Search

Objectives The objective of the study was to create an interpretive categorical classification for the transition in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) change score (ΔOKS) using the anchor-based method. Study Design and Setting Registry data from 46,094 total knee replacements from the year 2014/15, were accessed via the Health and Social Care Information Center official website. Data included preoperative and 6-month follow-up OKS and response to the transition anchor question. Categories were determined using Gaussian approximation probability and k-fold cross-validation. Results Four categories were identified with the corresponding ΔOKS intervals: “1. much better” (≥16), “2. a little better” (7–15), “3. about the same” (1–6), and “4. much worse” (≤0) based on the anchor questions’ original five categories. The mean 10-fold cross-validation error was 0.35 OKS points (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.63). Sensitivity ranged from 0.34 to 0.68; specificity ranged from 0.74 to 0.95. Conclusion We have categorized the change score into a clinically meaningful classification. We argue it should be an addition to the continuous OKS outcome to contextualize the results in a way more applicable to the shared decision-making process and for interpreting research results.

Background and purpose — Meaningful interpretation of postoperative Oxford Knee Score (OKS) levels is challenging. We established Patient Acceptable Symptoms State (PASS) and Treatment Failure (TF) values for the OKS in patients undergoing primary total knee replacement (TKR) in Denmark. Patients and methods — Data from patients undergoing primary TKR between February 2015 and January 2019 was extracted from the arthroplasty registry at the Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre in Denmark. Data included 3, 12, and 24 months postoperative responses to the OKS and 2 anchor questions asking whether they considered their symptom state to be satisfactory, and if not, whether they considered the treatment to have failed. PASS and TF threshold values were calculated using the adjusted predictive modeling method. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to derive 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results — Complete 3, 12, and 24 months postoperative data was obtained for 187 of 209 (89%), 884 of 915 (97%), and 575 of 586 (98%) patients, with median ages from 68 to 70 years (59 to 64% female). 72%, 77%, and 79% considered as having satisfactory symptoms, while 6%, 11%, and 11% considered the treatment to have failed, at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. OKS PASS values (CI) were 27 (26–28), 30 (29–31), and 30 (29–31) at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. TF values were 27 (26–28) and 27 (26–29) at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Interpretation — The OKS PASS values can be used to guide the interpretation of TKR outcome and support quality assessment in institutional and national registries.

To facilitate the interpretation of numerical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scales, concepts such as the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) have been introduced. Currently, no PASS thresholds have been established for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) after total knee arthroplasty. The aims of the current study were to define PASS thresholds for the KOOS subscales and several other generic and knee-specific PROMs at 1 and 3 years after total knee arthroplasty using data from an international, multicenter clinical outcome study of a modern, well-performing implant system.The study cohort consisted of 499 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty from an international, multicenter study. At 1 and 3 years after a total knee arthroplasty, patients completed the KOOS, EuroQoL 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L), EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), and numerical rating scales (NRS) for knee-related pain and satisfaction. PASS thresholds were calculated at each follow-up interval using 3 anchor-based approaches, using patient-reported satisfaction as the anchor.According to our satisfaction anchor, 302 (78.9%) of 383 responding patients were satisfied at 1 year, and 242 (80.4%) of 301 responding patients were satisfied at 3 years. PASS thresholds were 84.5 points at 1 year and 87.5 points at 3 years for KOOS pain, 80.5 points at 1 year and 84.0 points at 3 years for KOOS symptoms, 83.0 points at 1 year and 87.5 points at 3 years for KOOS activities of daily living, 66.0 points at 1 year and 66.0 points at 3 years for KOOS quality of life, 83.0 points at 1 year and 90.5 points at 3 years for EQ-VAS, 0.80 point at 1 year and 0.80 point at 3 years for EQ-5D, and 1.8 points at 1 year and 1.8 points at 3 years for NRS pain.The current study is the first, to our knowledge, to propose PASS thresholds for the KOOS subscales at 1 and 3 years after total knee arthroplasty and contributes to PASS literature on other common PROMs. These findings will provide a useful reference for future total knee arthroplasty outcome studies and will help to determine what patients consider to be satisfactory operations.Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

IntroductionIn sports physiotherapy, medicine and orthopaedic randomised controlled trials (RCT), the investigators (and readers) focus on the difference between groups in change scores from baseline to follow-up. Mean score changes are difficult to interpret (‘is an improvement of 20 units good?’), and follow-up scores may be more meaningful. We investigated how applying three different responder criteria to change and follow-up scores would affect the ‘outcome’ of RCTs. Responder criteria refers to participants’ perceptions of how the intervention affected them.MethodsWe applied three different criteria—minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and treatment failure (TF)—to the aggregate Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) and the five KOOS subscales, the primary and secondary outcomes of the KANON trial (ISRCTN84752559). This trial included young active adults with an acute ACL injury and compared two treatment strategies: exercise therapy plus early reconstructive surgery, and exercise therapy plus delayed reconstructive surgery, if needed.ResultsMIC: At 2 years, more than 90% in the two treatment arms reported themselves to be minimally but importantly improved for the primary outcome KOOS4. PASS: About 50% of participants in both treatment arms reported their KOOS4 follow-up scores to be satisfactory. TF: Almost 10% of participants in both treatment arms found their outcomes so unsatisfactory that they thought their treatment had failed. There were no statistically significant or meaningful differences between treatment arms using these criteria.ConclusionWe applied change criteria as well as cross-sectional follow-up criteria to interpret trial outcomes with more clinical focus. We suggest researchers apply MIC, PASS and TF thresholds to enhance interpretation of KOOS and other patient-reported scores. The findings from this study can improve shared decision-making processes for people with an acute ACL injury.

Introduction Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with chronic knee pain and functional disability that negatively affect the ability to carry out normal daily activities. Patients are offered a large variety of non-surgical treatments, often not in accordance with clinical guidelines. This observational study will provide a comprehensive overview of treatment pathways for knee OA during the first 2 years after consulting an orthopaedic surgeon, including timing and order of treatment modalities, predictors of treatment outcomes, cost-effectiveness of treatment pathways and patients’ views on different treatment pathways. Methods and analysis Patients with primary referrals to an orthopaedic surgeon due to knee OA are consecutively invited to participate and fill out a questionnaire prior to their consultation with an orthopaedic surgeon. Follow-up questionnaires will be obtained at 6 and 24 months after inclusion. Based on a prospective cohort study design, including questionnaires and register data, we will (1) describe treatment pathways for knee OA during the first 2 years after consulting an orthopaedic surgeon; (2) describe the characteristics of patients choosing different treatment pathways; (3) develop predictive models for patient-self-determined classifications of good and poor treatment outcomes; (4) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment pathways that live up to clinical guidelines versus pathways that do not; based on a qualitative study design using semistructured individual interviews, we will (5) describe the patients’ perspectives on treatment pathways for knee OA. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by the Danish regional ethical committee (journal number H-17017295) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (journal number AHH-2017–072). Data will be anonymised and handled in line with the General Data Protection Regulation and the Danish Data Protection Act. The study results will be submitted to international open-access peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at conferences. Trial registration number NCT03746184, pre-results.

Purpose The optimal rehabilitation strategy after a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is unclear. This study aims to compare the effect of transitioning from a supervised to a self-management rehabilitation regime by pilot study of patient outcomes subsequent to UKA surgery. Methods Fifty consecutive patients scheduled to undergo unilateral UKA surgery at our institution between 22nd February 2016 and 18thof January 2017 were prospectively identified via local medical database and included. Performed UKAs were grouped into two cohorts, Supervised Cohort and Self-management Cohort, temporally separated by introduction of new rehabilitation. Self-management Cohort(n = 25) received an extensive inpatient rehabilitation regime along with outpatient referral to rehabilitation center. The Self-management Cohort(n = 25) were only instructed in use of crutches and free ambulation at own accord. Follow-up (F/U) was 1 year from receiving UKA. A range of outcomes were recorded, and between-cohort differences compared: knee joint range of motion, pain and functional limitations, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, pain during activity and rest, and knee circumference. Results Complete data was obtained for n = 45 patients. The mean between-cohort difference in ROM (range of motion) from preoperatively to discharge was 15.4 degrees (CI:5.2,25.8, p = 0.004), favoring the supervised regime, with no difference detected in any outcome at 3- or 12 months F/U. Median LOS was 1 day in both cohorts. Conclusion Transition to a simple rehabilitation regime following UKA surgery was associated with decreased ROM at discharge, which was not present at 3-month F/U. We found no other between-cohort differences for any other outcomes at 3- and 12-month F/U including functional limitations, although the study was likely underpowered for these outcomes. We encourage large-scale replication of these findings using randomized designs. Level of evidence Therapeutic level II

Background and purpose - Patient-acceptable symptom states (PASS) represent the level on a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) at which patients are satisfied with postoperative outcomes. We defined the PASS for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) at 3-month, 1-year, and 2-year intervals after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).Patients and methods - Between July 2018 and April 2019, primary THA patients in an academic medical center's registry completed the OHS, FJS-12, and a satisfaction anchor question at 3-month (n = 230), 1-year (n = 180), or 2-year (n = 187) postoperative intervals. PASS thresholds were derived with receiver operating characteristic analysis using the 80% specificity method. 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using 1,000 non-parametric bootstrap replications.Results - 74%, 85%, and 86% of patients reported having a satisfactory symptom state at 3 months, 1, and 2 years after surgery, respectively. At 3-month, 1-year, and 2-year intervals, PASS thresholds were 34 (CI 31-36), 40 (CI 36-44), and 39 (CI 35-42) points for the OHS and 59 (CI 54-64), 68 (CI 61-75), and 69 (CI 62-75) points for the FJS-12.Interpretation - PASS thresholds varied with time for both the OHS and the FJS-12, with lower 3-month compared with 1-year and 2-year thresholds. These PASS thresholds represent OHS and FJS-12 levels at which the average patient is satisfied with THA outcomes, helping to interpret PROMs and serving as clinically significant benchmarks and patient-centered outcomes for research.

Background: Meaningful change scores in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have not yet been established. Purpose: To define the minimal important change (MIC) for the KOOS after ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: KOOS and anchor questions with 7-point scales ranging from “better, an important improvement” to “worse, an important worsening” were completed postoperatively by randomly chosen participants from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry. Presurgery KOOS scores were retrieved from the registry. The MIC for improvement was calculated with anchor-based approaches using the predictive modeling method adjusted for the proportion of improved patients, the mean change method, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. Results: Complete data for at least one of the KOOS subscales were obtained from 542 (45.3%) participants. Predictive modeling MIC values were 12.1 for the KOOS subscales of Sport and Recreational Function and 18.3 for Knee-Related Quality of Life. These values aid in interpreting within-group improvement over time and can be used as responder criteria when comparing groups. The corresponding and much lower values for the subscales of Pain (2.5), Symptoms (–1.2), and Activities of Daily Living (2.4) are the results from patients reporting, on average, only mild problems with these domains preoperatively. Although 4% to 10% of patients reported subscale-specific worsening, MIC deterioration calculations were not possible. The ROC MIC values were associated with high degrees of misclassification. Values obtained by the mean change method were considered less reliable because these estimates are derived from subgroups of patients. Average KOOS change scores were approximately similar for patients reporting acceptable symptoms postoperatively and patients reporting important improvements on the anchor items after surgery. Conclusion: KOOS users should apply subscale-specific cutoffs for meaningful improvement. Our results confirm using the subscales of Sport and Recreational Function and Knee-Related Quality of Life as primary patient-reported outcomes after ACL reconstruction. The predictive modeling approach gave the most robust estimates of MIC values. Our data suggest that reporting acceptable symptoms postoperatively corresponds to reporting an important improvement after ACL reconstruction.

Background and purpose — Interpreting changes in Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) following total knee replacement (TKR) is challenged by the lack of methodologically rigorous methods to estimate minimal important change (MIC) values. We determined MIC values by predictive modeling for the OKS and FJS in patients undergoing primary TKR. Patients and methods — We conducted a prospective cohort study in patients undergoing TKR between January 2015 and July 2016. OKS and FJS were completed preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively, accompanied by a 7-point anchor question ranging from “better, an important improvement” to “worse, an important worsening.” MIC improvement values were defined with the predictive modeling approach based on logistic regression, with patients’ decisions on important improvement as dependent variable and change in OKS/FJS as independent variable. Furthermore, the MICs were adjusted for high proportions of improved patients. Results — 333/496 (67.1%) patients with a median age of 69 years (61% female) had complete data for OKS, FJS, and anchor questions at 1 year postoperatively. 85% were importantly improved. Spearman’s correlations between the anchor and the change score were 0.56 for OKS, and 0.61 for FJS. Adjusted predictive MIC values (95% CI) for improvement were 8 (6–9) for OKS and 14 (10–18) for FJS. Interpretation — The MIC value of 8 for OKS and 14 for FJS corresponds to minimal improvements that the average patient finds important and aids in our understanding of whether improvements after TKR are clinically relevant.

Background and purpose - Clinical care pathways for knee osteoarthritis (OA) are not always in line with clinical guidelines. We investigated (1) the patient-perceived quality of OA management, (2) which physiotherapist-delivered treatments patients with knee OA have attempted, and (3) patients' expected subsequent treatment, at the time of referral to an orthopedic surgeon. Patients and methods - This cross-sectional study included all patients with scheduled first-time appointments for knee OA at an orthopedic outpatient clinic from April 2017 to February 2018. Postal questionnaires included the 16-item OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire and questions about physiotherapist-delivered treatment for knee OA. Results - 517 of 627 (82%) eligible patients responded. Responders' (63% female) mean age was 67 years. The mean pass rate for the 16 independent quality indicators was 32% (8-74%). Sub-grouped into 4 categories, pass rates for independent quality indicators ranged from 16-52% regarding information, 9-50% regarding pain and functional assessment, 8-35% regarding referrals, and 16-74% regarding pharmacological treatment. While half of responders felt informed of physical activity benefits, only one-third had consulted a physiotherapist during the past year. Commonest physiotherapist-delivered treatments were exercise therapy for 22% and participation in the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) program for12% of responding patients. 65% expected surgery as subsequent treatment. Interpretation - Patients with knee OA are undertreated in primary care in Denmark; however, our findings may only reflect healthcare settings that are comparably organized. Our results call for better structure and uniform pathways for primary care knee OA treatment before referral to an orthopedic surgeon.

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome is an important condition that can be managed by physiotherapists, together with other health professionals. ‘Failed conservative care’ for FAI syndrome is a reason for surgery being introduced into the shared decision-making process with the patient. Two recent landmark randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have brought new data to that patient-centred discussion—‘Would you consider surgery for this condition? What is the likelihood that your impairments will be appreciably improved with arthroscopic hip surgery followed by rehabilitation?’1 2 As clinicians delivering exercise therapy, we need to reflect on the question ‘are we providing high-quality, outcome driven, exercise therapy programs to these patients?’ Contemporary exercise therapy should be informed by patient needs and preferences, and address patient-specific impairments. Specific hip-related impairments in FAI syndrome include hip muscle weakness, particularly hip adductors3; lower trunk strength bilaterally3; poor dynamic single-leg balance3; and lower functional task performance3 in non-operative, preoperative and postoperative groups. None of these impairments can be corrected by surgery alone. These impairments could be best addressed with graded exercises.3 In this editorial, we question whether the non-surgical treatment programmes evaluated in the recent RCTs included the type, dose and progression of exercises needed to generate a meaningful change in strength and function. In both studies, the physiotherapist-led groups did …

Aims The primary aim of this study was to quantify the improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as the extent of any deterioration through the seven-year follow-up. The secondary aim was to identify predictors of PROM improvement and deterioration. Patients and Methods A total of 976 patients were enrolled into a prospective, international, multicentre study. Patients completed a battery of PROMs prior to THA, at three months post-THA, and at one, three, five, and seven-years post-THA. The Harris Hip Score (HHS), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS), the SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS), and the EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D) index were the primary outcomes. Longitudinal changes in each PROM were investigated by piece-wise linear mixed effects models. Clinically significant deterioration was defined for each patient as a decrease of one half of a standard deviation (group baseline). Results Improvements were noted in each PROM between the preoperative and one-year visits, with one-year values exceeding age-matched population norms. Patients with difficulty in self-care experienced less improvement in HHS (odds ratio (OR) 2.2; p = 0.003). Those with anxiety/depression experienced less improvement in PCS (OR -3.3; p = 0.002) and EQ-5D (OR -0.07; p = 0.005). Between one and seven years, obesity was associated with deterioration in HHS (1.5 points/year; p = 0.006), PCS (0.8 points/year; p < 0.001), and EQ-5D (0.02 points/year; p < 0.001). Preoperative difficulty in self-care was associated with deterioration in HHS (2.2 points/year; p < 0.001). Preoperative pain from other joints was associated with deterioration in MCS (0.8 points/year; p < 0.001). All aforementioned factors were associated with clinically significant deterioration in PROMs (p < 0.035), except anxiety/depression with regard to PCS (p = 0.060). Conclusion The present study finds that patient factors affect the improvement and deterioration in PROMs over the medium term following THA. Special attention should be given to patients with risk factors for decreased PROMs, both preoperatively and during follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:768–778.

Background The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) represents the value on a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scale beyond which patients consider themselves well or in a satisfactory state. PASS values for the Harris Hip Score (HHS) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are currently lacking. The aim of this study was to define and validate the PASS threshold for the HHS at 3 months, 1, 3, 5, and 7 years after THA. Methods A total of 976 patients from 14 centers in 7 countries were enrolled into a prospective study. Patients completed the HHS and a 21-point numerical rating scale (NRS) for satisfaction at each follow-up interval. PASS thresholds for the HHS were calculated at each follow-up interval using the anchor-based, 80% specificity method. Satisfaction from the NRS served as the anchor. A bootstrapping method was used to internally validate the primary PASS thresholds. External validation was also conducted on patients sourced from the institutional registry of a tertiary academic medical center. Results Based on receiver operator characteristics analysis, the HHS was an excellent predictor of satisfaction at each time point (area under the curve (AUC)>0.8; p Conclusion The current study is the first to present validated PASS thresholds for the HHS at 3 months, 1, 3, 5, and 7 years following THA. These findings will serve as a useful reference for future THA outcome studies and as benchmarks for surgeons in their assessment of their patients’ clinical success.

The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a novel measurement for patients’ awareness of their knee in daily life. By identifying factors that could explain pre-operative FJS levels, the clinician could better prioritize and single out patients who would benefit most from TKA. The aim of this study was to identify possible factors that may explain the variance of pre-operative FJS levels and evaluate the relationship between pre-operative FJS and pre-operative Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Four-hundred and six individual knees undergoing primary TKA between 2014 and 2016 were included in the study. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), pre-operative FJS and pre-operative OKS were obtained maximum 2 weeks prior to surgery. Kellgren–Lawrence (K–L) grade, alignment and joint space width (JSW) were evaluated on pre-operative radiographs. Mean FJS was 21.1 ± 15.6. Females, younger patients and patients with high BMI had significantly the worst pre-operative FJS (p

Background Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for the EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire have been established for patients being evaluated 1 year following total hip arthroplasty (THA) but with varying derivation cohorts and methods. The aim of this study was to (1) generate an EQ-5D PASS threshold 1 year following THA on the basis of an international patient cohort, (2) validate preexisting and newly generated PASS thresholds 1 year following THA using the institutional registry of an academic care center, and (3) assess whether THA PASS thresholds vary by patient age and sex. Methods The derivation cohort for the THA PASS threshold consisted of 774 patients (after exclusions) who were enrolled in an international, multicenter study from 2007 to 2012 and who completed the EQ-5D and a numerical rating scale (NRS) for satisfaction 1 year postoperatively. With the NRS dichotomized at 2.5 as the anchor, a PASS cutoff for the EQ-5D was generated using the 80% specificity method. The Youden method and 75th percentile approach served as sensitivity analyses. The external validation cohort comprised 1,472 patients who had undergone THA. PASS thresholds were used to dichotomize the external validation sample. The ability of the threshold to predict satisfaction was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Patient subcohorts were stratified by age (>65 and ≤65 years) and sex. Results Three THA PASS thresholds of 0.77 (our newly defined threshold), 0.82, and 0.92 were validated in this study. The EQ-5D PASS threshold of 0.77 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.816) best predicted satisfaction 1 year after THA. Subcohort analyses yielded comparable 1-year PASS thresholds for THA between age cohorts and between sex cohorts. Conclusions This study identifies PASS thresholds that best predict patient satisfaction 1 year following THA. Although the varied methodology and patient cohorts used to derive PASS values complicate the comparison of these thresholds, this analysis can help surgeons understand the level of health-related quality of life associated with patient satisfaction following THA. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: The proportion of patients perceiving their symptoms as either acceptable or as a failure of treatment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is unknown. Commonly used outcome scores such as the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) suffer from poor interpretability, and little is known about which scores represent an acceptable or failed postoperative outcome. Purpose: To determine the proportion of patients reporting acceptable symptoms or treatment failure at 6 to 24 months after ACLR and to define KOOS values corresponding to the patients’ perceptions of treatment outcome. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: In 2012, a total of 1197 patients were randomly extracted from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry at 3 postoperative time points: 397 at 6 months, 400 at 12 months, and 400 at 24 months. The inclusion criterion was unilateral primary ACLR. Questions about acceptable symptoms and treatment failure and the KOOS questionnaire were sent to the patients, and those who answered “yes” to the acceptable symptoms question were considered to have acceptable symptoms. Patients who answered “no” to the same question and “yes” to the treatment failure question were considered to have treatment failure. Mean KOOS values and 95% CIs were calculated for each category. Results: A complete data set was obtained from 598 (50%) responders. Fifty-five percent of the patients perceived their symptoms as acceptable at 6-month follow-up versus 66% at 12- to 24-month follow-up. Similarly, 7% at 6-month follow-up perceived their treatment to have failed versus 12% at 12- to 24-month follow-up. Postoperative mean KOOS subscale values ranged from 72 (95% CI, 70-74) to 95 (95% CI, 94-96) for patients with acceptable symptoms and from 28 (95% CI, 22-34) to 71 (95% CI, 65-76) for patients with treatment failure. For both categories, the worst subscale values were seen in the sport and recreation and quality of life subscales and the best in the activities of daily living subscale. Conclusion: Only half of the patients at 6 months and about two-thirds at 1 to 2 years perceived their symptoms as acceptable after ACLR. For these patients, KOOS values reflected no problems to mild problems on average, while for patients reporting treatment failure, KOOS values reflected moderate to severe problems.

This statement aimed at summarising and appraising the available evidence for risk factors, diagnostic tools and non-surgical treatments for patients with meniscal tears. We systematically searched electronic databases using a pragmatic search strategy approach. Included studies were synthesised quantitatively or qualitatively, as appropriate. Strength of evidence was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation framework. Low-quality evidence suggested that overweight (degenerative tears, k=3), male sex (k=4), contact and pivoting sports (k=2), and frequent occupational kneeling/squatting (k=3) were risk factors for meniscal tears. There was low to moderate quality evidence for low to high positive and negative predictive values, depending on the underlying prevalence of meniscal tears for four common diagnostic tests (k=15, n=2474). Seven trials investigated exercise versus surgery (k=2) or the effect of surgery in addition to exercise (k=5) for degenerative meniscal tears. There was moderate level of evidence for exercise improving self-reported pain (Effect Size (ES)−0.51, 95% CI −1.16 to 0.13) and function (ES −0.06, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.11) to the same extent as surgery, and improving muscle strength to a greater extent than surgery (ES −0.45, 95% CI −0.62 to −0.29). High-quality evidence showed no clinically relevant effect of surgery in addition to exercise on pain (ES 0.18, 95% 0.05 to 0.32) and function (ES, 0.13 95% CI −0.03 to 0.28) for patients with degenerative meniscal tears. No randomised trials comparing non-surgical treatments with surgery in patients younger than 40 years of age or patients with traumatic meniscal tears were identified. Diagnosis of meniscal tears is challenging as all clinical diagnostic tests have high risk of misclassification. Exercise therapy should be recommended as the treatment of choice for middle-aged and older patients with degenerative meniscal lesions. Evidence on the best treatment for young patients and patients with traumatic meniscal tears is lacking.

Introduction: In this study we investigated the effect of strength training in patients with limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD) and Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD). Methods: In 2 studies we compared the effect of low-intensity training (LOIT; n = 8) and high-intensity training (HIT; n = 4) in muscles of the upper and lower extremities. Patients were tested for maximal strength and endurance before and after the training program. Results: LOIT training over 6 months resulted in increased biceps strength and endurance. HIT training increased endurance and strength in wrist flexion and extension and in elbow flexion. One patient discontinued HIT training due to muscle soreness and mildly increased plasma CK levels without strength deterioration. Conclusions: Both LOIT and HIT increased muscle strength and endurance in some of the muscles tested and were well tolerated in most patients. Our findings suggest that supervised resistance training may be considered in the management of patients with LGMD2 and BMD. Muscle Nerve, 2013