Decision Making for Treatment After ACL Injury From an Orthopaedic Surgeon and Patient Perspective: Results From the NACOX Study

Which patients need anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after initial treatment with rehabilitation? A scoping review

PURPOSE

Some patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury initially treated with rehabilitation need ACL reconstruction (ACLR); yet, it is unclear what characterizes these patients. This review aimed to describe predictors for ACLR in patients initially treated with rehabilitation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane, Embase, Medline, SportsDiscus and Web of Science databases from inception to 21 February 2023. Articles describing characteristics in adult patients with ACL injury undergoing ACLR after a minimum of 5 weeks rehabilitation were included. It was a priori chosen that characteristics described in at least three articles were considered more certain and could be defined as a predictor for ACLR, and those described in less than three articles were considered less certain and therefore defined as possible predictors. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers. The study was originally intended as a systematic review with meta-analysis, but in case of limited data, we would convert it to a scoping review, as was the case for this review.

RESULTS

There were 22,836 studies identified, and 181 full texts were screened, of which 10 papers were finally included. Only lower age and higher preinjury activity level were identified as predictors for ACLR. Another 12 possible predictors were identified in single studies. Through an iterative process, potential predictors were categorized into four groups: patient demographics, knee function, patient-reported outcome measures and anatomical structures.

CONCLUSION

Lower age and higher preinjury activity level were the only predictors for ACLR after initial treatment with rehabilitation. While younger and highly active patients show a higher need for ACLR, more studies focussing on predictors and reasons for delayed ACLR are warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Knee-Related Quality of Life Compared Between 20 and 35 Years After an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Treated Surgically With Primary Repair or Reconstruction, or Nonsurgically

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) is affected up to 5 years after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Knee impairment and osteoarthritis (OA) development increase over time, and this may affect QoL at a long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE

To investigate changes in health- and knee-related QoL between 20 and 35 years after ACL injury and compare it between patients treated with or without ACL surgery, as well as to study how symptomatic OA (SOA) is associated with change in QoL.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Between 1980 and 1983, 139 patients with acute ACL rupture were allocated to surgical or nonsurgical treatment of the ACL. Both groups completed a structured rehabilitation program. Of those patients, 59 were followed for 20 and 35 years after ACL rupture. After 10 crossovers, 33 patients were treated with primary repair or ACL reconstruction, and 26 were treated without ACL surgery. Combined radiographic OA and knee symptoms at 35 years was defined as SOA. QoL was assessed at 20 and 35 years after injury with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score QoL (KOOS-QoL) subscale (range, 1-100), ACL-QoL questionnaire (total score and 5 subscales; range, 1-100), European QoL-5 Dimensions Questionnaire, and visual analog scale. Results were analyzed with paired and independent-sample t tests and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Knee-related QoL was impaired at both 20 and 35 years after ACL injury, and differences were dependent on the measurement outcome. In the total cohort, KOOS-QoL did not change but both total ACL-QoL score (7.1 points; 95% CI, 2.2-11.9) and 4 of 5 subscales (5-10 points) decreased (P < .05). No differences were found between treatment groups. QoL decreased overall in patients with SOA, with a 21-point difference within-group change in KOOS-QoL (SOA or non-SOA) between 20 and 35 years of follow-up (P = .001; Cohen d = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

An ACL injury impairs knee-related QoL for up to 35 years, with no difference between treatment approaches (initial repair or later reconstruction compared with nonsurgical treatment). The deterioration decreases with longer follow-up. Clinicians should be aware of differences in QoL depending on the measurement outcome.

Accelerometer-assessed physical activity patterns during the first two years after a non-surgically treated ACL injury

OBJECTIVES

To describe physical activity patterns and analyze changes during the first two years after a non-surgically treated ACL injury, and to assess correlations between accelerometer-assessed physical activity and self-reported knee function and knee-related quality of life.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

128 patients (61 females, 25.2 ± 7.1 years) with acute ACL injury.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Physical activity patterns were measured with accelerometry. Self-reported knee function was assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, and knee-related quality of life was assessed using the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life questionnaire.

RESULTS

Moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and steps per day increased from baseline to 3 months (p < .001), with no further increase from 3 to 24 months (p > .05). Time in MVPA did not correlate to patient-reported outcome measures at 3, 6, 12, or 24 months (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Physical activity increased from acute phase to 3 months after non-surgically treated ACL injury, but almost one in four patients did not reach recommended levels of physical activity. Physical activity did not correlate with knee function or quality of life. Patients may need improved support to return to physical activity after ACL injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02931084.

It is time to target psychological readiness (or lack of readiness) in return to sports after Anterior Cruciate Ligament tears

Functional recovery has for long been the focus of rehabilitation after an Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury. It is now increasingly recognized that more attention should be given to patients` mental recovery, their psychological readiness for returning to sport, after such an injury. Within this relatively new field of science, clinicians need clarity on when and how psychological factors should be monitored and how inexpedient psychological responses may be addressed during rehabilitation. In this Expert Opinion suggestions on how targeting psychological readiness may improve rehabilitation and return-to-sport evaluations are made based on current evidence-and issues in need of further clarification are addressed.

The experience and influence of fear after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an interview study with young athletes

BACKGROUND

Despite good physical function, many athletes do not return to sports after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). One important reason for this is fear of new injury. The aim of this study was to investigate young athletes' experiences of knee-related fear after an ACLR and how they perceive this fear to affect them in their sporting and everyday life.

METHODS

A qualitative interview study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews. Athletes who were active in contact or pivoting sport before an ACL injury, with the goal of returning to the same sport and who scored highly on fear of new injury at six months post-ACLR, were asked to participate. Ten athletes (six women and four men, aged 17-25 years), were interviewed by an independent researcher, 7-9 months after ACLR. Content analysis employing an abductive approach was used.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in three categories with associated subcategories: 1. The expressions of fear; (i) reason for fear, (ii) changes in fear over time, and (iii) injury situation. 2. Reactions, consequences, and adaptations; (i) reactions, (ii) behavioural adaptation and influence on rehabilitation and daily life, (iii) present consequences, and (iv) consequences for the future. 3. Fear and adaptations related to returning to sports; (i) fear related to returning to sports and, (ii) adaptations in sports and life due to fear. Fear was described in broad and complex ways, with fear of a new injury being expressed as one of several aspects. Various reasons (e.g., seeing others getting injured in the past, previous experience of injury, failed rehabilitation, perceived knee instability) were given to explain the fear, and athletes reacted both physically and mentally to fear. Both positive and negative adaptations to fear were described, in both daily life and sports.

CONCLUSION

The results contribute to an increased understanding of fear as an essential psychological factor to consider during rehabilitation and leaves the way open for research to investigate how physiotherapists can work to manage fear better among ACLR patients.

Primary surgery versus primary rehabilitation for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of primarily surgical versus primarily rehabilitative management for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture.

DESIGN

Living systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Six databases, six trial registries and prior systematic reviews. Forward and backward citation tracking was employed.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared primary reconstructive surgery and primary rehabilitative treatment with or without optional reconstructive surgery.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Bayesian random effects meta-analysis with empirical priors for the OR and standardised mean difference and 95% credible intervals (CrI), Cochrane RoB2, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 9514 records, 9 reports of three studies (320 participants in total) were included. No clinically important differences were observed at any follow-up for self-reported knee function (low to very low certainty of evidence). For radiological knee osteoarthritis, we found no effect at very low certainty of evidence in the long term (OR (95% CrI): 1.45 (0.30 to 5.17), two studies). Meniscal damage showed no effect at low certainty of evidence (OR: 0.85 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.62); one study) in the long term. No differences were observed between treatments for any other secondary outcome. Three ongoing randomised controlled trials were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low to very low certainty of evidence that primary rehabilitation with optional surgical reconstruction results in similar outcome measures as early surgical reconstruction for ACL rupture. The findings challenge a historical paradigm that anatomic instability should be addressed with primary surgical stabilisation to provide optimal outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021256537.

Low percentage of patients passed the 'Back in Action' test battery 9 months after bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is recommended in patients who intend to return to high-level sports. However, there is only a 55-80% return to pre-injury level of sports after ACL reconstruction, with a re-injury rate up to 20%. The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of patients passing the Back in Action (BIA) test 9 months after primary bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) ACL reconstruction, and evaluate the association between passing the BIA test and patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs).

Methods

Patients underwent the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. In total 103 patients were included. Passing the BIA test (PASSED-group) was defined as a normal or higher score at all sub-tests with limb symmetry index (LSI) ≥90% for the dominant leg and LSI >80% for the non-dominant leg. Patients who did not meet these criteria were defined as the FAILED-group. PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury.

Results

Eighteen patients (17.5%) passed the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. PROMs were not statistically significant different between the PASSED- and FAILED-group.

Conclusion

Low percentage of patients passed the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. Although current PROMs cut-off values were met, the BIA test results show persistent functional deficits. Therefore, the BIA test could be of additional value in the decision-making process regarding return to sport (RTS). This study highlights the need for additional rehabilitation as RTS in a condition of incomplete recovery may increase the risk of re-injury.

Level of evidence

II.

Treatment decision-making process after an anterior cruciate ligament injury: patients', orthopaedic surgeons' and physiotherapists' perspectives

Objective

To investigate the treatment decision-making process after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury from patients’, orthopaedic surgeons’ and physiotherapists’ perspectives.

Methods

The study is a part of the NACOX study, which is designed to describe the natural corollaries after ACL injury. For the present study, a subgroup 101 patients were included. Patients, their orthopaedic surgeons and their physiotherapists, answered a Shared Decision-Making Process (SDMP) questionnaire, when treatment decision for ACL reconstruction surgery (ACLR) or non-reconstruction (non-ACLR) was taken. The SDMP questionnaire covers four topics: “ informed patient”, “ to be heard”, “ involvement” and “ agreement”.

Results

Most (75–98%) patients considered their needs met in terms of being heard and agreement with the treatment decision. However, fewer in the non-ACLR group compared to the ACLR group reported satisfaction with information from the orthopaedic surgeon (67% and 79%), or for their own involvement in the treatment decision process (67% and 97%).

Conclusion and practice implications

Most patients and caregivers considered that patients’ needs to be informed, heard and involved, and to agree with the decision about the treatment process, were fulfilled to a high extent. However, patients where a non-ACLR decision was taken experienced being involved in the treatment decision to a lower extent. This implies that the non-ACLR treatment decision process needs further clarification, especially from the patient involvement perspective.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05745-4.

Variations in common operations in athletes and non-Athletes

Background

Achieving pre-injury activity level after an injury is the fundamental goal of any orthopedic treatment for an athlete. Unfortunately, pre-injury activity levels differ significantly in different patient categories, especially in athletes and non-athlete. Hence, an outcome suitable to a non-athlete may not be adequate for an athlete. This has led to variations in the surgical approach to the same injury in an athlete and non-athlete.There is plenty of literature published comparing the outcome in athletes and non-athletes after a particular surgery. Scattered discussion about variations in these surgeries based on functional demand was done in many publications. But there was a lack of a comprehensive narrative review summarizing variations in common operations among athletes and non-athletes.

Aim

This review attempted to summarize variations in common sports operations between high functional demand patients and low demand patients and discuss the variations from the author's perspective.

Methods

A review of all the relevant papers were conducted focusing on athletes and non-athletes. Most commonly performed sports surgeries were ACL reconstruction, Meniscal repair, PCL reconstruction, and Shoulder instability surgery. A literature search was done for each commonly performed surgery using relevant keywords in PubMed and Google Scholars. Summary of papers pertinent to athletes and non-athletes were compiled to prepare this narrative review.

Results

There is a lack of papers directly comparing results in athletes and non-athletes. However, many research papers discussed surgical variations in athletes (high demand) and non-athletes (low demand) patients. There are controversies in all commonly performed surgeries, and none of the papers gives a definitive guideline on the approach to athletes and non-athlete.

Conclusion

Rather than a common suggestion on surgical variation, an individualized approach would be appropriate to decide on variation in particular surgery in both athletes and non-athletes.

Rehabilitation after ACL injury and reconstruction from the patients' perspective

OBJECTIVES

To describe and compare patients' appraisal of the rehabilitation and adherence to the rehabilitation program after acute ACL injury treated with (ACLR) or without (non-ACLR) reconstruction.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

275 patients (143 females; mean age 25 ± 7 years) with acute ACL injury, of whom 166 patients had ACLR within 24 months.

MAIN OUTCOME

Adherence to rehabilitation was assessed using the modified Sports Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale (SIRAS).

RESULTS

Appraisal of rehabilitation was higher in the post-ACLR group compared to the non-ACLR group at 3 months (91% compared to 70% scored rehabilitation as necessary, p = 0.025) and at 6 months (87% compared to 70% scored it as necessary, p = 0.017). SIRAS score did not differ between 3 and 6 months for the non-ACLR group (median (IQR) 13 (2) vs 13 (2)) or the post-ACLR group (14 (1) vs 14 (2), p > 0.05). The post-ACLR group had a higher SIRAS score than the non-ACLR group at 3 and 6 months (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with ACLR reported valuing their rehabilitation more and rated greater adherence to the rehabilitation programme than non-surgically treated patients. As rehabilitation is essential for good knee function, strategies to improve adherence after non-ACLR treatment should be implemented.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective cohort study, level II.