Search

ObjectiveTo identify and quantify potential risk factors for osteoarthritis (OA) following traumatic knee injury.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses that estimated the odds of OA for individual risk factors assessed in more than four studies using random-effects models. Remaining risk factors underwent semiquantitative synthesis. The modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for prognostic factors guided the assessment.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL searched from inception to 2009–2021.EligibilityRandomised controlled trials and cohort studies assessing risk factors for symptomatic or structural OA in persons with a traumatic knee injury, mean injury age ≤30 years and minimum 2-year follow-up.ResultsAcross 66 included studies, 81 unique potential risk factors were identified. High risk of bias due to attrition or confounding was present in 64% and 49% of studies, respectively. Ten risk factors for structural OA underwent meta-analysis (sex, rehabilitation for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear, ACL reconstruction (ACLR), ACLR age, ACLR body mass index, ACLR graft source, ACLR graft augmentation, ACLR+cartilage injury, ACLR+partial meniscectomy, ACLR+total medial meniscectomy). Very-low certainty evidence suggests increased odds of structural OA related to ACLR+cartilage injury (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.94), ACLR+partial meniscectomy (OR=1.87; 1.45 to 2.42) and ACLR+total medial meniscectomy (OR=3.14; 2.20 to 4.48). Semiquantitative syntheses identified moderate-certainty evidence that cruciate ligament, collateral ligament, meniscal, chondral, patellar/tibiofemoral dislocation, fracture and multistructure injuries increase the odds of symptomatic OA.ConclusionModerate-certainty evidence suggests that various single and multistructure knee injuries (beyond ACL tears) increase the odds of symptomatic OA. Risk factor heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and inconsistency in risk factors and OA definition make identifying treatment targets for preventing post-traumatic knee OA challenging.

The goal of the OPTIKNEE consensus is to improve knee and overall health, to prevent osteoarthritis (OA) after a traumatic knee injury. The consensus followed a seven-step hybrid process. Expert groups conducted 7 systematic reviews to synthesise the current evidence and inform recommendations on the burden of knee injuries; risk factors for post-traumatic knee OA; rehabilitation to prevent post-traumatic knee OA; and patient-reported outcomes, muscle function and functional performance tests to monitor people at risk of post-traumatic knee OA. Draft consensus definitions, and clinical and research recommendations were generated, iteratively refined, and discussed at 6, tri-weekly, 2-hour videoconferencing meetings. After each meeting, items were finalised before the expert group (n=36) rated the level of appropriateness for each using a 9-point Likert scale, and recorded dissenting viewpoints through an anonymous online survey. Seven definitions, and 8 clinical recommendations (who to target, what to target and when, rehabilitation approach and interventions, what outcomes to monitor and how) and 6 research recommendations (research priorities, study design considerations, what outcomes to monitor and how) were voted on. All definitions and recommendations were rated appropriate (median appropriateness scores of 7–9) except for two subcomponents of one clinical recommendation, which were rated uncertain (median appropriateness score of 4.5–5.5). Varying levels of evidence supported each recommendation. Clinicians, patients, researchers and other stakeholders may use the definitions and recommendations to advocate for, guide, develop, test and implement person-centred evidence-based rehabilitation programmes following traumatic knee injury, and facilitate data synthesis to reduce the burden of knee post-traumatic knee OA.

We sought to evaluate the sagittal plane knee joint loading patterns during a double-leg landing task among young athletes who passed or failed return-to-sport (RTS) criteria following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction reconstruction (ACLR), and in uninjured athletes. Participants completed quadriceps strength testing, a hop test battery, and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form following medical RTS clearance. ACLR participants "passed" RTS criteria (RTS-PASS) if they met ≥90 limb symmetry (%) or score on all measures and were categorized as "failing" (RTS-FAIL) if not. All participants completed three-dimensional motion analysis testing. Sagittal plane kinematic and kinetic variables were calculated during a double-leg drop vertical jump task. Mean limb values and limb symmetry indices (LSI; %) were calculated and compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (for LSI) and mixed between-within ANOVA (for group × limb differences). A total of 205 participants were included, with 39 in the RTS-PASS group, 109 in the RTS-FAIL group, and 57 control groups (CTRLs). The RTS-FAIL group demonstrated lower symmetry values for peak vertical ground reaction force, peak internal knee extension moment, and peak knee flexion angle. Group × limb interactions were observed for peak vertical ground reaction force and peak internal knee extension moment. Involved limb values were reduced in the RTS-PASS and RTS-FAIL groups compared to CTRLs, while the RTS-PASS groups had lower uninvolved limb values compared to the RTS-FAIL and CTRLs. Clinical Significance: Young athletes who pass RTS criteria after ACLR land symmetrically during a double-leg task, but symmetry was achieved by reducing loading on both limbs.

ObjectiveAssess the association between combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) use and musculoskeletal tissue pathophysiology, injuries or conditions.DesignSystematic review with semiquantitative analyses and certainty of evidence assessment, guided by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Data SourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL searched from inception to April 2022.EligibilityIntervention and cohort studies that assessed the association between new or ongoing use of CHC and an outcome of musculoskeletal tissue pathophysiology, injury or condition in postpubertal premenopausal females.ResultsAcross 50 included studies, we assessed the effect of CHC use on 30 unique musculoskeletal outcomes (75% bone related). Serious risk of bias was judged present in 82% of studies, with 52% adequately adjusting for confounding. Meta-analyses were not possible due to poor outcome reporting, and heterogeneity in estimate statistics and comparison conditions. Based on semiquantitative synthesis, there is low certainty evidence that CHC use was associated with elevated future fracture risk (risk ratio 1.02–1.20) and total knee arthroplasty (risk ratio 1.00–1.36). There is very low certainty evidence of unclear relationships between CHC use and a wide range of bone turnover and bone health outcomes. Evidence about the effect of CHC use on musculoskeletal tissues beyond bone, and the influence of CHC use in adolescence versus adulthood, is limited.ConclusionGiven a paucity of high certainty evidence that CHC use is protective against musculoskeletal pathophysiology, injury or conditions, it is premature and inappropriate to advocate, or prescribe CHC for these purposes.PROSPERO registration numberThis review was registered on PROSPERO CRD42021224582 on 8 January 2021.

Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remains extremely common, with over 250,000 injuries annually. Currently, clinical tests have poor utility to accurately screen for ACL injury risk in athletes. In this study, the position of a knee marker was tracked in 2-dimensional planes to predict biomechanical variables associated with ACL injury risk. Three-dimensional kinematics and ground reaction forces were collected during bilateral, single-leg stop-jump tasks for 44 healthy male military personnel. Knee marker position data were extracted to construct 2-dimensional 95% prediction ellipses in each anatomical plane. Knee marker variables included: ellipse areas, major/minor axes lengths, orientation of ellipse axes, absolute ranges of knee position, and medial knee collapse. These variables were then used as predictor variables in stepwise multiple linear regression analyses for 7 biomechanical variables associated with ACL injury risk. Knee flexion excursion, normalized peak vertical ground reaction forces, and knee flexion angle at initial contact were the response variables that generated the highest adjusted R2 values: .71, .37, and .31, respectively. The results of this study provide initial support for the hypothesis that tracking a single marker during 2-dimensional analysis can accurately reflect the information gathered from 3-dimensional motion analysis during a task assessing knee joint stability.

Background: There is a scarcity of evidence describing how physical therapists use data from clinical examinations to inform the treatment of runners with knee pain.Objective: Our purpose was to examine the between physical therapist agreement on the selection of perceived impairments in runners with knee pain.Methods: Twelve physical therapists reviewed two cases of runners with knee pain. The cases included clinical subjective information, objective data, and review of videos of each participant running. Each rater selected up to three perceived impairments (from a list of eight) that each physical therapist would address at the next physical therapy session. Percent agreement was calculated to determine the between rater agreement on each individual perceived impairment selection and Fleiss Kappa was calculated for each unique combination of three perceived impairments per case.Results: Twelve raters with 51 (18-156) months of clinical experience participated. Percent agreement ranged from 8%-100% for both cases for individual impairments. When assessing the unique combination of three impairments selected, inter-rater agreement was less than what is expected due to chance alone (κ = -0.09, p = .92; κ = -0.09, p = .98) for both cases.Conclusion: The 12 physical therapists demonstrated poor to excellent levels of agreement when selecting an individual perceived impairment. Agreement was worse than chance when selecting a combination of three unique impairments.

There is no consensus on the components of return-to-sport (RTS) testing following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction or whether passing RTS criteria can reduce a patient's risk of reinjury.To determine whether impartial, criteria-based RTS decisions are associated with less risk of a second ACL injury (either graft failure or contralateral ACL injury).In this systematic review with meta-analysis, the authors conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global using database-specific vocabulary related to ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Individual study quality was assessed using the modified Downs and Black checklist, and overall quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation scale. Pooled risk difference (passed versus failed RTS criteria), injury incidence proportion, and the diagnostic accuracy of each RTS criterion were calculated.Four studies met the selection criteria. Overall, 42.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18%, 69%) of patients passed RTS criteria, and 14.4% (95% CI: 8%, 21%) of those who passed experienced a second ACL injury (graft rupture or contralateral ACL injury). There was a nonsignificant 3% reduced risk of a second ACL injury after passing RTS criteria (risk difference, -3%; 95% CI: -16%, 10%; IPassing RTS criteria did not show a statistically significant association with risk of a second ACL injury. The quality-of-evidence rating prevents a definitive conclusion on this question and indicates an opportunity for future research.Prognosis, Level 2a-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(2):43-54. Epub 30 Nov 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8190.

ObjectiveTo determine sex-based differences in risk of a second ACL injury (overall and by laterality) following primary ACL reconstruction in athletes who are attempting to return to sport.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesSystematic search of five databases conducted in August 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies reporting sex-based differences in the incidence of second ACL injury in athletes attempting to return-to-sports and who were followed for at least 1 year following primary ACL reconstruction.ResultsNineteen studies were included in this review, with seven studies excluded from the primary meta-analysis due to high risk of bias. The remaining 12 studies (n=1431 females, n=1513 males) underwent meta-analysis, with all 19 studies included in a sensitivity analysis. Total second ACL injury risk was 21.9% (females: 22.8%, males: 20.3%). Females were found to have 10.7% risk of an ipsilateral ACL injury and 11.8% risk of a contralateral ACL injury. Males were found to have 12.0% risk of an ipsilateral ACL injury and 8.7% risk of a contralateral ACL injury. No statistically significant differences were observed for total second ACL injury risk (risk difference=−0.6%, 95% CI −4.9 to 3.7, p=0.783, I2=41%) or contralateral ACL injury risk (risk difference=1.9%, 95% CI −0.5% to 4.4%, p=0.113, I2=15%) between sexes. Females were found to have a 3.4% absolute risk reduction in subsequent ipsilateral ACL injury risk compared with males (risk difference=−3.4%, 95% CI −6.7% to −0.02%, p=0.037, I2=35%).ConclusionBoth sexes have >20% increased risk of experiencing a second ACL injury. Any difference in the absolute risk of either a subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury between sexes appears to be small.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42020148369)

Background:Single-legged hop tests are commonly used assessments in return to sport (RTS) testing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Although these tests are commonly used, their predictive validity has not yet been established.Purpose:To determine the strength of association between hop testing and RTS, knee reinjury, subjective report of knee function, and posttraumatic knee osteoarthritis (PTOA) after primary ACLR. Secondarily, to determine whether hop testing is able to predict a favorable result on the same outcome variables.Study Design:Systematic review.Methods:A systematic, computer-assisted literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed when conducting and reporting this review. Primary outcome variables for this review were self-report of knee function, return to preinjury level of activity, presence of reinjury, and presence of PTOA. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence tool was used to assess the level of evidence for each included study. Quality assessment of each included study was performed through use of a modified Downs and Black scale. Available metrics were tabulated based on outcome variables.Results:Overall, 21 studies (4476 patients) met inclusion for this review. The majority of evidence (95.2%) was of moderate to high methodologic quality. The most commonly associated outcome measure was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from 0.20 to 0.60. The strength of association between the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and hop testing ranged from −0.10 to 0.62 in 4 studies. In all, 10 studies examined the relationship between hop testing and RTS, with variable association statistics reported. No meaningful association was found between hop testing and knee reinjury in 2 studies. Worse preoperative hop testing was associated with PTOA in 1 study.Conclusion:Hop testing appears to possess fair association to subjective report of knee function measured by the KOOS and IKDC and a patient’s ability to RTS after ACLR. Insufficient evidence is available to determine the relationship between hop testing and PTOA and knee reinjury. Predictive validity cannot be established based on available literature.