Psychological Patient-reported Outcomes Cannot Predict a Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Patients who Return to Sports after an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Return to the Pre-Injury Level of Sport after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Practical Review with Medical Recommendations

Returning to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be a challenging and complex process for the athlete, with the rate of return to the pre-injury level of sport observed to be less than athlete expectations. Of the athletes that do return to sport (RTS), knee re-injury rates remain high, and multiple studies have observed impaired athletic performance upon RTS after ACLR as well as reduced playing time, productivity, and career lengths. To mitigate re-injury and improve RTS outcomes, multiple RTS after ACLR consensus statements/clinical practice guidelines have recommended objective RTS testing criteria to be met prior to medical clearance for unrestricted sports participation. While the achievement of RTS testing criteria can improve RTS rates after ACLR, current criteria do not appear valid for predicting safe RTS. Therefore, there is a need to review the various factors related to the successful return to the pre-injury level of sport after ACLR, clarify the utility of objective performance testing and RTS criteria, further discuss safe RTS decision-making as well as present strategies to reduce the risk of ACL injury/re-injury upon RTS. This article provides a practical review of the current RTS after ACLR literature, as well as makes medical recommendations for rehabilitation and RTS decision-making after ACLR.

The Influence of Psychosocial Factors on Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

CONTEXT

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries greatly impact patients in terms of future performance, reduced physical activity and athletic participation, and overall economic burden. Decades of research have investigated how to improve ACL reconstruction (ACLR) outcomes. Recently, there has been growing interest to understand the effects of psychosocial factors on patient outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical review.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search of the PubMed database was performed in March 2023. Articles were reviewed by at least 2 authors to determine relevance. We highlighted publications of the past 5 years while incorporating previous pertinent studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

RESULTS

There is no standardization of psychosocial factors regarding ACLR. As such, there is a lack of consensus regarding which psychosocial measures to use and when. There is a need for clarification of the complex relationship between psychosocial factors and physical function. Despite this, psychosocial factors have the potential to help predict patients who are more likely to return to sport: (1) desire/motivation to return; (2) lower levels of kinesiophobia; (3) higher levels of self-efficacy, confidence, and subjective knee function; (4) risk acceptance; and (5) social support. However, there are no standardized interventions to improve psychosocial factors after ACLR.

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial factors affect outcomes after ACLR. However, the interplay between psychosocial factors and physical function is complex. There is emerging evidence that testing and interventions may improve ACLR outcomes. There is a lack of standardized interventions to determine or improve psychosocial factors after ACLR. Further research is needed to identify psychosocial factors and to develop standardized interventions for clinicians to implement to improve clinical outcomes.

To achieve the unachievable-Patients' experiences of opting for delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after trying rehabilitation alone as primary treatment: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

About 50% of patients who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury are treated without ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). A significant proportion of these patients opt for late ACL-R. Patients' experience of changing treatment has not yet been investigated and presented in the scientific literature.

AIM

To explore patients' experiences before and after changing treatment from ACL rehabilitation alone to ACL-R.

METHOD

Fifteen patients were interviewed in semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with qualitative content analysis, based on the method described by Graneheim and Lundman. Patients were between 26 and 58 years old, and had tried rehabilitation for a minimum of 9 months prior to ACL-R.

RESULTS

Two themes, "Expecting what could not be achieved: the struggle to recover and not becoming stable", and "Internal completeness: expectations can be achieved", emerged from the analysis. Each theme was supported by three main categories and 5-6 subcategories. The first theme represents the journey before ACL-R, where patients experienced getting stronger, but perceived the knee as unstable. The second theme represents the journey after ACL-R, where patients expressed that they felt whole after their ACL-R, and where able to achieve their expections. Patients experienced a greater support from the healthcare system, and ultimately expressed a feeling of having achieved the unachievable after ACL-R.

SUMMARY

Patients who cross over from ACL rehabilitation to ACL-R experienced rehabilitation alone as insufficient to achieve the desired outcomes, which resulted in a need to opt for delayed ACL-R. Healthcare providers need to support patients, who primarily choose to undergo rehabilitation alone and later opt for ACL-R, throughout the whole rehabilitation process.

Comparison of Improvement in Patient-Reported Knee Function After Revision and Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction Compared With Primary ACL Reconstruction

Background

Graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a debilitating complication often requiring revision surgery. It is widely agreed upon that functional knee outcomes after revision ACLR (r-ACLR) are inferior compared with those after primary reconstruction. However, data are scarce on outcomes after multiple-revision ACLR (mr-ACLR).

Purpose

To compare patient-reported knee function in terms of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR and evaluate the pre- to postoperative improvement in KOOS scores for each procedure.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry who underwent their index ACLR between 2005 and 2020 with a minimum age of 15 years at the time of surgery were included in this study. All patients had pre- and postoperative KOOS data. The 1-year postoperative KOOS and the pre- to postoperative changes in KOOS were assessed between patients who underwent primary ACLR and those who underwent subsequent r-ACLR and mr-ACLR.

Results

Of 20,542 included patients, 19,769 (96.2%) underwent primary ACLR, 760 (3.7%) underwent r-ACLR, and 13 (0.06%) underwent mr-ACLR. Patients who underwent r-ACLR had significantly smaller pre- to postoperative changes on all KOOS subscales compared with patients undergoing primary ACLR (P < .0001 for all). Furthermore, patients in the mr-ACLR group had significantly smaller changes in the KOOS-Pain subscale compared with patients in the r-ACLR group (-9 ± 23.3 vs 2.5 ± 18; P = .024).

Conclusion

The study results indicated that while improvement is seen after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR, the greatest improvement in functional outcomes is observed after primary ACLR. Patients who underwent at least 1 r-ACLR, specifically mr-ACLR, had lower postoperative outcome scores, indicating that primary ACLR may provide the best chance for recovery after ACL injury.

Differences in postoperative knee function based on concomitant treatment of lateral meniscal injury in the setting of primary ACL reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Concomitant lateral meniscal (LM) injuries are common in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. However, the effect of addressing these injuries with various treatment methods during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2-, 5-, and 10-years after isolated primary ACLR to primary ACLR with various treatment methods to address concomitant LM injury.

METHODS

This study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients ≥ 15 years with data on postoperative KOOS who underwent primary ACLR between the years 2005 and 2018 were included in this study. The study population was divided into five groups: 1) Isolated ACLR, 2) ACLR + LM repair, 3) ACLR + LM resection, 4) ACLR + LM injury left in situ, and 5) ACLR + LM repair + LM resection. Patients with concomitant medial meniscal or other surgically treated ligament injuries were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 31,819 included patients, 24% had LM injury. After post hoc comparisons, significantly lower scores were found for the KOOS Symptoms subscale in ACLR + LM repair group compared to isolated ACLR (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.0097) and ACLR + LM injury left in situ groups (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.041) at 2-year follow-up. However, at 10-year follow-up, no differences were found between ACLR + LM repair and isolated ACLR, but ACLR + LM resection resulted in significantly lower KOOS Symptoms scores compared to isolated ACLR (80.4 vs 82.3, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that LM injury during ACLR is associated with lower KOOS scores, particularly in the Symptoms subscale, at short- and long-term follow-up. However, this finding falls below minimal clinical important difference and therefore may not be clinically relevant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Evaluating the Use of PROMs in Paediatric Orthopaedic Registries

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide structured information on the patient's health experience and facilitate shared clinical decision-making. Registries that collect PROMs generate essential information about the clinical course and efficacy of interventions. Whilst PROMs are increasingly being used in adult orthopaedic registries, their use in paediatric orthopaedic registries is not well known. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the frequency and scope of registries that collect PROMs in paediatric orthopaedic patient groups. In July 2023, six databases were systematically searched to identify studies that collected PROMs using a registry amongst patients aged under 18 years with orthopaedic diagnoses. Of 3190 identified articles, 128 unique registries were identified. Three were exclusively paediatric, 27 were majority paediatric, and the remainder included a minority of paediatric patients. One hundred and twenty-eight registries collected 72 different PROMs, and 58% of these PROMs were not validated for a paediatric population. The largest group of orthopaedic registries collected PROMs on knee ligament injuries (21%). There are few reported dedicated orthopaedic registries collecting PROMs in paediatric populations. The majority of PROMs collected amongst paediatric populations by orthopaedic registries are not validated for patients under the age of 18 years. The use of non-validated PROMs by registries greatly impedes their utility and impact. Dedicated orthopaedic registries collecting paediatric-validated PROMs are needed to increase health knowledge, improve decision-making between patients and healthcare providers, and optimise orthopaedic management.

Clinic and Home-Based Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction Resolves Thigh Muscle Atrophy after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with the Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft: A Case Report

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) results in thigh muscle atrophy. Of the various interventions proposed to mitigate thigh muscle atrophy, exercise with blood flow restriction (BFR) appears safe and effective. Some literature suggests daily exposure to exercise with BFR may be indicated during the early phase of ACLR rehabilitation; this case report outlines the methodology utilized to prescribe clinic- and home-based BFR within an outpatient rehabilitation program. A 15-year-old male soccer player suffered a left knee injury involving the anterior cruciate ligament and both menisci. He underwent ACLR and completed exercise with BFR as part of his clinic- and home-based rehabilitation program, which included practical blood flow restriction during home-based rehabilitation. After 16 weeks of rehabilitation, surgical limb thigh girth values were objectively larger than the non-surgical limb (surgical, 52.25 cm; non-surgical 50 cm), as well as the multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis of his lower-extremity lean body mass (surgical limb, 10.37 kg; non-surgical limb, 10.02 kg). The findings of this case report suggest that the inclusion of clinic- and home-based BFR within an outpatient rehabilitation program may be indicated to resolve thigh muscle atrophy early after ACLR.