OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess prognostic factors for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and physical activity 2 to 10 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) or anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, and (2) to assess differences in prognostic factors between patients treated with ACLR and with rehabilitation alone. DESIGN: Prognosis systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that included adults or adolescents undergoing either ACLR or rehabilitation alone after ACL rupture. Studies had to assess the statistical association between potential prognostic factors (factors related to patient characteristics, injury, or knee symptoms/function measured at baseline or within 1 year) and outcomes (PROMs and physical activity). DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search yielded 997 references. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies with low or moderate risk of bias remained for data synthesis. RESULTS: Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that concomitant meniscus and cartilage injuries were prognostic factors for worse PROMs 2 to 10 years after ACLR. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that body mass index, smoking, and baseline PROMs were prognostic factors for worse outcome. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that female sex and a worse baseline Marx Activity Rating Scale score were prognostic factors for a worse Marx Activity Rating Scale score 2 to 10 years after ACLR. There was a lack of studies on prognostic factors after rehabilitation alone. CONCLUSION: Concomitant meniscus and cartilage injuries were prognostic factors for worse long-term PROMs after ACLR. The certainty was very low for other prognostic factors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(9):490-502. Epub 1 Aug 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9451.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess prognostic factors for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and physical activity 2 to 10 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) or anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, and (2) to assess differences in prognostic factors between patients treated with ACLR and with rehabilitation alone. DESIGN: Prognosis systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that included adults or adolescents undergoing either ACLR or rehabilitation alone after ACL rupture. Studies had to assess the statistical association between potential prognostic factors (factors related to patient characteristics, injury, or knee symptoms/function measured at baseline or within 1 year) and outcomes (PROMs and physical activity). DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search yielded 997 references. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies with low or moderate risk of bias remained for data synthesis. RESULTS: Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that concomitant meniscus and cartilage injuries were prognostic factors for worse PROMs 2 to 10 years after ACLR. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that body mass index, smoking, and baseline PROMs were prognostic factors for worse outcome. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that female sex and a worse baseline Marx Activity Rating Scale score were prognostic factors for a worse Marx Activity Rating Scale score 2 to 10 years after ACLR. There was a lack of studies on prognostic factors after rehabilitation alone. CONCLUSION: Concomitant meniscus and cartilage injuries were prognostic factors for worse long-term PROMs after ACLR. The certainty was very low for other prognostic factors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(9):490-502. Epub 1 Aug 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9451.
Authors: Eduard J de Valk; Maarten H Moen; Marinus Winters; Eric W P Bakker; Rob Tamminga; Henk van der Hoeven Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.772
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
Authors: Richard B Frobell; Harald P Roos; Ewa M Roos; Frank W Roemer; Jonas Ranstam; L Stefan Lohmander Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: J J Irrgang; A F Anderson; A L Boland; C D Harner; M Kurosaka; P Neyret; J C Richmond; K D Shelborne Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Adil Ajuied; Fabian Wong; Christian Smith; Mark Norris; Peter Earnshaw; Diane Back; Andrew Davies Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Belle L van Meer; Duncan E Meuffels; Maaike M Vissers; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Jan A N Verhaar; Caroline B Terwee; Max Reijman Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Thomas Bandholm; Kristian Thorborg; Clare L Ardern; Robin Christensen; Marius Henriksen Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 18.473
Authors: Marie Pedersen; Hege Grindem; Bjørnar Berg; Lars Engebretsen; Michael J Axe; Lynn Snyder-Mackler; May Arna Risberg Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 7.010