Search

The goal of the OPTIKNEE consensus is to improve knee and overall health, to prevent osteoarthritis (OA) after a traumatic knee injury. The consensus followed a seven-step hybrid process. Expert groups conducted 7 systematic reviews to synthesise the current evidence and inform recommendations on the burden of knee injuries; risk factors for post-traumatic knee OA; rehabilitation to prevent post-traumatic knee OA; and patient-reported outcomes, muscle function and functional performance tests to monitor people at risk of post-traumatic knee OA. Draft consensus definitions, and clinical and research recommendations were generated, iteratively refined, and discussed at 6, tri-weekly, 2-hour videoconferencing meetings. After each meeting, items were finalised before the expert group (n=36) rated the level of appropriateness for each using a 9-point Likert scale, and recorded dissenting viewpoints through an anonymous online survey. Seven definitions, and 8 clinical recommendations (who to target, what to target and when, rehabilitation approach and interventions, what outcomes to monitor and how) and 6 research recommendations (research priorities, study design considerations, what outcomes to monitor and how) were voted on. All definitions and recommendations were rated appropriate (median appropriateness scores of 7–9) except for two subcomponents of one clinical recommendation, which were rated uncertain (median appropriateness score of 4.5–5.5). Varying levels of evidence supported each recommendation. Clinicians, patients, researchers and other stakeholders may use the definitions and recommendations to advocate for, guide, develop, test and implement person-centred evidence-based rehabilitation programmes following traumatic knee injury, and facilitate data synthesis to reduce the burden of knee post-traumatic knee OA.

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Arthroplasty registries vary in PROM collection and use. Current information about registry collection and use of PROM is important to help improve methods of PROMs data analysis, reporting, comparison, and use toward improving clinical practice. Questions/purposes To characterize PROM collection and use by registries, we asked: (1) What is the current practice of PROM collection by arthroplasty registries that are current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, and are there sufficient similarities in PROM collection between registries to enable useful international comparisons that could inform the improvement of arthroplasty care? (2) How do registries differ in PROM administration and demographic, clinical, and comorbidity index variables collected for case-mix adjustment in data analysis and reporting? (3) What quality assurance methods are used for PROMs, and how are PROM results reported and used by registries? (4) What recommendations to arthroplasty registries may improve PROM reporting and facilitate international comparisons? Methods An electronic survey was developed with questions about registry structure and collection, analysis, reporting, and use of PROM data and distributed to directors or senior administrators of 39 arthroplasty registries that were current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. In all, 64% (25 of 39) of registries responded and completed the survey. Missing responses from incomplete surveys were captured by contacting the registries, and up to three reminder emails were sent to nonresponding registries. Recommendations about PROMs collection were drafted, revised, and approved by the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group members. Results Of the 25 registries that completed the survey, 15 collected generic PROMs, most frequently the EuroQol-5 Dimension survey; 16 collected joint-specific PROMs, most frequently the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; and 11 registries collected a satisfaction item. Most registries administered PROM questionnaires within 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. All 16 registries that collected PROM data collected patient age, sex or gender, BMI, indication for the primary arthroplasty, reason for revision arthroplasty, and a comorbidity index, most often the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. All 16 registries performed regular auditing and reporting of data quality, and most registries reported PROM results to hospitals and linked PROM data to other data sets such as hospital, medication, billing, and emergency care databases. Recommendations for transparent reporting of PROMs were grouped into four categories: demographic and clinical, survey administration, data analysis, and results. Conclusion Although registries differed in PROM collection and use, there were sufficient similarities that may enable useful data comparisons. The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group recommendations identify issues that may be important to most registries such as the need to make decisions about survey times and collection methods, as well as how to select generic and joint-specific surveys, handle missing data and attrition, report data, and ensure representativeness of the sample. Clinical Relevance By collecting PROMs, registries can provide patient-centered data to surgeons, hospitals, and national entities to improve arthroplasty care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportions of patients who (1) perceived their symptoms to be satisfactory, (2) perceived their treatment to have failed, or (3) perceived that they improved to an important degree at 3 months after arthroscopic meniscal surgery; and to determine Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale scores corresponding to the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), treatment failure, and the minimal important change (MIC) for improvement.DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.METHODS: Patients from the Knee Arthroscopy Cohort Southern Denmark who had arthroscopic meniscal surgery were included. The PASS, treatment failure, and MIC improvement values were calculated for the KOOS subscales with anchor-based approaches, using the adjusted predictive modeling method. Subgroup analyses were performed by stratifying by age (40 years or younger versus older than 40 years) and surgery type.RESULTS: Six hundred fourteen patients (44% female; mean ± SD age, 50 ± 13 years) were included. At 3 months after arthroscopic meniscal surgery, 45% of patients perceived their symptoms to be satisfactory, 19% perceived the treatment to have failed, and 44% to 60% perceived that they had improved to an important degree across the 5 KOOS subscales (for PASS/treatment failure, respectively: pain, 74 and 60 points; symptoms, 72 and 61 points; function in activities of daily living, 81 and 68 points; sport and recreational function, 43 and 26 points; and knee-related quality of life, 52 and 40 points; for MIC improvement: pain, 12 points; symptoms, 8 points; function in activities of daily living, 12 points; sport and recreational function, 17 points; and knee-related quality of life, 9 points). The PASS values were 6 to 17 points higher for patients 40 years or younger compared to patients older than 40 years.CONCLUSION: At 3 months after meniscal surgery, approximately half of the patients perceived their symptoms to have improved to an important degree, 4 in every 10 patients perceived their symptoms to be satisfactory, and 2 in every 10 patients perceived the treatment to have failed. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(6):281-288. Epub 30 Jan 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10149.

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.

ObjectiveWe synthesised and assessed credibility (ie, trustworthiness) of thresholds that define meaningful scores for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear or traumatic meniscus injury.DesignSystematic review, narrative synthesis.Data sourcesWe searched five databases, handsearched references of included studies and tracked citations.EligibilityIncluded studies investigated: individuals with ACL tear or meniscus injury; mean age ResultsWe included 18 studies (15 ACL, 3 meniscus). Three different methods were used to calculate anchor-based MICs across 9 PROMs, PASS thresholds across 4 PROMs and treatment failure for 1 PROM. Credibility was rated ‘high’ for only one study—an MIC of 18 for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality-of-life (KOOS-QOL) subscale (using the MID Credibility Assessment Tool). Where multiple thresholds were calculated among ‘low’ credibility thresholds in ACL studies, MICs converged to within a 10-point range for KOOS-Symptoms (−1.2 to 5.4) and function in daily living (activities of daily living, ADL 0.5–8.1) subscales, and the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (7.1–16.2). Other PROM thresholds differed up to 30 points. PASS thresholds converged to within a 10-point range in KOOS-ADL for ACL tears (92.3–100), and KOOS-Symptoms (73-78) and KOOS-QOL (53-57) in meniscus injuries.ConclusionMeaningful PROM thresholds were highly susceptible to study heterogeneity. While PROM thresholds can aid interpretability in research and clinical practice, they should be cautiously interpreted.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Arthroplasty registries vary in PROM collection and use. Current information about registry collection and use of PROMs is important to help improve methods of PROM data analysis, reporting, comparison, and use toward improving clinical practice. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To characterize PROM collection and use by registries, we asked: (1) What is the current practice of PROM collection by arthroplasty registries that are current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, and are there sufficient similarities in PROM collection between registries to enable useful international comparisons that could inform the improvement of arthroplasty care? (2) How do registries differ in PROM administration and demographic, clinical, and comorbidity index variables collected for case-mix adjustment in data analysis and reporting? (3) What quality assurance methods are used for PROMs, and how are PROM results reported and used by registries? (4) What recommendations to arthroplasty registries may improve PROM reporting and facilitate international comparisons? METHODS: An electronic survey was developed with questions about registry structure and collection, analysis, reporting, and use of PROM data and distributed to directors or senior administrators of 39 arthroplasty registries that were current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. In all, 64% (25 of 39) of registries responded and completed the survey. Missing responses from incomplete surveys were captured by contacting the registries, and up to three reminder emails were sent to nonresponding registries. Recommendations about PROM collection were drafted, revised, and approved by the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group members. RESULTS: Of the 25 registries that completed the survey, 15 collected generic PROMs, most frequently the EuroQol-5 Dimension survey; 16 collected joint-specific PROMs, most frequently the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; and 11 registries collected a satisfaction item. Most registries administered PROM questionnaires within 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. All 16 registries that collected PROM data collected patient age, sex or gender, BMI, indication for the primary arthroplasty, reason for revision arthroplasty, and a comorbidity index, most often the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. All 16 registries performed regular auditing and reporting of data quality, and most registries reported PROM results to hospitals and linked PROM data to other data sets such as hospital, medication, billing, and emergency care databases. Recommendations for transparent reporting of PROMs were grouped into four categories: demographic and clinical, survey administration, data analysis, and results. CONCLUSION: Although registries differed in PROM collection and use, there were sufficient similarities that may enable useful data comparisons. The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group recommendations identify issues that may be important to most registries such as the need to make decisions about survey times and collection methods, as well as how to select generic and joint-specific surveys, handle missing data and attrition, report data, and ensure representativeness of the sample. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By collecting PROMs, registries can provide patient-centered data to surgeons, hospitals, and national entities to improve arthroplasty care.

Purpose The minimal important change (MIC) of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is often suspected to be baseline dependent, typically in the sense that patients who are in a poorer baseline health condition need greater improvement to qualify as minimally important. Testing MIC baseline dependency is commonly performed by creating two or more subgroups, stratified on the baseline PROM score. This study’s purpose was to show that this practice produces biased subgroup MIC estimates resulting in spurious MIC baseline dependency, and to develop alternative methods to evaluate MIC baseline dependency. Methods Datasets with PROM baseline and follow-up scores and transition ratings were simulated with and without MIC baseline dependency. Mean change MICs, ROC-based MICs, predictive MICs, and adjusted MICs were estimated before and after stratification on the baseline score. Three alternative methods were developed and evaluated. The methods were applied in a real data example for illustration. Results Baseline stratification resulted in biased subgroup MIC estimates and the false impression of MIC baseline dependency, due to redistribution of measurement error. Two of the alternative methods require a second baseline measurement with the same PROM or another correlated PROM. The third method involves the construction of two parallel tests based on splitting the PROM’s item set. Two methods could be applied to the real data. Conclusion MIC baseline dependency should not be tested in subgroups based on stratification on the baseline PROM score. Instead, one or more of the suggested alternative methods should be used.

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.

Background Bicruciate-retaining TKA has been proposed to improve clinical outcomes by maintaining intrinsic ACL function. However, because the unique design of the bicruciate-retaining tibial component precludes a tibial stem, fixation may be compromised. A radiostereometric analysis permits an evaluation of early migration of tibial components in this setting, but to our knowledge, no such analysis has been performed. Questions/purposes We performed a randomized controlled trial using a radiostereometric analysis and asked, at 2 years: (1) Is there a difference in tibial implant migration between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? In a secondary analysis, we asked: (2) Is there a difference in patient-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Score [OKS] and Forgotten Joint Score [FJS] between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? (3) What is the frequency of reoperations and revisions for the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? Methods This parallel-group trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01966848) randomized 50 patients with an intact ACL who were eligible to undergo TKA to receive either a bicruciate-retaining or cruciate-retaining TKA. Patients were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial component measured with model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) at 2 years postoperatively. The MTPM is a translation vector defined as the point in the RSA model that has the greatest combined translation in x-, y- and z-directions. A 1-year postoperative mean MTPM value of 1.6 mm has been suggested as a threshold for unacceptable increased risk of aseptic loosening after both 5 and 10 years. The repeatability of the MTPM was found to be 0.26 mm in our study. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively with the OKS (scale of 0-48, worst-best) and FJS (scale of 0-100, worst-best). Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. At 2 years postoperatively, RSA images were available for 22 patients who underwent bicruciate-retaining and 23 patients who underwent cruciate-retaining TKA, while patient-reported outcome measures were available for 24 patients in each group. The study was powered to detect a 0.2-mm difference in MTPM between groups (SD = 0.2, significance level = 5%, power = 80%). Results With the numbers available, we found no difference in MTPM between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining groups. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) MTPM was 0.52 mm (0.35 to 1.02) and 0.42 mm (0.34 to 0.70) in the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining groups, respectively (p = 0.63). There was no difference in the magnitude of improvement in the OKS from preoperatively to 2 years postoperative between the groups (median delta [IQR] for bicruciate-retaining 18 [14 to 23] versus cruciate-retaining 18 [15 to 21], difference of medians 0; p = 0.96). Likewise, there was no difference in the magnitude of improvement in the FJS score from preoperatively to 2 years postoperative between the groups (mean ± SD for bicruciate-retaining 46 ± 32 versus cruciate-retaining 48 ± 16, mean difference, 2; p = 0.80). Three patients in the bicruciate-retaining group underwent arthroscopically assisted manipulation at 3 to 4 months postoperatively, and one patient in the bicruciate-retaining group sustained a tibial island fracture during primary surgery and underwent a revision procedure after 6 months. There were no reoperations or revisions in the cruciate-retaining group. Conclusions With the numbers available, we found no differences between the bicruciate-retaining and the cruciate-retaining implants in terms of stable fixation on RSA or patient-reported outcome measure scores at 2 years, and must therefore recommend against the routine clinical use of the bicruciate-retaining device. The complications we observed with the bicruciate-retaining device suggest it has an associated learning curve and the associated risks of novelty with no demonstrable benefit to the patient; it is also likely to be more expensive in most centers. Continued research on this implant should only be performed in the context of controlled trials. Level of evidence Level II, therapeutic study.

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.

Objective This study introduces a new method to establish clinical thresholds for multi-item tests, based on item response theory (IRT), as an alternative to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The performance of IRT method was examined and compared with the ROC method across multiple simulated data sets and in a real data set. Study Design and Setting Simulated data sets (sample size: 1,000) varied in means and variability of the test scores and the prevalence of disease. The true clinical threshold was defined as a predetermined location on the latent trait underlying the questionnaire, with its corresponding expected test score. The real data set (sample size: 295) comprised Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) depression scores and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition major depressive disorder (MDD) diagnoses. Results The IRT method recovered the clinical thresholds without bias, whereas the ROC method identified thresholds that were biased by the prevalence of disease. Mild MDD was clinically diagnosed in 23%, moderate MDD in 12%, and severe MDD in 14% of the participants. The IRT method identified the following HADS depression score thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe MDD: 10.7, 13.2, and 15.1, respectively. Conclusion The new IRT method identifies clinical thresholds that are unbiased by disease prevalence.

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.

Acute high-risk abdominal (AHA) surgery is associated with high mortality, multiple postoperative complications and prolonged hospital stay. Further development of strategies for enhanced recovery programs following AHA surgery is needed. The aim of this study was to describe physical performance and barriers to independent mobilization among patients who received AHA surgery (postoperative days [POD] 1-7).Patients undergoing AHA surgery were consecutively enrolled from a university hospital in Denmark. In the first postoperative week, all patients were evaluated daily with regards to physical performance, using the Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS; 0-6 points) to assess basic mobility and the activPAL monitor to assess the 24-hour physical activity level. We recorded barriers to independent mobilization.Fifty patients undergoing AHA surgery (mean age 61.4 ± 17.2 years) were included. Seven patients died within the first postoperative week, and 15 of 43 (35%) patients were still not independently mobilized (CAS6) on POD-7, which was associated with pulmonary complications developing (53% v. 14% in those with CAS = 6,Patients who receive AHA surgery have very limited physical performance in the first postoperative week. Barriers to independent mobilization are primarily fatigue and abdominal pain. Further studies investigating strategies for early mobilization and barriers to mobilization in the immediate postoperative period after AHA surgery are needed.La chirurgie abdominale d'urgence à risque élevé est associée à un fort taux de mortalité, à des complications postopératoires multiples et à des hospitalisations prolongées. Il est donc nécessaire d'élaborer de nouvelles stratégies pour améliorer le rétablissement après ce type de chirurgie. La présente étude visait à décrire le fonctionnement physique et les obstacles aux déplacements autonomes chez les patients ayant subi une chirurgie de ce type (jours postopératoires 1 à 7).Nous avons recruté successivement les patients subissant une chirurgie abdominale d'urgence à risque élevé dans un hôpital universitaire du Danemark. Durant la première semaine postopératoire, tous les patients ont subi quotidiennement une évaluation visant à vérifier leur fonctionnement physique. Nous nous sommes servis du Cumulated Ambulation Score (CAS; de 0 à 6 points) pour évaluer la mobilité de base et du moniteur activPAL pour évaluer le niveau d'activé physique 24 heures par jour. Nous avons noté les obstacles aux déplacements autonomes.Cinquante patients (âge moyen : 61,4 ans ± 17,2) ont été retenus. Sept sont décédés durant la première semaine postopératoire, et 15 des 43 patients restants (35 %) ne se déplaçaient pas encore de façon autonome (CAS6) le septième jour, une situation associée à l'apparition de complications pulmonaires (53 % c. 14 % de ceux qui avaient un CAS de 6,Les patients qui subissent une chirurgie abdominale d'urgence à risque élevé ont un fonctionnement physique très faible durant la première semaine postopératoire. Les obstacles aux déplacements autonomes sont principalement la fatigue et la douleur abdominale. Il faudra d'autres études sur les stratégies de mobilisation précoces et les obstacles aux déplacements peu après une chirurgie abdominale d'urgence à risque élevé.

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 primary aim is to identify the degree to which patient satisfaction with the outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) changes between 1 and 3 years from the procedure. The secondary aim is to identify variables associated with satisfaction.Data were sourced from 2 prospective international, multicenter studies (919 THA and 450 TKA patients). Satisfaction was assessed by a 10-point numerical rating scale, at 1- and 3-year follow-up. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess factors associated with satisfaction.For the THA cohort, higher preoperative joint space width (odds ratio [OR] = 0.28; P = .004), pain from other joints (OR = 0.26; P = .033), and lower preoperative health state (OR = -0.02; P.001) were associated with consistently lower levels of satisfaction. The model also showed that patients with preoperative anxiety/depression improved in satisfaction between 1 and 3 years (OR = -0.26; P = .031). For the TKA cohort, anterior (vs neutral or posterior) tibial component slope (OR = 0.90; P = .008), greater femoral component valgus angle (OR = 0.05; P = .012), less severe osteoarthritis (OR = -0.10; P .001), and lower preoperative health state (OR = -0.02; P = .003) were associated with lower levels of satisfaction across the study period. In addition, patients with anterior tibial component slope improved in satisfaction level over time (OR = -0.33; P = .022).Changes in satisfaction following THA and TKA are rare between 1- and 3-year follow-up. The findings of this study can be used to guide patient counseling preoperatively and to determine intervals of routine follow-up postoperatively.

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.

Meniscal tears are common, and surgery to treat meniscal tears is one of the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedures.1 Recent evidence has challenged the clinical dogma of surgery as treatment for meniscal tears in patients aged 40 years or older, with exercise therapy emerging as a valid treatment alternative.2 3 When treating meniscal tears, it is likely important to take the aetiology of the tear into account. Tears are typically categorised as traumatic or degenerative. Traumatic tears are most often observed in young sports active individuals and present as a tear to an otherwise healthy meniscus.4 Degenerative lesions are more common in middle-aged and older individuals and considered to be an early sign of knee osteoarthritis.5 Importantly, 60%–70% of meniscal surgeries are performed in patients aged 40 years or older, suggesting that most surgically treated meniscal tears are likely of degenerative nature.1 …

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

INTRODUCTION: The Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) programme consists of patient education and supervised exercise therapy and adheres to clinical guidelines for knee osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of this study was to present the treatment choice and clinical results of patients who were advised to participate in GLA:D before deciding on undergoing knee replacement.METHODS: Patient records from all patients with knee OA consulting one orthopaedic surgeon in 2015 were reviewed to identify those who were advised to seek GLA:D. Radiologic OA was classified with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 0-4: none-severe. Results after three months were extracted from the GLA:D database, including a visual analogue scale (VAS) for knee pain 0-100: best-poorest.RESULTS: Out of 142 patients with primary referrals due to knee OA, 83 (58.5%) were advised to participate in GLA:D. They had a mean age of 65.0 years (standard deviation (SD): ± 10.7), 59 (71.1%) were female, 34 (44.8%) had a KL grade 3-4 and were either not eligible for surgery or awaiting surgical decision. Only 18 (22%) participated in GLA:D, out of whom 14 (16.9%) had available three-month data. They improved (mean (SD)) from 61.4 (± 18.6) to 42.7 (± 25.1) (p < 0.001) with respect to VAS pain after three months.CONCLUSIONS: Few patients followed the surgeon's advice on GLA:D participation, indicating that treatment with GLA:D is underutilised. The pain reduction found in GLA:D participants confirms that patient education and supervised exercise therapy are beneficial prior to deciding on knee replacement, or if surgery is not indicated.FUNDING: none.TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

INTRODUCTION: Stakeholder involvement in research is emphasised to improve relevance. We aimed to identify, define and prioritise important research topics seen from the point of view of people with osteoarthritis (OA).METHODS: We invited 1,315 members of the user panel of the Danish Rheumatism Association to answer an electronic survey that included; 1) an open-ended question about important research topics (free-text response option), 2) 15 predefined research topics to be rated for importance and 3) predefined topics grouped into four categories in which the most important was prioritised. Free-text responses were analysed using content analysis.RESULTS: Out of 850 (65%) respondents, 483 had OA (mean ± standard deviation age 60.3 ± 10.2 years, 91% female). From the free-text responses, we identified seven research topics; 1) diagnostics, 2) prevention, 3) side effects, 4) treatment, 5) aetiology, 6) being young with OA and 7) quality of life. For "treatment", we identified seven subtopics. Out of all topics and subtopics, "pain management" was the most frequently highlighted. All predefined topics were rated as "very important" or "somewhat important" by more than 75% of the respondents. The top prioritised topics within each category were 1) improving the diagnosis, 2) individualised treatment, 3) shared decision-making and 4) cross-sector collaboration and collaboration between professionals.CONCLUSIONS: We identified research topics that were important in the eyes of people with OA and found that "pain management" was particularly emphasised.FUNDING: none.TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.

INTRODUCTION. The coronavirus outbreak causes postponement of elective surgery. We evaluated how pain, function and general health were impacted by postponing elective knee and hip arthroplasty in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis with no known surgery rescheduling date due to the coronavirus outbreak. METHODS. This study included 194 patients from a Danish public hospital with postponed elective primary knee or hip arthroplasty due to the lockdown. Patients responded to questionnaires when their surgery was cancelled and before surgery. Changes in pain and function were evaluated with the Oxford Knee and Hip Scores (OKS, OHS) and their general health with the EuroQol 5-dimension scale (EQ5D). Additionally, we asked about the patients’ concerns and whether they felt improved, unchanged or deteriorated during the waiting period. RESULTS. Complete data were obtained for 110 (57%) patients, 59 and 51 awaiting knee or hip arthroplasty (median age 71 years, 62% were female), respectively. Arthroplasty was postponed for a median (range) 98 (63-161) days. A total of 34% were concerned that the postponement would lead to a poorer outcome. Mean OKS and OHS differences were 0 (95% confidence interval (CI): –1-1) and –1 (95% CI: –2-0) from surgery cancellation to re-scheduled surgery. The mean EQ5D index difference was 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0-0.1) for both groups. A total of 75 (68%) patients felt an important deterioration of their condition. CONCLUSIONS. Pre-operatively, patients worried about experiencing an altered treatment outcome due to postponed surgery and felt that their condition had deteriorated during the waiting period although this was not reflected in patient-reported outcome measures.