Hop tests and psychological PROs provide a demanding and clinician-friendly RTS assessment of patients after ACL reconstruction, a registry study

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury Scale (ACL-RSI) Scores over Time After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychological readiness is an important consideration for athletes and clinicians when making return to sport decisions following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). To improve our understanding of the extent of deficits in psychological readiness, a systematic review is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate psychological readiness (measured via the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI)) over time after ACL tear and understand if time between injury and surgery, age, and sex are associated with ACL-RSI scores.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from the earliest date available to March 22, 2022. Articles reporting ACL-RSI scores after ACL tear were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I, RoB-2, and RoBANS tools based on the study design. Evidence certainty was assessed for each analysis. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled ACL-RSI scores, stratified by time post-injury and based on treatment approach (i.e., early ACLR, delayed ACLR, and unclear approach).

RESULTS

A total of 83 studies were included in this review (78% high risk of bias). Evidence certainty was 'weak' or 'limited' for all analyses. Overall, ACL-RSI scores were higher at 3 to 6 months post-ACLR (mean = 61.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 58.6, 64.4], I2 = 94%) compared to pre-ACLR (mean = 44.4 [95% CI 38.2, 50.7], I2 = 98%), remained relatively stable, until they reached the highest point 2 to 5 years after ACLR (mean = 70.7 [95% CI 63.0, 78.5], I2 = 98%). Meta-regression suggests shorter time from injury to surgery, male sex, and older age were associated with higher ACL-RSI scores only 3 to 6 months post-ACLR (heterogeneity explained R2 = 47.6%), and this reduced 1-2 years after ACLR (heterogeneity explained R2 = 27.0%).

CONCLUSION

Psychological readiness to return to sport appears to improve early after ACL injury, with little subsequent improvement until ≥ 2-years after ACLR. Longer time from injury to surgery, female sex and older age might be negatively related to ACL-RSI scores 12-24 months after ACLR. Due to the weak evidence quality rating and the considerable importance of psychological readiness for long-term outcomes after ACL injury, there is an urgent need for well-designed studies that maximize internal validity and identify additional prognostic factors for psychological readiness at times critical for return to sport decisions.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/2tezs/ .

Only 10% of Patients With a Concomitant MCL Injury Return to Their Preinjury Level of Sport 1 Year After ACL Reconstruction: A Matched Comparison With Isolated ACL Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is a need for an increased understanding of the way a concomitant medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury may influence outcome after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

Patients with a concomitant MCL injury would have inferior clinical outcomes compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction without an MCL injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Matched registry-based cohort study; case-control.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

Data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry and a local rehabilitation outcome registry were utilized. Patients who had undergone a primary ACL reconstruction with a concomitant nonsurgically treated MCL injury (ACL + MCL group) were matched with patients who had undergone an ACL reconstruction without an MCL injury (ACL group), in a 1:3 ratio. The primary outcome was return to knee-strenuous sport, defined as a Tegner activity scale ≥6, at the 1-year follow-up. In addition, return to preinjury level of sport, muscle function tests, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The ACL + MCL group comprised 30 patients, matched with 90 patients in the ACL group. At the 1-year follow-up, 14 patients (46.7%) in the ACL + MCL group had return to sport (RTS) compared with 44 patients (48.9%) in the ACL group (P = 0.37). A significantly lower proportion of patients in the ACL + MCL group had returned to their preinjury level of sport compared with the ACL group (10.0% compared with 25.6%, adjusted P = 0.01). No differences were found between the groups across a battery of strength and hop tests or in any of the assessed PROs. The ACL + MCL group reported a mean 1-year ACL-RSI after injury of 59.4 (SD 21.6), whereas the ACL group reported 57.9 (SD 19.4), P = 0.60.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a concomitant nonsurgically treated MCL injury did not return to their preinjury level of sport to the same extent as patients without an MCL injury 1 year after ACL reconstruction. However, there was no difference between the groups in terms of return to knee strenuous activity, muscle function, or PROs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patients with a concomitant nonsurgically treated MCL injury may reach outcomes similar to those of patients without an MCL injury 1 year after an ACL reconstruction. However, few patients return to their preinjury level of sport at 1 year.

No Effect of Return to Sport Test Batteries with and without Psychological PROs on the Risk of a Second ACL Injury: A Critical Assessment of Four Different Test Batteries

Background

Patients report psychological barriers as important when returning to sport, however, psychological outcome measures are seldom included in return to sport (RTS) assessment. There is a need for clinical trials to integrate psychological patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in return to sport batteries assessing patients treated with ACL reconstruction.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the association between passing clinical tests of muscle function and psychological PROs and sustaining a second ACL injury in patients who RTS after primary ACL reconstruction.

Design

Retrospective Cohort study.

Methods

Patients' sex, age, height and weight, and the results of strength and hop tests, as well as answers to PRO's (including Tegner activity scale, the ACL Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI) as well as the Quality of Life (QoL) subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]), were extracted from a rehabilitation-specific registry. Four different test batteries comprising muscle function tests and PROs were created to assess whether patients were ready to RTS. Passing each of the test batteries (yes/no) was used as an independent variable. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model analysis was performed, with sustaining a second ACL injury (either ipsi- or contralateral; yes/no) within two years of RTS as the dependent variable.

Results

A total of 419 patients (male, n=214; 51%) were included, of which 51 (12.2%) suffered a second ACL injury within the first two years after RTS. There were no differences in passing rates in the different RTS test batteries comprising muscle function tests and PROs for patients who suffered a second ACL injury compared to patients who did not.

Conclusion

No association between passing the RTS clinical tests batteries comprising muscle function and psychological PROs used, and the risk of a second ACL injury could be found.

Level of Evidence

3©The Author(s).

The Relationship of Knee-related Quality of Life With Function, Psychological Factors, Strength, Performance, and Postural Stability After ACL Reconstruction: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have decreased health-related quality of life (QoL) compared with healthy control participants. Few studies have verified the predictors of QoL using Quality of Life Outcome Measure Questionnaire for Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Deficiency (ACL-QoL), and no study has verified the relationship of psychological factors and knee function with ACL-QoL in patients after ACLR.

HYPOTHESIS

Knee functional status, muscle strength, performance in hop tests, postural stability, and psychological factors would be the predictors of QoL after ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

METHODS

A total of 131 participants who had undergone ACLR at least 6 months previously were evaluated. QoL was assessed using ACL-QoL; knee functional status, using International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee (IKDC) and global rating scale (GRS); psychological readiness, using Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury Scale (ACL-RSI); kinesiophobia, using Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-17); knee strength, using isokinetic dynamometer; performance, using single-leg hop tests; and postural stability, using Biodex Balance System. Pearson's linear correlation and stepwise hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were performed to verify the predictors of QoL.

RESULTS

ACL-QoL showed a moderate correlation with IKDC (r = 0.69), GRS (r = 0.55), ACL-RSI (r = 0.50), and TSK-17 (r = -0.49). ACL-QoL presented none to low correlations with the variables of muscle strength, postural stability, and performance in hop tests. The variables related to the knee functional status and psychological factors (IKDC, GRS, ACL-RSI, and TSK-17) were found to be the predictors of QoL (R2 = 0.56; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Knee functional status, psychological readiness, and kinesiophobia were the predictors of knee-related QoL in patients after ACLR.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These results can assist clinicians in the therapeutic monitoring of the factors that may interfere with QoL in patients after ACLR.

Disagreement in Pass Rates Between Strength and Performance Tests in Patients Recovering From Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Performance on strength and functional tests is often used to guide postoperative rehabilitation progress and return to activity decisions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Clinicians may have difficulty in determining which criteria to follow if there is disagreement in performance outcomes among the tests.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare pass rates between strength tests and single-leg hop (SLHOP) tests among men and women and between patients with lower and higher preinjury activity levels recovering from ACLR. We hypothesized that pass rates would be nonuniformly distributed among test types, sex, and activity level and that more participants would pass hop tests than strength tests.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 299 participants (146 men; 153 women)-at a mean of 6.8 ± 1.4 months after primary, unilateral, and uncomplicated ACLR (mean age, 23 ± 9.7 years; mean height, 172 ± 10.5 cm; mean mass, 75.8 ± 18.4 kg)-completed testing. Quadri.tif strength was evaluated using peak torque during isokinetic knee extension at 90 deg/s and 180 deg/s. Jump distance during the SLHOP and triple hop tests was measured (in cm). Strength and hop test measures were evaluated based on the limb symmetry index ((LSI) = (ACLR / contralateral side) × 100). We operationally defined "pass" as >90% on the LSI.

RESULTS

Pass rates were nonuniformly distributed between isokinetic knee extension at 90 deg/s and the SLHOP test (χ² = 18.64; P < .001). Disagreements between isokinetic testing at 90 deg/s and the SLHOP test occurred in 36.5% (109/299) of the participants. Among those who failed strength testing and passed hop testing, a greater portion reported higher activity levels before their injury (χ² = 6.90; P = .01); however, there was no difference in pass rates between men and women. Similar patterns of disagreement were observed between all strength test and hop test outcomes.

CONCLUSION

ACLR patients with higher activity levels may be more likely to pass hop testing despite failing quadri.tif strength testing. This may be an indicator of movement compensations to achieve jump symmetry in the presence of quadri.tif weakness.

Return to play testing following anterior cruciate reconstruction - A systematic review & meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence regarding return to sport evaluation following ACL reconstruction and evaluate the relationship between testing and secondary ACL injury.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature with PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, was performed on June, 2020 based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they compared outcomes following passing and failing RTP testing subsequent to ACLR. Clinical outcomes were compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager Version 5.3. Correlation was calculated with Spearman testing.

RESULTS

Overall, 8 studies with 1224 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 34.3% (420/1224) patients passed the RTP testing. Those who passed the RTP testing had a statistically significant 47% lower rate of ACL graft re-rupture compared to those who did not pass the RTP testing (p = 0.03). However, there was a slightly higher, albeit not statistically significant, rate of contralateral ACL rupture in those who passed the RTP testing compared to those who did not (p = 0.42). There was a strong positive correlation between a high rate of patients passing the ACL RTP testing in studies and ACL graft rupture rate in those who failed (0.80).

CONCLUSION

Passing RTP testing following ACLR results in a lower rate of ACL graft rupture, but not contralateral ACL injury. Further evaluation and standardization of RTP testing is necessary in order to increase reliability in identifying patients at risk for re-injury after ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level of Evidence III.

Association Between Self-Reported Kinesiophobia and Single-Leg Hop for Distance in Patients With ACL Reconstruction:A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Psychological readiness is a significant factor in determining successful return to sport (RTS) and physical activities after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Knowing the influence of kinesiophobia on physical tests that are used to guide RTS, such as the single-leg hop for distance (SLHD), would contribute to advancing clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between kinesiophobia and SLHD performance in patients after ACL reconstruction.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive search strategy entailed surveying 6 databases for relevant articles published from January 2009 to March 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles published in English that were a minimum of level 3 evidence describing kinesiophobia, as measured by the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and related to SLHD performance in patients after ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics, sample population demographics, instrument(s), or approach(s) used to assess kinesiophobia and SLHD performance, and corresponding results.

RESULTS

A total of 152 potential studies were identified, 106 studies underwent screening, 40 were reviewed in full, and 7 studies were included. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of differences in experimental design among studies and instances of missing outcome data. Currently, moderate evidence indicates patients with ACL reconstruction that exhibit less kinesiophobia perform better on the SLHD test.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of this review propose that sports health practitioners consider the influence of kinesiophobia on SLHD performance as a criterion for RTS and physical activities in patients after ACL reconstruction. Higher quality studies are necessary to establish the extent of association between these variables.

Clinical Risk Profile for a Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Female Soccer Players After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The risk of a second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury when participating in pivoting sports after ACL reconstruction is high. Risk factors associated with a second ACL injury are complex.

PURPOSE

To investigate the combinations of various clinical risk factors associated with second ACL injury in female soccer players with a primary unilateral ACL reconstruction, using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 117 active female soccer players (mean ± SD age, 20 ± 2 years) were included. Athletes were enrolled 19 ± 9 months after ACL reconstruction and were prospectively followed for 2 years. At baseline, all players underwent assessment of knee and ankle joint range of motion (ROM), participated in functional tests (postural control, hop performance, and movement asymmetries in the lower limbs and trunk), and answered questionnaires (patient-reported knee function, knee-related quality of life, psychological and personality factors). A clinical prediction model using CART was developed.

RESULTS

A total of 28 players (24%) sustained a second ACL injury (21 ipsilateral and 7 contralateral ruptures) while playing soccer. CART analysis selected 9 of 19 independent variables associated with second ACL injury: the 5-jump test, knee collapse on the non-ACL reconstructed leg in a drop vertical jump, tuck jump, limb symmetry index on side hop and the single hop for distance, side difference in ankle dorsiflexion ROM, and scores for the questionnaires ACL-Return to Sport After Injury and the Swedish Universities Scales of Personality subscales of Stress Susceptibility and Adventure Seeking. The accuracy of the model was 89%, with 100% sensitivity and 76% specificity. CART analysis indicated that the interaction of longer jumps in the 5-jump test (>916 cm) with more side difference in ankle dorsiflexion ROM (>-2.5°) and more knee valgus collapse in the nonreconstructed knee (>-1.4 cm) (relative risk, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.21-7.36) best predicted an increased likelihood of a second ACL injury.

CONCLUSION

The risk profiles selected by CART could accurately identify female soccer players at high risk for a second ACL injury. There was an interaction between functional performance, clinical assessment, and psychological factors, and it is reasonable to include these factors in return-to-sport decisions and in athlete screening after ACL injury.

Test Batteries After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

There is a lack of consensus regarding test batteries for return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

OBJECTIVE

To report the RTS test batteries for individuals after ACLR and to examine alignment with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC). Finally, to examine how published RTS batteries prior to the AAOS AUC (2010-2015) compared with those after publication of the AUC (2016-2020).

DATA SOURCE

A systematic search of PubMed (2010-2020).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they were published from 2010 to 2020, patients underwent primary ACLR and were tested between 6 months and 2 years postoperatively and included a minimum of 2 assessments. Studies were excluded if patients were tested outside the designated time; had undergone a revision, contralateral, or multiligament injury; included healthy participants; were level 5 evidence or the study was a systematic review. A total of 1012 articles were reviewed and 63 met the criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information regarding the RTS batteries and patient demographics were extracted from the included articles.

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (22 from 2010-2015 and 41 from 2016-2020). The most common RTS batteries included the hop test, quadriceps strength test, and patient-reported outcome measures. No study met all 7 AUC; the most common criteria met were functional skills (98.4%), followed by confidence (22.2%), then range of motion and knee stability (20.6%).

CONCLUSION

The test batteries in the current literature show high variability and a lack of essential components necessary for RTS. No study met the AUC guidelines, suggesting a disconnect between recommended guidelines and clinical practice. Test battery research has expanded over the past decade; however, standardized, clinically applicable batteries that encompass all criteria are needed.