Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2023; 58(01): 079-084
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756330
Artigo Original
Joelho

Calculation of the Minimal Important Clinical Difference of the Lysholm and IKDC Scores After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Article in several languages: português | English
Bruno Fajardo do Nascimento 
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brasil
,
Mariana Bandeira da Rocha Lima 
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brasil
,
Jair Moreira Dias Júnior 
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brasil
,
Jurandir Antunes Filho 
2   Hospital Monte Sinai e Hospital Albert Sabin, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brasil
,
Túlio Vinícius de Oliveira Campos 
3   Departamento de Aparelho Locomotor, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, MG, Brasil
,
Adriano Fernando Mendes Júnior 
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brasil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To calculate the minimal important clinical difference (MICD) value for the Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores in a sample of patients submitted to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Methods Primary, observational, retrospective, analytical study of participants submitted to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction from March 2019 to December 2020 by the same surgeon, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, analysis of knee function in the pre- and postoperative period by the Lysholm and IKDC scores, and answer to an anchor question at 6 months postoperatively for the calculation of the MICD of each score.

Results A total of 59 patients participated in the study, with a mean age of 27.1 ± 5.7 years old. In the comparison between pre- and postoperative scores of all groups, there was an increase in values with statistical significance after intervention. The MICD was 5.5 for the Lysholm score, and the MICD value for the IKDC score could not be determined.

Conclusion For the Lysholm score, the calculation of the MICD value by the anchor question method in the sample evaluated was 5.5. It was not possible to determine the value of the MICD for the IKDC score.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - knee joint - reproducibility of results - surveys and questionnaires

Financial Support

The present study received no financial support from either public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources.


Work developed at the Orthopedics and Traumatology Service, Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 14 October 2021

Accepted: 26 June 2022

Article published online:
13 October 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Sobrado MF, Bonadio MB, Ribeiro GF, Giglio PN, Helito CP, Demange MK. Lever sign test for chronic ACL injury: a comparison with Lachman and anterior drawer tests. Acta Ortop Bras 2021; 29 (03) 132-136
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gali JC, Fadel GW, Marques MF, Almeida TA, Gali JC, Faria FAS. The new injuries' risk after ACL reconstruction might be reduced with functional training. Acta Ortop Bras 2021; 29 (01) 21-25
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Arliani GG, Astur DdaC, Kanas M, Kaleka CC, Cohen M. Anterior cruciate ligament injury: treatment and rehabilitation. current perspectives and trends. Rev Bras Ortop 2015; 47 (02) 191-196
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Amatuzzi MM, Albuquerque RFM, Amatuzzi ML, Sasaki SU. Is surgical treatment mandatory for anterior cruciate ligament lesions? Can conservative treatment be considered?. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia 2007; 42 (08) 231-236
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Nunes JF, Castro JOM, Marcheto A, Pereira PP. Tratamento conservador das lesões do LCA. Rev Soc Bras Cir Joelho 2003; 3 (01) 1-4
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Zumpano CE, Mendonça TMS, Silva CHM, Correia H, Arnold B, Pinto RM. Adaptação transcultural e validação da escala de Saúde Global do PROMIS para a língua portuguesa. Cad Saude Publica 2017; 33 (01) e00107616
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Peccin MS, Ciconelli R, Cohen M. Specific questionnaire for knee symptoms - the “Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale”: translation and validation into Portuguese. Acta Ortop Bras 2006; 14 (05) 268-272
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Metsavaht L, Leporace G, Riberto M, de Mello Sposito MM, Batista LA. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Brazilian version of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form: validity and reproducibility. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (09) 1894-1899
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Risberg MA, Holm I, Steen H, Beynnon BD. Sensitivity to changes over time for the IKDC form, the Lysholm score, and the Cincinnati knee score. A prospective study of 120 ACL reconstructed patients with a 2-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999; 7 (03) 152-159
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?. PharmacoEconomics 2000; 18 (05) 419-423
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials 2004; 25 (06) 535-552
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10 (04) 407-415
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (02) 102-109
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology 2007; 18 (06) 800-804
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Camargo OPA, Severino NR, Aihara T, Cury RPL, Oliveira VM. Resultado a médio prazo de reconstrução da lesão crônica do ligamento cruzado anterior com prótese de poliéster. Rev Bras Ortop 2001; 36 (04) 111-116
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Ogura T, Ackermann J, Mestriner AB, Merkely G, Gomoll AH. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Patients Undergoing Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in the Knee. Cartilage 2021; 12 (01) 42-50
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112 (01) 155-159
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 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
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Jones KJ, Kelley BV, Arshi A, McAllister DR, Fabricant PD. Comparative Effectiveness of Cartilage Repair With Respect to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (13) 3284-3293
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Weng CJ, Yeh WL, Hsu KY. et al. Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Autologous Hamstring Tendon in Patients Aged 50 Years or Older. Arthroscopy 2020; 36 (02) 558-562
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Hernandez AJ, Rezende MU, Góis SL, Grisende SC. Avaliação funcional e do nível de atividade física nas reconstruções do ligamento cruzado anterior. Rev Bras Ortop 1996; 31 (12) 990-994
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 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
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Agarwalla A, Puzzitiello RN, Liu JN. et al. Timeline for Maximal Subjective Outcome Improvement After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (10) 2501-2509
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Su L, Garcia-Mansilla I, Kelley B. et al. Clinical Outcomes of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With Respect to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Am J Sports Med 2021; 3635465211036116
    Search in Google Scholar