PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(02): 159-166
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713658
Original Article

Baseline Analysis of Patients Presenting for Surgical Review of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture Reveals Heterogeneity in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Chee Han Ting
1   Department of Orthopaedics, QEII Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Queensland, Australia
,
Corey Scholes 
2   EBM Analytics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
David Zbrojkiewicz
1   Department of Orthopaedics, QEII Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Queensland, Australia
,
Christopher Bell
1   Department of Orthopaedics, QEII Jubilee Hospital, Coopers Plains, Queensland, Australia
› Institutsangaben Funding This study was funded by the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital Orthopaedic Research Fund.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Despite the establishment of successful surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, published return to sport rates are less than satisfactory. This has led orthopaedic surgeons and researchers to develop more robust patient selection methods, and investigate prognostic patient characteristics. No previous studies have integrated baseline characteristics and responses to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of patients with ACL rupture presenting for surgical review. Patients electing to undergo ACL reconstruction under the care of a single orthopaedic surgeon at a metropolitan public hospital were enrolled in a clinical quality registry. Patients completed Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores, Tegner activity scale, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaires at presentation. Total scores were extracted from the electronic registry, and a machine learning approach (k-means) was used to identify subgroups based on similarity of questionnaire responses. The average scores in each cluster were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA; Kruskal–Wallis) and nominal logistic regression was performed to determine relationships between cluster membership and patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and injury-to-examination delay. A sample of 107 patients with primary ACL rupture were extracted, with 97 (91%) available for analysis with complete datasets. Four clusters were identified with distinct patterns of PROMs responses. These ranged from lowest (Cluster 1) to highest scores for VR-12 and IKDC (Cluster 4). In particular, Cluster 4 returned median scores within 6 points of the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC score for ACL reconstruction (70.1, interquartile range: 59–78). Significant (p < 0.05) differences in PROMs between clusters were observed using ANOVA, with variance explained ranging from 40 to 69%. However, cluster membership was not significantly associated with patient age, gender, BMI, or injury-to-examination delay. Patients electing to undergo ACL reconstruction do not conform to a homogenous group but represent a spectrum of knee function, general physical and mental health, and preinjury activity levels, which may not lend itself to uniform treatment and rehabilitation protocols. The factors driving these distinct responses to PROMs remain unknown but are unrelated to common demographic variables.

Keywords

ACL reconstruction - cluster analysis - PROMs - baseline - subgroup

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 06. Februar 2020

Angenommen: 24. Mai 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
06. Juli 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Renström PA. Eight clinical conundrums relating to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in sport: recent evidence and a personal reflection. Br J Sports Med 2013; 47 (06) 367-372
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA. Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med 2011; 45 (07) 596-606
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (04) 331-342
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Nwachukwu BU, Chang B, Voleti PB. et al. Preoperative short form health survey score is predictive of return to play and minimal clinically important difference at a minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (12) 2784-2790
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Spindler KP, Huston LJ, Wright RW. et al; MOON Group. The prognosis and predictors of sports function and activity at minimum 6 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a population cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (02) 348-359
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Webster KE. Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48 (21) 1543-1552
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Nwachukwu BU, Runyon RS, Kahlenberg CA, Gausden EB, Schairer WW, Allen AA. How are we measuring clinically important outcome for operative treatments in sports medicine?. Phys Sportsmed 2017; 45 (02) 159-164
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ. John Charnley award: preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (02) 321-329
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Dunn WR, Wolf BR, Harrell Jr FE, Reinke EK, Huston LJ, Spindler KP. MOON Knee Group. Baseline predictors of health-related quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a longitudinal analysis of a multicenter cohort at two and six years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (07) 551-557
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 An VV, Scholes C, Mhaskar VA, Hadden W, Parker D. Limitations in predicting outcome following primary ACL reconstruction with single-bundle hamstring autograft - a systematic review. Knee 2017; 24 (02) 170-178
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Whitehead TS, Webster KE. Psychological responses matter in returning to preinjury level of sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (07) 1549-1558
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sonesson S, Kvist J, Ardern C, Österberg A, Silbernagel KG. Psychological factors are important to return to pre-injury sport activity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: expect and motivate to satisfy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (05) 1375-1384
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Everhart JS, Best TM, Flanigan DC. Psychological predictors of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (03) 752-762
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lee B, Ebrahimi M, Ektas N. et al. Implementation and quality assessment of a clinical orthopaedic registry in a public hospital department. BMC Health Serv Res 2020; 20 (01) 393
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. et al. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (05) 600-613
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 (11, Suppl 11): S208-S228
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kazis LE, Selim A, Rogers W, Ren XS, Lee A, Miller DR. Dissemination of methods and results from the veterans health study: final comments and implications for future monitoring strategies within and outside the veterans healthcare system. J Ambul Care Manage 2006; 29 (04) 310-319
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Main Features - Overweight and obesity. Profiles of Health, Australia, 2011–13. Published June 7, 2013. Accessed October 27, 2019 at: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4338.0~2011-13~Main%20Features~Overweight%20and%20obesity~10007
    PubMed
  • 19 Muller B, Yabroudi MA, Lynch A. et al. Defining thresholds for the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC subjective knee form and KOOS for patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (11) 2820-2826
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG. et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4 (10) e297
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Hind K, Gannon L, Brightmore A, Beck B. Insights into relationships between body mass, composition and bone: findings in elite rugby players. J Clin Densitom 2015; 18 (02) 172-178
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Swirtun LR, Eriksson K, Renström P. Who chooses anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and why? A 2-year prospective study. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2006; 16 (06) 441-446
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Daniel DM, Fithian DC. Indications for ACL surgery. Arthroscopy 1994; 10 (04) 434-441
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Feucht MJ, Cotic M, Saier T. et al. Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (01) 201-207
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Thomeé P, Währborg P, Börjesson M, Thomeé R, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J. Self-efficacy of knee function as a pre-operative predictor of outcome 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16 (02) 118-127
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gobbi A, Francisco R. Factors affecting return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring graft: a prospective clinical investigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (10) 1021-1028
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Christino MA, Fantry AJ, Vopat BG. Psychological aspects of recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (08) 501-509
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Coronado RA, Bird ML, Van Hoy EE, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Archer KR. Do psychosocial interventions improve rehabilitation outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2018; 32 (03) 287-298
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Welles CC, Whooley MA, Na B, Ganz P, Schiller NB, Turakhia MP. The CHADS2 score predicts ischemic stroke in the absence of atrial fibrillation among subjects with coronary heart disease: data from the Heart and Soul Study. Am Heart J 2011; 162 (03) 555-561
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML. et al. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (03) 335-346
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 de Valk EJ, Moen MH, Winters M, Bakker EWP, Tamminga R, van der Hoeven H. Preoperative patient and injury factors of successful rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with single-bundle techniques. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (11) 1879-1895
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Anderson MJ, Browning III WM, Urband CE, Kluczynski MA, Bisson LJ. A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on the Topic of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament. Orthop J Sports Med 2016; 4 (03) 2325967116634074
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Ho A, Purdie C, Tirosh O, Tran P. Improving the response rate of patient-reported outcome measures in an Australian tertiary metropolitan hospital. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2019; 10: 217-226
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Rowland C, Walsh L, Harrop R, Roy B, Skevington SM. What do U.K. orthopedic surgery patients think about PROMs? Evaluating the evaluation and explaining missing data. Qual Health Res 2019; 29 (14) 2057-2069
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 McLachlan GJ. Cluster analysis and related techniques in medical research. Stat Methods Med Res 1992; 1 (01) 27-48
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Andendelfer MS, Blashfield RK. Cluster Analysis: Quantitative Applications in the Social Science Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1984
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Grindem H, Eitzen I, Engebretsen L, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. Nonsurgical or surgical treatment of ACL injuries: knee function, sports participation, and knee reinjury: the Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (15) 1233-1241
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar