Literature DB >> 31977430

Are Patient and Surgeon Expectations after ACL Reconstruction Realistic?

Danielle Weekes1, Richard E Campbell1, Weilong J Shi1, Michael Ciccotti1, John Salvo1, Steven Cohen1, Bradford Tucker1, Matthew Pepe1, Kevin Freedman1, Fotios Tjoumakaris2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient expectations may affect their satisfaction and functional outcomes after treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. Although there is evidence that patient expectations of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) are inflated, there is limited knowledge about the relationship between physician and patient expectations and patient outcomes after they completely recover from ACLR. Furthermore, it is unclear if specific patient factors influence these expectations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are patient and surgeon expectations of knee function 18 months after ACLR similar? (2) Are patients' and surgeons' expectations of outcomes similar to patients' actual 2-year outcomes? (3) Is there a relationship between preoperative or intraoperative parameters and expectations? (4) Is there a relationship between preoperative or intraoperative parameters and 2-year ACLR outcomes?
METHODS: One-hundred twenty-nine patients undergoing primary ACLR were prospectively enrolled in this study, with 98 (76%) completing 2-year follow-up. Patients completed the IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Patients also completed the same questionnaires preoperatively to evaluate expected knee function 18 months after surgery. Immediately postoperatively, surgeons completed the same questionnaires regarding the expected postoperative outcome at 18 months postoperative. Preoperative and intraoperative data were collected to determine an association between expectations and outcomes. Nonparametric analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests and Spearman's correlations, as applicable.
RESULTS: There was no difference between patient and surgeon expectations (patient, 94.8 [range 47.4-100] versus surgeon, 94.3 [range 46-100]; p = 0.283), and there was no correlation between higher patient expectations and higher surgeon expectations (r = 0.168, p = 0.078). Patient and surgeon expectations were greater than the actual postoperative outcomes (2-year postoperative: 89.7 [range 32.2 to 100]; p < 0.0001); however, the differences are unlikely to be perceived. There was no correlation between higher 2-year postoperative outcomes and higher patient expectations (r = 0.14, p = 0.186) or higher surgeon expectations (r = 0.019, p = 0.86). Arthroscopic evidence of cartilage damage was independently associated with the worst patient and surgeon expectations. The surgeons themselves were also independently associated with surgeon expectation (p < 0.001). No parameters were associated with postoperative outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinically significant differences between surgeon expectations, patient expectations, and 2-year actual outcomes. However, there is also no correlation between the patient expectations, surgeon expectations, and actual outcomes. Although expectations are similar to actual outcomes for most patients, surgeons are unable to accurately predict outcomes for specific patients; thus, preventing adequate patient counseling. Surgeons should be cautious when evaluating and counseling patients preoperatively and avoid assuming high expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31977430      PMCID: PMC7145083          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.755


  19 in total

1.  The International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form: normative data.

Authors:  Allen F Anderson; James J Irrgang; Mininder S Kocher; Barton J Mann; John J Harrast
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Primary Versus Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Patient Demographics, Radiographic Findings, and Associated Lesions.

Authors:  Justin J Mitchell; Mark E Cinque; Grant J Dornan; Lauren M Matheny; Chase S Dean; Brad Kruckeberg; Gilbert Moatshe; Jorge Chahla; Robert F LaPrade
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Matthias J Feucht; Matthias Cotic; Tim Saier; Philipp Minzlaff; Johannes E Plath; Andreas B Imhoff; Stefan Hinterwimmer
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autografts compared with non-irradiated, non-chemically treated allografts.

Authors:  Cory J Lamblin; Brian R Waterman; James H Lubowitz
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register: a report on baseline variables and outcomes of surgery for almost 18,000 patients.

Authors:  Mattias Ahldén; Kristian Samuelsson; Ninni Sernert; Magnus Forssblad; Jón Karlsson; Jüri Kartus
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?

Authors:  Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Aileen M Davis; Nizar N Mahomed; Kory D J Charron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS).

Authors:  Natalie J Collins; Devyani Misra; David T Felson; Kay M Crossley; Ewa M Roos
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.794

8.  Preoperative optimization of patient expectations improves long-term outcome in heart surgery patients: results of the randomized controlled PSY-HEART trial.

Authors:  Winfried Rief; Meike C Shedden-Mora; Johannes A C Laferton; Charlotte Auer; Keith J Petrie; Stefan Salzmann; Manfred Schedlowski; Rainer Moosdorf
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 9.  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.

Authors:  Courtney C H Lai; Clare L Ardern; Julian A Feller; Kate E Webster
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the United States.

Authors:  Leonard T Buller; Matthew J Best; Michael G Baraga; Lee D Kaplan
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2014-12-26
View more
  4 in total

1.  Surgeons' expectations of osteotomies around the knee.

Authors:  Thekla Esser; Tim Saier; Christina Valle; Marcus Schmitt-Sody; Matthias J Feucht; Peter M Prodinger; Philipp Minzlaff
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-08-17       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Predictors of met expectations two years after knee surgery.

Authors:  Brian J Lin; Tina Zhang; Ali Aneizi; Leah E Henry; Patrick Mixa; Alexander J Wahl; Keyan Shasti; Sean J Meredith; R Frank Henn
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-04-01

3.  CORR Insights®: Are Patient and Surgeon Expectations after ACL Reconstruction Realistic?

Authors:  Brian B Gilmer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions do not affect patient-reported outcomes at minimum 10-year follow-up after ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Katherine Wang; Cathrine N Eftang; Svend Ulstein; Asbjørn Årøen; Rune B Jakobsen
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-10-09       Impact factor: 4.114

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.