TY - JOUR
T1 - Anterior and Rotational Knee Laxity Does Not Affect Patient-Reported Knee Function 2 Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
AU - MOON Knee Group
AU - Magnussen, Robert
AU - Reinke, Emily K.
AU - Huston, Laura J.
AU - Andrish, Jack T.
AU - Cox, Charles L.
AU - Dunn, Warren R.
AU - Flanigan, David C.
AU - Hewett, Timothy
AU - Jones, Morgan H.
AU - Kaeding, Christopher C.
AU - Lorring, Dawn
AU - Matava, Matthew J.
AU - Parker, Richard D.
AU - Pedroza, Angela
AU - Preston, Emily
AU - Richardson, Brian
AU - Schroeder, Bettina
AU - Smith, Matthew V.
AU - Wright, Rick W.
AU - Spindler, Kurt P.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge the work of physical therapists involved in this study: Stephanie Garcia, DPT, ATC, CSCS, Adam Ingle, DPT, SCS, Kat Kozak, PT, Michael Martin, MPT, OCS, Andrew Sweeny, DPT, SCS (The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center); Amanda Quiram, PT (Vanderbilt); John Motley, MPT, ATC, CSCS, Suzanne Schroeder, PT, ATC (Washington University and Barnes-Jewish Orthopedic Center). The authors also acknowledge the invaluable work of contributors for this study: for assistance with data collection: Lynn Borzi, MBA, RN, CCRC, Maxine Cox, Michelle Hines, RN, Pam Koeth, PA-C, Valerie Walker-Lewis, Maya McCauley, Lisa Hegemier, PA-C, Leah Schmitz, MPAS, PA-C, Jennifer Turczyk (Cleveland Clinic); Angela Pedroza, MPH, Breanna Beck, PA-C, ATC, Isac Kunnath, MS, CCRC, Paul Montesanti, CIP, Kari Stammen, ATC (The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center); Alexandra Gada, Elizabeth Garofoli, Amanda Haas, MA (Washington University in St Louis); for assistance with data preparation: Suzet Galindo-Martinez, MS, Zhouwen Liu, MS, Charles Dupont; for data safety monitoring: Gene Hannah, MD; for editorial management: Brittany Stojsavljevic (Cleveland Clinic). The authors thank MOON members from the following institutions for their support and contributions: Hospital for Special Surgery, The Ohio State University, University of Colorado, University of Iowa, and Washington University in St Louis. They also thank all the patients who generously enrolled and participated in this study.
Funding Information:
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was funded by NIH R01 AR053684 (K.P.S., PI). The study also utilized resources funded by CTSA award No. 1 UL1 TR002243. E.K.R. has received unrestricted educational gifts from Smith & Nephew Endoscopy and DonJoy Orthopaedics. K.P.S. has received funding for research from Smith & Nephew Endoscopy and DonJoy Orthopaedics; royalty or consulting fees from the NFL, Cytori, and Mitek; and hospitality payments from DePuy and Biosense Webster. R.M. has received research funding from Zimmer Biomet and educational funding from Arthrex and CDC Medical. W.R.D. has received consulting fees from Linvatec Corporation and hospitality payments from Wright Medical Technology. D.C.F. has received consulting fees from Smith & Nephew, DePuy, Mitek, Vericel, Histogenics, Conmed, and Ceterix. M.J.M. has received unrestricted educational grants from Arthrex, Inc, and BREG, Inc; consultant fees from Arthrex, Inc, Heron Therapeutics, and Pacira; and education and hospitality payments from Elite Orthopaedics and Apollo Surgical. R.D.P. has received royalties from Zimmer Biomet and hospitality payments from Zimmer Biomet, Smith & Nephew, and Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. M.V.S. has received consulting and speaking fees from Elite Orthopaedics, Arthrex, and Flexion Therapeutics. M.H.J. is on the Scientific Advisory Board for Samumed. C.L.C.’s brother is an employee of Smith & Nephew. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s).
PY - 2019/7/1
Y1 - 2019/7/1
N2 - Background: While a primary goal of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is to reduce pathologically increased anterior and rotational knee laxity, the relationship between knee laxity after ACL reconstruction and patient-reported knee function remains unclear. Hypothesis: There would be no significant correlation between the degree of residual anterior and rotational knee laxity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: From a prospective multicenter nested cohort of patients, 433 patients younger than 36 years of age injured in sports with no history of concomitant ligament surgery, revision ACL surgery, or surgery of the contralateral knee were identified and evaluated at a minimum 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Each patient underwent Lachman and pivot-shift evaluation as well as a KT-1000 arthrometer assessment along with Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to predict each 2-year PRO score, controlling for preoperative score, age, sex, body mass index, smoking, Marx activity score, education, subsequent surgery, meniscal and cartilage status, graft type, and range of motion asymmetry. Measures of knee laxity were independently added to each model to determine correlation with PROs. Results: Side-to-side manual Lachman differences were IKDC A in 246 (57%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 4 (<1%) patients. Pivot-shift was classified as IKDC A in 209 (48%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 11 (2.5%) patients. The mean side-to-side KT-1000 difference was 2.0 ± 2.6 mm. No significant correlations were noted between pivot-shift or anterior tibial translation as assessed by Lachman or KT-1000 and any PRO. All predicted differences in PROs based on IKDC A versus B pivot-shift and anterior tibial translation were less than 4 points. Conclusion: Neither the presence of IKDC A versus B pivot-shift nor increased anterior tibial translation of up to 6 mm is associated with clinically relevant decreases in PROs 2 years after ACL reconstruction.
AB - Background: While a primary goal of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is to reduce pathologically increased anterior and rotational knee laxity, the relationship between knee laxity after ACL reconstruction and patient-reported knee function remains unclear. Hypothesis: There would be no significant correlation between the degree of residual anterior and rotational knee laxity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: From a prospective multicenter nested cohort of patients, 433 patients younger than 36 years of age injured in sports with no history of concomitant ligament surgery, revision ACL surgery, or surgery of the contralateral knee were identified and evaluated at a minimum 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Each patient underwent Lachman and pivot-shift evaluation as well as a KT-1000 arthrometer assessment along with Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to predict each 2-year PRO score, controlling for preoperative score, age, sex, body mass index, smoking, Marx activity score, education, subsequent surgery, meniscal and cartilage status, graft type, and range of motion asymmetry. Measures of knee laxity were independently added to each model to determine correlation with PROs. Results: Side-to-side manual Lachman differences were IKDC A in 246 (57%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 4 (<1%) patients. Pivot-shift was classified as IKDC A in 209 (48%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 11 (2.5%) patients. The mean side-to-side KT-1000 difference was 2.0 ± 2.6 mm. No significant correlations were noted between pivot-shift or anterior tibial translation as assessed by Lachman or KT-1000 and any PRO. All predicted differences in PROs based on IKDC A versus B pivot-shift and anterior tibial translation were less than 4 points. Conclusion: Neither the presence of IKDC A versus B pivot-shift nor increased anterior tibial translation of up to 6 mm is associated with clinically relevant decreases in PROs 2 years after ACL reconstruction.
KW - ACL reconstruction
KW - knee laxity
KW - patient-reported outcomes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069497192&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0363546519857076
DO - 10.1177/0363546519857076
M3 - Article
C2 - 31307221
AN - SCOPUS:85069497192
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 47
SP - 2077
EP - 2085
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 9
ER -