Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

卷:11

Alexander N. Berk^2,3  Dana P. Piasecki^2,3  James E. Fleischli^2,3  Bryan M. Saltzman^2,3 

[1] Atrium Health Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

[2] OrthoCarolina Research Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

[3] OrthoCarolina Sports Medicine Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

[4] Department of Orthopaedics, NewYork–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.

关键词: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction;    patient-reported outcome;    return to sport;    knee;    outcomes;    systematic review;   

DOI  :  10.1177/23259671231174472

 received in 2023-01-05, accepted in 2023-02-08,  发布年份 2023

来源: Sage Journals

【 摘 要 】

Background:Despite the prevalence of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to evaluate results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there exists little standardization in how these metrics are reported, which can make wider comparisons difficult.Purpose:To systematically review the literature on ACL reconstruction and report on the variability and temporal trends in PRO utilization.Study Design:Systematic review.Methods:We queried the PubMed Central and MEDLINE databases from inception through August 2022 to identify clinical studies reporting ≥1 PRO after ACL reconstruction. Only studies with ≥50 patients and a mean 24-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. Year of publication, study design, PROs, and reporting of return to sport (RTS) were documented.Results:Across 510 studies, 72 unique PROs were identified, the most common of which were the International Knee Documentation Committee score (63.3%), Tegner Activity Scale (52.4%), Lysholm score (51.0%), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (35.7%). Of the identified PROs, 89% were utilized in <10% of studies. The most common study designs were retrospective (40.6%), prospective cohort (27.1%), and prospective randomized controlled trials (19.4%). Some consistency in PROs was observed among randomized controlled trials, with the most common PROs being the International Knee Documentation Committee score (71/99, 71.7%), Tegner Activity Scale (60/99, 60.6%), and Lysholm score (54/99, 54.5%). The mean number of PROs reported per study across all years was 2.89 (range, 1-8), with an increase from 2.1 (range, 1-4) in studies published before 2000 to 3.1 (range, 1-8) in those published after 2020. Only 105 studies (20.6%) discretely reported RTS rates, with more studies utilizing this metric after 2020 (55.1%) than before 2000 (15.0%).Conclusion:There exists marked heterogeneity and inconsistency regarding which validated PROs are used in studies related to ACL reconstruction. Significant variability was observed, with 89% of measures being reported in <10% of studies. RTS was discretely reported in only 20.6% of studies. Greater standardization of outcomes reporting is required to better promote objective comparisons, understand technique-specific outcomes, and facilitate value determination.

【 授权许可】

CC BY-NC-ND   
© The Author(s) 2023

【 图 表 】

Figure 10

Figure 8

Figure 9