years). Exposure variables for secondary outcomes include training load exposure, obtained daily throughout the study from wearable devices and three-dimensional running biomechanics (baseline). Additional variables include lower limb functional performance, knee extensor and flexor muscle strength, biomarkers, psychological and sociodemographic factors (baseline). Knowledge and beliefs about osteoarthritis will be obtained through predefined questions and semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models, adjusting for potential confounding factors, will explore changes in knee joint structural features and symptoms, and the influence of potential modifiers and mediators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the La Trobe University Ethics Committee (HEC-19524). Findings will be disseminated to stakeholders, peer-review journals and conferences.

Does postoperative blood pressure influence development of aortic regurgitation following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation?†.

OBJECTIVES: The true impact of postoperative blood pressure (BP) control on development of aortic regurgitation (AR) following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation remains uncertain. This study examines the influence of BP in patients with de novo AR following CF-LVAD implantation. METHODS: All patients with no or

Preoperative predictors and outcomes of right ventricular assist device implantation after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of ventricular assist device therapy remain limited by right ventricular failure. We sought to define the predictors and evaluate the outcomes of right ventricular failure requiring right ventricular assist device support after long-term continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. METHODS: Records of all continuous-flow left ventricular assist device recipients for the last 10 years were analyzed, including patients on preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and short-term ventricular assist device support. Perioperative clinical, echocardiographic, hemodynamic, and laboratory data of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device recipients requiring right ventricular assist device support (right ventricular assist device group) were compared with the rest of the patient cohort (control group). RESULTS: Between July 2003 and June 2013, 152 patients underwent continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation as a bridge to transplantation. The overall postoperative incidence of right ventricular assist device support was 23.02% (n = 35). Right ventricular assist device implantation did not significantly affect eventual transplantation (P = .784) or longer-term survival (P = .870). Preoperative right ventricular diameter (P < .001), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (P < .001), previous sternotomy (P = .002), preoperative short-term mechanical support (P = .005), left atrial diameter (P = .014), female gender (P = .020), age (P = .027), and preoperative bilirubin levels (P = .031) were univariate predictors of right ventricular assist device implantation. Multivariate analysis revealed lesser tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (P = .013; odds ratio, 0.613; 95% confidence interval, 0.417-0.901) and smaller left atrial diameter (P = .007; odds ratio, 0.818; 95% confidence interval, 0.707-0.947) as independent predictors of right ventricular assist device implantation. Receiver operating characteristic curve of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion yielded an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.781-0.923), with cutoff tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion less than 12.5 mm having 84% sensitivity and 75% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Lesser tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and smaller left atrial diameter are independent predictors of the need for right ventricular assist device support after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. Right ventricular assist device implantation does not adversely affect eventual transplantation or survival after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

De novo aortic regurgitation after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Significant aortic regurgitation (AR) after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) placement affects device performance and patient outcomes. This study examined the development of AR and long-term results after implantation of cf-LVADs. METHODS: The study included all patients with no or less than mild AR who underwent HeartMate II (58 [62%]; Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, CA) or HeartWare (35 [38%]; HeartWare International, Framingham, MA) implantation at our institute from July 2006 to July 2012. Serial echocardiograms were obtained preoperatively, at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively, and then at a minimum of 4-month intervals in patients with longer-term support. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from moderate or greater AR were generated. Logistic regression analysis was used to define independent predictors of AR after cf-LVAD implantation. RESULTS: Median duration of LVAD support was 527 days (25(th), 75(th): 289, 907; range, 60 to 2,433 days). Mild AR developed in 48 patients (51.6%) over a median duration of 126 days, with progression to moderate AR in 13 (14%) over 493 days and to severe AR in 2 (2.1%) over 1,231 days. The incidence of mild or greater AR was 43.1% in HeartMate II vs 65.7% in HeartWare recipients (p = 0.035). Overall freedom from moderate or greater AR was 94.7% ± 2.6% at 1 year, 86.9% ± 4.5% at 2 years, 82.8% ± 5.9% at 3 years, and 31% ± 16.9% at 4 years. Independent predictors of AR were duration of support (odds ratio, 1.002; 95% confidence interval, 1.000 to 1.004; p = 0.017) and a persistently closed aortic valve (odds ratio, 0.193; 95% confidence interval, 0.097 to 0.382; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: AR is associated with longer cf-LVAD support duration and persistent aortic valve closure. Incidence of moderate or greater AR after cf-LVAD implantation increases significantly after 3 years. The clinical implications of these data may warrant consideration of prophylactic aortic valve replacement at the time of cf-LVAD implantation, particularly with expected longer duration of support and in patients with preexisting AR that is more than mild.

Echocardiographic assessment of flow across continuous-flow ventricular assist devices at low speeds.

BACKGROUND: Testing of native myocardial function in patients with continuous-flow pumps is challenging as reduction/cessation of the pump could result in regurgitation, although the amount and significance of this regurgitation remains unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal speed at which to assess the native left ventricular (LV) function and the physiologic response to speed reduction. METHODS: Fifteen male patients with a HeartMate II (HMII) device were studied prospectively on 46 occasions. Measurements were performed serially at three device speed settings: baseline speed; 6,000 rpm; and either 5,000 rpm (Group A) or 4,000 rpm (Group B). The device's forward and reverse velocity (Vmax(f), Vmax(r)), forward and reverse velocity time integral (VTI(f), VTI(r)) and blood volume (BV) were also measured using Doppler with LV echocardiographic parameters and peripheral hemodynamics. RESULTS: No adverse incidents were reported. Speed reduction to 6,000 rpm resulted in a significant decrease in Vmax(f), VTI(f) and BV. There was no significant difference in either forward or reverse flow with further speed reduction in either group. Speed reduction to <6,000 rpm did not have a significant effect on LV loading. CONCLUSIONS: Speed reduction in patients with the HMII device is safe. There was no difference between 6,000 rpm and lower speeds, suggesting that 6,000 rpm is sufficient to assess native myocardial function. The absence of significant retrograde filling suggests that LV loading is a physiologic response to speed reduction at 6,000 rpm.