Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are one of the most common traumatic knee injuries experienced by athletes. Return to sport is considered the pinnacle endpoint among patients receiving ACL reconstruction. However, at the time of return to sport, patients may not be participating at their previous levels of function, as defined by clinical metrics.
Purpose:
To establish when patients perceive maximal subjective medical improvement according to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
Study Design:
Systematic review.
Methods:
A systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted to identify studies that reported sequential PROMs up to a minimum of 2 years after ACL reconstruction. Pooled analysis was conducted for PROMs at follow-up points of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Clinically significant improvement was determined between pairs of intervals with the minimal clinically important difference.
Results:
This review contains 30 studies including 2253 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Clinically significant improvement in the KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) was seen up to 1 year after ACL reconstruction, but no clinical significance was noted from 1 to 2 years. Clinically significant improvement in the IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) and Lysholm questionnaires was seen up to 6 months postoperatively, but no clinical significance was noted beyond that.
Conclusion:
After ACL reconstruction, maximal subjective medical improvement is established 1 year postoperatively, with no further perceived clinical improvement beyond this time point according to current PROMs. The KOOS may be a more responsive metric to subjective improvements in this patient cohort than other patient-reported outcomes, such as the IKDC and Lysholm.
Clinical Relevance:
After ACL reconstruction, patients perceive interval subjective improvements until 1 year postoperatively.
ArdernCLWebsterKETaylorNFFellerJA.Return to the preinjury level of competitive sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: two-thirds of patients have not returned by 12 months after surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(3):538-543.
2.
AuneAKHolmIRisbergMAJensenHKSteenH.Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft compared with patellar tendon-bone autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized study with two-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(6):722-728.
3.
BallalMSKhanYHastieGHatcherACooganSMcNicholasMJ.Functional outcome of primary hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with different body mass index classes. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(8):1314-1321.
4.
BeynnonBDJohnsonRJNaudS, et al. Accelerated versus nonaccelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation evaluating knee joint laxity using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(12):2536-2548.
5.
BeynnonBDUhBSJohnsonRJ, et al. Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of programs administered over 2 different time intervals. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(3):347-359.
6.
BhatiaSPiaseckiDPNhoSJ, et al. Early return to work in workers’ compensation patients after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(8):1027-1034.
7.
BozicKJBelkoraJChanV, et al. Shared decision making in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1633-1639.
8.
DavisJCBryanS.Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have arrived in sports and exercise medicine: why do they matter?Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(24):1545-1546.
9.
Del TortoMEneaDPanfoliNFilardoGPaceNChiusaroliM. Hamstrings anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without platelet rich fibrin matrix. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(12):3614-3622.
10.
EllmanMBShermanSLForsytheBLaPradeRFColeBJBachBRJr.Return to play following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015;23(5):283-296.
11.
FeuchtMJCoticMSaierT, et al. Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(1):201-207.
12.
FinkCBenedettoKPHacklWHoserCFreundMCRiegerM.Bioabsorbable polyglyconate interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective computed tomography–controlled study. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(5):491-498.
13.
GhalayiniSRHelmATBonshahiAYLavenderAJohnsonDSSmithRB.Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament surgery: results of autogenous patellar tendon graft versus the Leeds-Keio synthetic graft five year follow-up of a prospective randomised controlled trial. Knee. 2010;17(5):334-339.
14.
GrazianoJChiaiaTde MillePNawabiDHGreenDWCordascoFA.Return to sport for skeletally immature athletes after ACL reconstruction: preventing a second injury using a quality of movement assessment and quantitative measures to address modifiable risk factors. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(4):2325967117700599.
15.
HamblyKGrivaK.IKDC or KOOS: which one captures symptoms and disabilities most important to patients who have undergone initial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(7):1395-1404.
16.
HillPFRussellVJSalmonLJPinczewskiLA.The influence of supplementary tibial fixation on laxity measurements after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons in female patients. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(1):94-101.
17.
HsuJENackeEParkMJSennettBJHuffmanGR.The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in intercollegiate athletes: validity limited by ceiling effect. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(3):349-354.
18.
JagodzinskiMGeigesBvon FalckC, et al. Biodegradable screw versus a press-fit bone plug fixation for hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(3):501-508.
19.
JarvelaTMoisalaASSihvonenRJarvelaSKannusPJarvinenM.Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts and bioabsorbable interference screw fixation: prospective, randomized, clinical study with 2-year results. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(2):290-297.
20.
JevsevarDSSandersJBozicKJBrownGA.An introduction to clinical significance in orthopaedic outcomes research. JBJS Rev. 2015;3(5):01874474-201503050-00002.
21.
KahlenbergCANwachukwuBUFerraroRASchairerWWSteinhausMEAllenAA.How are we measuring patient satisfaction after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(12):2325967116673971.
22.
KatzNPPaillardFCEkmanE.Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:24.
23.
KautznerJKosPHanusMTrcTHavlasV.A comparison of ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon versus hamstring autograft in female patients: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop. 2015;39(1):125-130.
24.
KogaHMunetaTYagishitaK, et al. Effect of notchplasty in anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(8):1813-1821.
25.
LaiCCHArdernCLFellerJAWebsterKE. Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes return to preinjury sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis of return to sport rates, graft rupture rates and performance outcomes. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(2):128-138.
26.
LeeSCvetanovichGLMascarenhasR, et al. Ability to return to work without restrictions in workers compensation patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2017;4(1):30-38.
27.
LubowitzJHSchwartzbergRSmithP.Cortical suspensory button versus aperture interference screw fixation for knee anterior cruciate ligament soft-tissue allograft: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(9):1733-1739.
28.
LubowitzJHSchwartzbergRSmithP.Randomized controlled trial comparing all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a full tibial tunnel. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(7):1195-1200.
29.
LynchADLogerstedtDSGrindemH, et al. Consensus criteria for defining “successful outcome” after ACL injury and reconstruction: a Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort investigation. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(5):335-342.
30.
MakhniECPadakiASPetridisPD, et al. High variability in outcome reporting patterns in high-impact ACL literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(18):1529-1542.
31.
MaletisGBCameronSLTenganJJBurchetteRJ.A prospective randomized study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of patellar tendon and quadruple-strand semitendinosus/gracilis tendons fixed with bioabsorbable interference screws. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(3):384-394.
32.
MinzlaffPHeidtTFeuchtMJ, et al. Patient satisfaction with health is substantially improved following ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(2):582-588.
33.
MohtadiNChanDBarberROddone PaolucciE.A randomized clinical trial comparing patellar tendon, hamstring tendon, and double-bundle ACL reconstructions: patient-reported and clinical outcomes at a minimal 2-year follow-up. Clin J Sport Med. 2015;25(4):321-331.
34.
MollerEForssbladMHanssonLWangePWeidenhielmL.Bracing versus nonbracing in rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized prospective study with 2-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2001;9(2):102-108.
35.
MullerBYabroudiMALynchA, et al. Defining thresholds for the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC subjective knee form and KOOS for patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(11):2820-2826.
36.
MyerGDMartinLJrFordKR, et al. No association of time from surgery with functional deficits in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evidence for objective return-to-sport criteria. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(10):2256-2263.
37.
NwachukwuBUChangBVoletiPB, et al. Preoperative short form health survey score is predictive of return to play and minimal clinically important difference at a minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(12):2784-2790.
38.
NwachukwuBUFieldsKChangBNawabiDHKellyBTRanawatAS.Preoperative outcome scores are predictive of achieving the minimal clinically important difference after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(3):612-619.
39.
NwachukwuBUHamidKSBozicKJ.Measuring value in orthopaedic surgery. JBJS Rev. 2013;1(1):01874474-201311000-00003.
40.
NwachukwuBUVoletiPBBerkanishP, et al. Return to play and patient satisfaction after ACL reconstruction: study with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(9):720-725.
41.
OchiaiSHaginoTSengaSSaitoMHaroH.Prospective evaluation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a patient-based health-related survey: comparison of single-bundle and anatomical double-bundle techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(3):393-398.
42.
OiestadBEHolmIAuneAK, et al. Knee function and prevalence of knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study with 10 to 15 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(11):2201-2210.
43.
OtsukaHIshibashiYTsudaESasakiKTohS.Comparison of three techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone–patellar tendon–bone graft: differences in anterior tibial translation and tunnel enlargement with each technique. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(2):282-288.
44.
ParadowskiPTWitonskiDKeskaRRoosEM.Cross-cultural translation and measurement properties of the Polish version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:107.
45.
PetersonRKSheltonWRBomboyAL.Allograft versus autograft patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2001;17(1):9-13.
46.
RaHJKimHSChoiJYHaJKKimJYKimJG.Comparison of the ceiling effect in the Lysholm score and the IKDC subjective score for assessing functional outcome after ACL reconstruction. Knee. 2014;21(5):906-910.
47.
RaiSKYazdanyJFortinPRAvina-ZubietaJA.Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17:143.
48.
RisbergMAHolmI.The long-term effect of 2 postoperative rehabilitation programs after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled clinical trial with 2 years of follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(10):1958-1966.
49.
RuffilliAPagliazziGFerrantiEBusaccaMCapannelliDBudaR.Hamstring graft tibial insertion preservation versus detachment in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized comparative study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26(6):657-664.
50.
RunerAWiererGHerbstE, et al. There is no difference between quadriceps- and hamstring tendon autografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 2-year patient-reported outcome study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(2):605-614.
51.
SalavatiMAkhbariBMohammadiFMazaheriMKhorramiM.Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): reliability and validity in competitive athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(4):406-410.
52.
SalmonLRussellVMusgroveTPinczewskiLRefshaugeK.Incidence and risk factors for graft rupture and contralateral rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):948-957.
53.
SandersTLMaradit KremersHBryanAJ, et al. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction: a 21-year population-based study. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(6):1502-1507.
54.
SchurzMTiefenboeckTMWinnischM, et al. Clinical and functional outcome of all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(2):332-337.
55.
SeijasRAresOSallentAAlvarezPCuscoXCugatR.Return to prelesional Tegner level after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(12):1695-1699.
56.
SepuchaKAtlasSJChangY, et al. Patient decision aids improve decision quality and patient experience and reduce surgical rates in routine orthopaedic care: a prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(15):1253-1260.
57.
SpindlerKPKuhnJEFreedmanKBMatthewsCEDittusRSHarrellFEJr.Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: bone-tendon-bone versus hamstring. Does it really matter? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(8):1986-1995.
58.
TayKSTanAHC. Clinical outcomes, return to sports, and patient satisfaction after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young and middle-aged patients in an asian population—a 2-year follow-up study. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(4):1054-1059.
59.
TerweeCBRoordaLDDekkerJ, et al. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):524-534.
60.
WangDJonesMHKhairMMMiniaciA.Patient-reported outcome measures for the knee. J Knee Surg. 2010;23(3):137-151.
61.
WangYShimminAGhoshP, et al. Safety, tolerability, clinical, and joint structural outcomes of a single intra-articular injection of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a controlled double-blind randomised trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19(1):180.
62.
YasenSKBortonZMEyre-BrookAI, et al. Clinical outcomes of anatomic, all-inside, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Knee. 2017;24(1):55-62.
63.
ZukeWALerouxTSGregoryBP, et al. Establishing maximal medical improvement after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(4):1000-1007.
