Ewa M. Roos

The Long-term Consequence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Meniscus Injuries Osteoarthritis

The objectives of this study are to review the long-term consequences of injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament and menisci, the pathogenic mechanisms, and the causes of the considerable variability in outcome. Injuries of the anterior cruciate ligament and menisci are common in both athletes and the general population. At 10 to 20 years after the diagnosis, on average, 50% of those with a diagnosed anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus tear have osteoarthritis with associated pain and functional impairment: the young patient with an old knee. These individuals make up a substantial proportion of the overall osteoarthritis population. There is a lack of evidence to support a protective role of repair or reconstructive surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus against osteoarthritis development. A consistent finding in a review of the literature is the often poor reporting of critical study variables, precluding data pooling or a meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis development in the injured joints is caused by intra-articular pathogenic processes initiated at the time of injury, combined with long-term changes in dynamic joint loading. Variation in outcome is reinforced by additional variables associated with the individual such as age, sex, genetics, obesity, muscle strength, activity, and reinjury. A better understanding of these variables may improve future prevention and treatment strategies. In evaluating medical treatment, we now expect large randomized clinical trials complemented by postmarketing monitoring. We should strive toward a comparable level of quality of evidence in surgical treatment of knee injuries. In instances in which a randomized clinical trial is not feasible, natural history and other observational cohort studies need to be as carefully designed and reported as the classic randomized clinical trial, to yield useful information.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE To develop concise, up-to-date, patient-focused, evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), intended to inform patients, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals worldwide. METHOD Thirteen experts from relevant medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopedics, physical therapy, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and evidence-based medicine), three continents and ten countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and Canada) and a patient representative comprised the Osteoarthritis Guidelines Development Group (OAGDG). Based on previous OA guidelines and a systematic review of the OA literature, 29 treatment modalities were considered for recommendation. Evidence published subsequent to the 2010 OARSI guidelines was based on a systematic review conducted by the OA Research Society International (OARSI) evidence team at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were initially searched in first quarter 2012 and last searched in March 2013. Included evidence was assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria, and published criticism of included evidence was also considered. To provide recommendations for individuals with a range of health profiles and OA burden, treatment recommendations were stratified into four clinical sub-phenotypes. Consensus recommendations were produced using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Delphi voting process. Treatments were recommended as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Not Appropriate, for each of four clinical sub-phenotypes and accompanied by 1-10 risk and benefit scores. RESULTS Appropriate treatment modalities for all individuals with knee OA included biomechanical interventions, intra-articular corticosteroids, exercise (land-based and water-based), self-management and education, strength training, and weight management. Treatments appropriate for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acetaminophen (paracetamol), balneotherapy, capsaicin, cane (walking stick), duloxetine, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; COX-2 selective and non-selective), and topical NSAIDs. Treatments of uncertain appropriateness for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acupuncture, avocado soybean unsaponfiables, chondroitin, crutches, diacerein, glucosamine, intra-articular hyaluronic acid, opioids (oral and transdermal), rosehip, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound. Treatments voted not appropriate included risedronate and electrotherapy (neuromuscular electrical stimulation). CONCLUSION These evidence-based consensus recommendations provide guidance to patients and practitioners on treatments applicable to all individuals with knee OA, as well as therapies that can be considered according to individualized patient needs and preferences.

The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis

The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was developed as an extension of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index with the purpose of evaluating short-term and long-term symptoms and function in subjects with knee injury and osteoarthritis. The KOOS holds five separately scored subscales: Pain, other Symptoms, Function in daily living (ADL), Function in Sport and Recreation (Sport/Rec), and knee-related Quality of Life (QOL). The KOOS has been validated for several orthopaedic interventions such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, meniscectomy and total knee replacement. In addition the instrument has been used to evaluate physical therapy, nutritional supplementation and glucosamine supplementation. The effect size is generally largest for the subscale QOL followed by the subscale Pain. The KOOS is a valid, reliable and responsive self-administered instrument that can be used for short-term and long-term follow-up of several types of knee injury including osteoarthritis. The measure is relatively new and further use of the instrument will add knowledge and suggest areas that need to be further explored and improved.

Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement

BackgroundThe Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is an extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthrtis Index (WOMAC), the most commonly used outcome instrument for assessment of patient-relevant treatment effects in osteoarthritis. KOOS was developed for younger and/or more active patients with knee injury and knee osteoarthritis and has in previous studies on these groups been the more responsive instrument compared to the WOMAC. Some patients eligible for total knee replacement have expectations of more demanding physical functions than required for daily living. This encouraged us to study the use of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) to assess the outcome of total knee replacement.MethodsWe studied the test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Swedish version LK 1.0 of the KOOS when used to prospectively evaluate the outcome of 105 patients (mean age 71.3, 66 women) after total knee replacement. The follow-up rates at 6 and 12 months were 92% and 86%, respectively.ResultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients were over 0.75 for all subscales indicating sufficient test-retest reliability. Bland-Altman plots confirmed this finding. Over 90% of the patients regarded improvement in the subscales Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, and knee-related Quality of Life to be extremely or very important when deciding to have their knee operated on indicating good content validity. The correlations found in comparison to the SF-36 indicated the KOOS measured expected constructs. The most responsive subscale was knee-related Quality of Life. The effect sizes of the five KOOS subscales at 12 months ranged from 1.08 to 3.54 and for the WOMAC from 1.65 to 2.56.ConclusionThe Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is a valid, reliable, and responsive outcome measure in total joint replacement. In comparison to the WOMAC, the KOOS improved validity and may be at least as responsive as the WOMAC.

Knee osteoarthritis after meniscectomy : Prevalence of radiographic changes after twenty-one years, compared with matched controls

OBJECTIVE To study the long-term outcome of surgical removal of a meniscus in the knee with regard to radiographic signs of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS Of the 123 patients who underwent an open meniscectomy due to an isolated meniscus tear in 1973 at Lund University Hospital, 107 were followed up 21 years later by clinical examination and by review of knee radiographs obtained with weight bearing. Seventy-nine of the 107 patients were men, and the mean age of the total study group at examination was 55 years (range 35-77). Sixty-eight sex- and age-matched individuals with healthy knees served as controls. RESULTS Mild radiographic changes were found in 76 (71%) of the knees, while more advanced changes, comparable with a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2 or higher, were seen in 51 (48%). The corresponding prevalence values in the control group were 12 (18%) and 5 (7%), respectively. The relative risk for the presence of the more advanced radiographic changes representing definite radiographic tibiofemoral OA was 14.0 (95% confidence interval 3.5-121.2), using age- and sex-matched pairs for comparison. No correlation with sex, localization to compartment, type of meniscus tear, or work load was found. Knee symptoms were reported twice as often in the study group as in the controls. CONCLUSION Surgical removal of a meniscus following knee injury represents a significant risk factor for radiographic tibiofemoral OA, with a relative risk of 14.0 after 21 years.

Non-contact ACL injuries in female athletes: an International Olympic Committee current concepts statement

The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury remains high in young athletes. Because female athletes have a much higher incidence of ACL injuries in sports such as basketball and team handball than male athletes, the IOC Medical Commission invited a multidisciplinary group of ACL expert clinicians and scientists to (1) review current evidence including data from the new Scandinavian ACL registries; (2) critically evaluate high-quality studies of injury mechanics; (3) consider the key elements of successful prevention programmes; (4) summarise clinical management including surgery and conservative management; and (5) identify areas for further research. Risk factors for female athletes suffering ACL injury include: (1) being in the preovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle compared with the postovulatory phase; (2) having decreased intercondylar notch width on plain radiography; and (3) developing increased knee abduction moment (a valgus intersegmental torque) during impact on landing. Well-designed injury prevention programmes reduce the risk of ACL for athletes, particularly women. These programmes attempt to alter dynamic loading of the tibiofemoral joint through neuromuscular and proprioceptive training. They emphasise proper landing and cutting techniques. This includes landing softly on the forefoot and rolling back to the rearfoot, engaging knee and hip flexion and, where possible, landing on two feet. Players are trained to avoid excessive dynamic valgus of the knee and to focus on the “knee over toe position” when cutting.

Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate if physical functions usually associated with a younger population were of importance for an older population, and to construct an outcome measure for hip osteoarthritis with improved responsiveness compared to the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis score (WOMAC LK 3.0).MethodsA 40 item questionnaire (hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score, HOOS) was constructed to assess patient-relevant outcomes in five separate subscales (pain, symptoms, activity of daily living, sport and recreation function and hip related quality of life). The HOOS contains all WOMAC LK 3.0 questions in unchanged form. The HOOS was distributed to 90 patients with primary hip osteoarthritis (mean age 71.5, range 49–85, 41 females) assigned for total hip replacement for osteoarthritis preoperatively and at six months follow-up.ResultsThe HOOS met set criteria of validity and responsiveness. It was more responsive than WOMAC regarding the subscales pain (SRM 2.11 vs. 1.83) and other symptoms (SRM 1.83 vs. 1.28). The responsiveness (SRM) for the two added subscales sport and recreation and quality of life were 1.29 and 1.65, respectively. Patients ≤ 66 years of age (range 49–66) reported higher responsiveness in all five subscales than patients >66 years of age (range 67–85) (Pain SRM 2.60 vs. 1.97, other symptoms SRM 3.0 vs. 1.60, activity of daily living SRM 2.51 vs. 1.52, sport and recreation function SRM 1.53 vs. 1.21 and hip related quality of life SRM 1.95 vs. 1.57).ConclusionThe HOOS 2.0 appears to be useful for the evaluation of patient-relevant outcome after THR and is more responsive than the WOMAC LK 3.0. The added subscales sport and recreation function and hip related quality of life were highly responsive for this group of patients, with the responsiveness being highest for those younger than 66.

Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) ‐ validation of a Swedish version

The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is a self‐administered instrument measuring outcome after knee injury at impairment, disability, and handicap level in five subscales. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a Swedish version was assessed in 142 patients who underwent arthroscopy because of injury to the menisci, anterior cruciate ligament, or cartilage of the knee. The clinimetric properties were found to be good and comparable to the American version of the KOOS. Comparison to the Short Form‐36 and the Lysholm knee scoring scale revealed expected correlations and construct validity. Item by item, symptoms and functional limitations were compared between diagnostic groups. High responsiveness was found three months after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for all subscales but Activities of Daily Living.

A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of the knee is unknown. METHODS We conducted a randomized, controlled trial involving 121 young, active adults with acute ACL injury in which we compared two strategies: structured rehabilitation plus early ACL reconstruction and structured rehabilitation with the option of later ACL reconstruction if needed. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to 2 years in the average score on four subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--pain, symptoms, function in sports and recreation, and knee-related quality of life (KOOS(4); range of scores, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]). Secondary outcomes included results on all five KOOS subscales, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and the score on the Tegner Activity Scale. RESULTS Of 62 subjects assigned to rehabilitation plus early ACL reconstruction, 1 did not undergo surgery. Of 59 assigned to rehabilitation plus optional delayed ACL reconstruction, 23 underwent delayed ACL reconstruction; the other 36 underwent rehabilitation alone. The absolute change in the mean KOOS(4) score from baseline to 2 years was 39.2 points for those assigned to rehabilitation plus early ACL reconstruction and 39.4 for those assigned to rehabilitation plus optional delayed reconstruction (absolute between-group difference, 0.2 points; 95% confidence interval, -6.5 to 6.8; P=0.96 after adjustment for the baseline score). There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups with respect to secondary outcomes. Adverse events were common in both groups. The results were similar when the data were analyzed according to the treatment actually received. CONCLUSIONS In young, active adults with acute ACL tears, a strategy of rehabilitation plus early ACL reconstruction was not superior to a strategy of rehabilitation plus optional delayed ACL reconstruction. The latter strategy substantially reduced the frequency of surgical reconstructions. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Medical Faculty of Lund University and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN84752559.)

Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction.

We studied the validity and reliability of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) when used to evaluate the outcome of 213 patients (mean age 40 years, 85 females) who underwent anatomical reconstruction of the lateral ankle ligaments with an average postoperative follow-up of 12 years (range, three to 24 years). The FAOS is a 42-item questionnaire assessing patient-relevant outcomes in five separate subscales (Pain, Other Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, Sport and Recreation Function, Foot- and Ankle-Related Quality of Life). The FAOS met set criteria of validity and reliability. The FAOS appears to be useful for the evaluation of patient-relevant outcomes related to ankle reconstruction.