Differences in Baseline Characteristics and Outcome Among Responders, Late Responders, and Never-Responders After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Loss to follow-up in registry studies might affect generalizability and interpretation of results. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of nonresponder bias in our anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) registry. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 2042 patients with ACL reconstruction in the Hospital for Special Surgery ACL Registry between 2009 and 2013 were included in the study. Patients who completed the patient-reported outcome measures at 2 or 5 years were considered responders (n = 808). Baseline data and patient characteristics were compared between responders and nonresponders (n = 1234). Both responders and nonresponders were contacted and invited to complete the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Marx scores electronically and respond to questions regarding return to sports and subsequent surgeries. Nonresponders who completed the questionnaires after reminders were considered late responders. The remaining nonresponders were considered never-responders. The late responders (n = 367) completed the questionnaires after a mean follow-up of 7.8 years (range, 6.7-9.6 years), while follow-up for the responders was 6.8 years (range, 5.0-9.7 years). Responders and late responders were then compared in terms of differences in IKDC and Marx scores from baseline to final follow-up. RESULTS: Nonresponders were younger (28.5 vs 31.5 years; P < .001) and more often male (60% vs 53%; P = .003) compared with responders. Responders had a higher level of education and were more likely to be White (79% vs 74%; P = .04). There were no substantial differences in patient characteristics or baseline IKDC and Marx scores between the late responders and never-responders. There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes, return to sports, or subsequent surgeries between responders and late responders at a mean follow-up time of 8.8 years (range, 6.7-9.7 years). Repeat email reminders and telephone calls increased response rate by 18% (from 40% to 58%). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in clinical outcome as evaluated using IKDC and Marx scores between responders and late responders.

Two-Year Recall Bias After ACL Reconstruction Is Affected by Clinical Result.

Recall bias is a systematic error caused by inaccuracy in reporting past health status and can be a substantial methodological flaw in the retrospective collection of data. Little is known about recall bias following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' recall bias regarding preinjury knee function at 2 years after ACLR. METHODS: Patients undergoing ACLR were enrolled in an institutional ACL registry. Preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively, patients quantified their preinjury knee function on a scale of 0 to 10 (10 = best). Recall bias was quantified as the difference in the reported preinjury function between the 2 time points. The clinical result of ACLR was evaluated according to the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation score. Patients meeting the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the IKDC score were considered to have had a good outcome, while patients who did not reach the MCID were considered to have had failure of treatment. Recall bias was compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of 2,109 patients enrolled in the registry, 1,219 were included in the study. Patients with a good outcome remembered their preinjury knee function on a 0-to-10 scale to be better than what they reported at baseline, by a mean difference of 0.40 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.58 points). The recall bias was stronger for patients with a poor outcome, who remembered their knee function to be worse than reported at baseline, by a mean difference of -0.81 (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.26). The mean difference in recall between the 2 groups was -1.21 (95% CI, -1.74 to -0.67) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The recall bias of preinjury knee function following ACLR was small and not clinically meaningful for the majority of patients. However, patients with a poor outcome had a clinically relevant and significant recall bias. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings suggest that patients with a poor outcome have a substantial recall bias. This has clinical relevance when considering treatment effects of revision surgery, whereby the clinical benefit of the treatment might be affected by recall bias.