Search

Abstract Background Knee trauma permanently elevates one’s risk for knee osteoarthritis. Despite this, people at-risk of post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis rarely seek or receive care, and accessible and efficacious interventions to promote knee health after injury are lacking. Exercise can ameliorate some mechanisms and independent risk factors for osteoarthritis and, education and action-planning improve adherence to exercise and promote healthy behaviours. Methods To assess the efficacy of a virtually-delivered, physiotherapist-guided exercise-based program (SOAR) to improve knee health in persons discharged from care after an activity-related knee injury, 70 people (16–35 years of age, 12–48 months post-injury) in Vancouver Canada will be recruited for a two-arm step-wedged assessor-blinded delayed-control randomized trial. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive the intervention immediately or after a 10-week delay. The program consists of 1) one-time Knee Camp (group education, 1:1 individualized exercise and activity goal-setting); 2) weekly individualized home-based exercise and activity program with tracking, and; 3) weekly 1:1 physiotherapy-guided action-planning with optional group exercise class. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 9- (primary endpoint), and 18-weeks. The primary outcome is 9-week change in knee extension strength (normalized peak concentric torque; isokinetic dynamometer). Secondary outcomes include 9-week change in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (accelerometer) and self-reported knee-related quality-of-life (Knee injury and OA Outcome Score subscale) and self-efficacy (Knee Self Efficacy Scale). Exploratory outcomes include 18-week change in primary and secondary outcomes, and 9- and 18- week change in other components of knee extensor and flexor muscle function, hop function, and self-reported symptoms, function, physical activity, social support, perceived self-care and kinesiophobia. Secondary study objectives will assess the feasibility of a future hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial protocol, determine the optimal intervention length, and explore stakeholder experiences. Discussion This study will assess the efficacy of a novel, virtually-delivered, physiotherapist-guided exercise-based program to optimize knee health in persons at increased risk of osteoarthritis due to a past knee injury. Findings will provide valuable information to inform the management of osteoarthritis risk after knee trauma and the conduct of a future effectiveness-implementation trial. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov reference: NTC04956393. Registered August 5, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04956393?term=SOAR&cond=osteoarthritis&cntry=CA&city=Vancouver&draw=2&rank=1

Objective: Assess the feasibility of a virtually-delivered, physiotherapist-guided knee health program (SOAR) that targets self-management of knee health and osteoarthritis risk after an activity-related knee injury. Design: In this quasi-experimental feasibility study, individuals with varied lived experience of knee trauma completed a 4-week SOAR program. This included: 1) Knee Camp (group education, 1:1 exercise and activity goal-setting); 2) weekly home-based exercise and activity program with tracking, and; 3) weekly 1:1 physiotherapy-guided action-planning. SOAR program feasibility was assessed with implementation (attrition, adherence, intervention fidelity), practicality (adverse events, goal completion), acceptability and efficacy (change in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Partner in Health Scale (PHS)) outcomes. Descriptive statistics, disaggregated by gender, were calculated. Results: Thirty participants (60% women, median (min-max) age 30 years (19–50), time from injury 5.6 years (1.2–25.2)) were enrolled. No participant attrition or adverse events were reported, and 90% of mandatory program components were completed. Participants rated their adherence at 80%, and 96% of exercise-therapy and 95% of activity goals were fully or partially achieved. Both women and men reported significant group mean (95%CI) improvements in GLTEQ scores (women: 22 METS (6,37), men: 31 METS (8,54)), while women alone reported improvements in PHS (−7 (−11,-3) and PSFS (1.7 (0.6,2.8) scores. Conclusion: The SOAR program is feasible for persons at various timepoints post-knee trauma, and gender may be an important consideration for SOAR implementation and assessment. A randomized controlled trial to assess intervention efficacy is warranted.

Abstract Background Psychological readiness is an important consideration for athletes and clinicians when making return to sport decisions following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). To improve our understanding of the extent of deficits in psychological readiness, a systematic review is necessary. Objective To investigate psychological readiness (measured via the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI)) over time after ACL tear and understand if time between injury and surgery, age, and sex are associated with ACL-RSI scores. Methods Seven databases were searched from the earliest date available to March 22, 2022. Articles reporting ACL-RSI scores after ACL tear were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I, RoB-2, and RoBANS tools based on the study design. Evidence certainty was assessed for each analysis. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled ACL-RSI scores, stratified by time post-injury and based on treatment approach (i.e., early ACLR, delayed ACLR, and unclear approach). Results A total of 83 studies were included in this review (78% high risk of bias). Evidence certainty was ‘weak’ or ‘limited’ for all analyses. Overall, ACL-RSI scores were higher at 3 to 6 months post-ACLR (mean = 61.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 58.6, 64.4], I2 = 94%) compared to pre-ACLR (mean = 44.4 [95% CI 38.2, 50.7], I2 = 98%), remained relatively stable, until they reached the highest point 2 to 5 years after ACLR (mean = 70.7 [95% CI 63.0, 78.5], I2 = 98%). Meta-regression suggests shorter time from injury to surgery, male sex, and older age were associated with higher ACL-RSI scores only 3 to 6 months post-ACLR (heterogeneity explained R2 = 47.6%), and this reduced 1–2 years after ACLR (heterogeneity explained R2 = 27.0%). Conclusion Psychological readiness to return to sport appears to improve early after ACL injury, with little subsequent improvement until ≥ 2-years after ACLR. Longer time from injury to surgery, female sex and older age might be negatively related to ACL-RSI scores 12–24 months after ACLR. Due to the weak evidence quality rating and the considerable importance of psychological readiness for long-term outcomes after ACL injury, there is an urgent need for well-designed studies that maximize internal validity and identify additional prognostic factors for psychological readiness at times critical for return to sport decisions. Registration: Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/2tezs/ .

# Background Athlete injury risk assessment and management is an important, yet challenging task for sport and exercise medicine professionals. A common approach to injury risk screening is to stratify athletes into risk groups based on their performance on a test relative to a cut-off threshold. However, one potential reason for ineffective injury prevention efforts is the over-reliance on identifying these ‘at-risk’ groups using arbitrary cut-offs for these tests and measures. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the conceptual and technical issues related to the use of a cut-off in both research and clinical practice. # Clinical Question How can we better assess and interpret clinical tests or measures to enable a more effective injury risk assessment in athletes? # Key Results Cut-offs typically lack strong biologic plausibility to support them; and are typically derived in a data-driven manner and thus not generalizable to other samples. When a cut-off is used in analyses, information is lost, leading to potentially misleading results and less accurate injury risk prediction. Dichotomizing a continuous variable using a cut-off should be avoided. Using continuous variables on its original scale is advantageous because information is not discarded, outcome prediction accuracy is not lost, and personalized medicine can be facilitated. # Clinical Application Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to analyze and interpret the results of tests and measures using continuous variables and avoid relying on singular cut-offs to guide decisions. Injury risk can be predicted more accurately when using continuous variables in their natural form. A more accurate risk prediction will facilitate personalized approaches to injury risk mitigation and may lead to a decline in injury rates. # Level of Evidence 5