Evaluation of clinical outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament surgery

Clinical outcomes data can be used to facilitate patient management decisions, assess clinician and organizational performance, and to provide evidence for the effectiveness of surgery and rehabilitation. The validity of the inferences made from outcomes data are dependent on the validity of the outcomes measures themselves and the circumstances under which the data were collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Clinical outcomes may include measures of impairment of body structure and function, activity limitation, and participation restriction. However, because the relationship between impairment and the resulting activity limitation and participation restriction is not direct, and because activity limitations and participation restrictions are of the utmost concern to the athlete, the primary clinical outcome should be measures of activity limitation and participation restriction. Activity limitation and participation restriction may be measured either through direct observation of performance or by general or specific measures of health related quality of life. Clinical outcomes data must be collected systematically to ensure valid inferences from the data.     

Comparison of arthroscopic and open anterior shoulder stabilization. A two to six-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND: Sixty-three consecutive patients with recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability underwent operative repair. The decision to select either arthroscopic Bankart repair or open capsular shift was based on the findings of an examination under anesthesia and the findings at the time of arthroscopy. Thirty-nine patients with only anterior translation on examination under anesthesia and a discrete Bankart lesion underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with use of absorbable transfixing implants. Twenty-four patients with inferior translation in addition to anterior translation on examination under anesthesia and capsular laxity or injury on arthroscopy underwent an open capsular shift. METHODS: Treatment outcomes for each group were determined according to the scoring systems of Rowe et al., the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and the Short Form-36. Failure was defined as recurrence of dislocation or subluxation or the finding of apprehension. Fifty-nine (94 percent) of the sixty-three patients were examined and filled out a questionnaire at a mean of fifty-four months (range, twenty-seven to seventy-two months) following surgery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the prevalence of failure or any of the other measured parameters of outcome. An unsatisfactory outcome occurred after nine (24 percent) of thirty-seven arthroscopic repairs and after four (18 percent) of twenty-two open reconstructions. All cases of recurrent instability resulted from a reinjury in a contact sport or a fall less than two years postoperatively. The treatment groups did not differ with regard to patient age, hand dominance, mechanism of initial injury, duration of follow-up, or delay until surgery. Measured losses of motion were minimal and, with the exception of forward elevation, slightly more of which was lost after the open capsular shifts (p = 0.05), did not differ between the two forms of treatment. Approximately 75 percent of the patients in each group returned to their favorite recreational sports with no or mild limitations. As rated by the patients, the result was good or excellent after thirty-one (84 percent) of the arthroscopic procedures and after twenty (91 percent) of the open procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic and open repair techniques for the treatment of recurrent traumatic shoulder instability yield comparable results if the procedure is selected on the basis of the pathological findings at the time of surgery.     

Diagnostic performance of four SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays in patients with COVID-19 or with bacterial and non-SARS-CoV-2 viral respiratory infections

European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases - SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays are used for epidemiological studies and for the assessment of vaccine responses in highly...     

A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The quality of a disability scale should dictate when it is used. The purposes of this study were to examine the validity of a global rating of change as a reflection of meaningful change in patient status and to compare the measurement properties of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW) and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QUE). SUBJECTS: Sixty-seven patients with acute, work-related low back pain referred for physical therapy participated in the study. METHODS: The 2 scales were administered initially and after 4 weeks of physical therapy. The Physical Impairment Index, a measure of physical impairment due to low back pain, was measured initially and after 2 and 4 weeks. A global rating of change survey instrument was completed by each subject after 4 weeks. RESULTS: An interaction existed between patients defined as improved or stable based on the global rating using a 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures on the impairment index. The modified OSW showed higher levels of test-retest reliability and responsiveness compared with the QUE. The minimum clinically important difference, defined as the amount of change that best distinguishes between patients who have improved and those remaining stable, was approximately 6 points for the modified OSW and approximately 15 points for the QUE. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: The construct validity of the global rating of change was supported by the stability of the Physical Impairment Index across the study period in patients defined as stable by the global rating and by the decrease in physical impairment across the study period in patients defined as improved by the global rating. The modified OSW demonstrated superior measurement properties compared with the QUE.     

Rehabilitation of the multiple-ligament-injured knee

Rehabilitation for a patient with a multiple-ligament knee injury should be designed to reduce pain and swelling, restore range of motion, strength, and endurance, and to enhance proprioception, and dynamic stability of the knee, with the goals of restoring function and minimizing disability. The biomechanics of the knee must be considered when designing a rehabilitation program. General guidelines for rehabilitation of the multiple-ligament-injured knee include considerations for promoting tissue healing, decreasing pain and swelling, restoring full motion, increasing muscular strength and endurance, improving proprioception, enhancing dynamic stability of the knee, and reducing functional limitations and disability. A patient's progression through this sequence must be individualized and depends on the pattern of ligament injury or surgical procedure that was performed, and the principles of tissue healing. Specific guidelines for rehabilitation following ACL reconstruction combined with MCL repair, PCL reconstruction, combined ACL-PCL reconstruction, and reconstruction of the LCL and posterolateral corner have been provided.     

Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form

A committee of international knee experts created the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, which is a knee-specific, rather than a disease-specific, measure of symptoms, function, and sports activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the new International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. To provide evidence for reliability and validity, we administered the final version of the form, along with the Short Form-36, to 533 patients with a variety of knee problems. Analyses were performed to determine reliability, validity, and differential item function related to age, sex, and diagnosis. Factor analysis revealed a single dominant component, making it reasonable to combine all questions into a single score. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were 0.92 and 0.95, respectively. Based on test-retest reliability, the value for a true change in the score was 9.0 points. The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form score was related to concurrent measures of physical function (r = 0.47 to 0.66) but not to emotional function (r = 0.16 to 0.26). Analysis of differential item function indicated that the questions functioned similarly for men versus women, young versus old, and for those with different diagnoses. In conclusion, the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form is a reliable and valid knee-specific measure of symptoms, function, and sports activity that is appropriate for patients with a wide variety of knee problems. Use of this instrument will permit comparisons of outcome across groups with different knee problems.     

Evidence of validity for the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM)

BACKGROUND: There is no universally accepted instrument that can be used to evaluate changes in self-reported physical function for individuals with leg, ankle, and foot musculoskeletal disorders. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument to meet this need: the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM). Additionally, this study was designed to provide validity evidence for interpretation of FAAM scores. METHODS: Final item reduction was completed using item response theory with 1027 subjects. Validity evidence was provided by 164 subjects that were expected to change and 79 subjects that were expected to remain stable. These subjects were given the FAAM and SF-36 to complete on two occasions 4 weeks apart. RESULTS: The final version of the FAAM consists of the 21-item activities of daily living (ADL) and 8-item Sports subscales, which together produced information across the spectrum ability. Validity evidence was provided for test content, internal structure, score stability, and responsiveness. Test retest reliability was 0.89 and 0.87 for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. The minimal detectable change based on a 95% confidence interval was +/-5.7 and +/--12.3 points for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA and ROC analysis found both the ADL and Sports subscales were responsive to changes in status (p < 0.05). The minimal clinically important differences were 8 and 9 points for the ADL and Sports subscales, respectively. Guyatt responsive index and ROC analysis found the ADL subscale was more responsive than general measures of physical function while the Sports subscale was not. The ADL and Sport subscales demonstrated strong relationships with the SF-36 physical function subscale (r = 0.84, 0.78) and physical component summary score (r = 0.78, 0.80) and weak relationships with the SF-36 mental function subscale (r = 0.18, 0.11) and mental component summary score (r = 0.05, -0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The FAAM is a reliable, responsive, and valid measure of physical function for individuals with a broad range of musculoskeletal disorders of the lower leg, foot, and ankle.