Christopher Kuenze1,2, Katherine Collins1, Karin Allor Pfeiffer1, Caroline Lisee3. 1. Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 2. Department of Orthopedics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 3. Motion Science Institute, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Return to sport is widely utilized by sports medicine researchers and clinicians as a primary outcome of interest for successful recovery when working with young patients who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). While return-to-sport outcomes are effective at tracking progress post-ACLR, they are limited because they do not necessarily capture physical activity (PA) engagement, which is important to maintain knee joint health and reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, there is a critical need (1) to describe current PA participation and measurement recommendations; (2) to appraise common PA measurement approaches, including patient-reported outcomes and device-based methodologies; and (3) to provide clinical recommendations for future evaluation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Reports of patient-reported or device-based PA in patients with ACL injury were acquired and summarized based on a PubMed search (2000 through July 2020). Search terms included physical activity OR activity AND anterior cruciate ligament OR ACL. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5. RESULTS: We highlight that (1) individuals with ACLR are 2.36 times less likely to meet the US Department of Health and Human Services PA recommendations even when reporting successful return to sport, (2) common patient-reported PA assessments have significant limitations in the data that can be derived, and (3) alternative patient-reported and device-based assessments may provide improved assessment of PA in this patient population. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and researchers have relied on return to sport status or self-reported PA participation via surveys. These approaches are not consistent with current recommendations for PA assessment and do not allow for comparison with contemporary PA recommendations or guidelines. Return to sport, patient-reported outcome measures, and device-based assessment approaches should be used in complementary manners to comprehensively assess PA participation after ACLR. However, appropriate techniques should be used when assessing PA in adult and adolescent populations.
CONTEXT: Return to sport is widely utilized by sports medicine researchers and clinicians as a primary outcome of interest for successful recovery when working with young patients who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). While return-to-sport outcomes are effective at tracking progress post-ACLR, they are limited because they do not necessarily capture physical activity (PA) engagement, which is important to maintain knee joint health and reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, there is a critical need (1) to describe current PA participation and measurement recommendations; (2) to appraise common PA measurement approaches, including patient-reported outcomes and device-based methodologies; and (3) to provide clinical recommendations for future evaluation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Reports of patient-reported or device-based PA in patients with ACL injury were acquired and summarized based on a PubMed search (2000 through July 2020). Search terms included physical activity OR activity AND anterior cruciate ligament OR ACL. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5. RESULTS: We highlight that (1) individuals with ACLR are 2.36 times less likely to meet the US Department of Health and Human Services PA recommendations even when reporting successful return to sport, (2) common patient-reported PA assessments have significant limitations in the data that can be derived, and (3) alternative patient-reported and device-based assessments may provide improved assessment of PA in this patient population. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and researchers have relied on return to sport status or self-reported PA participation via surveys. These approaches are not consistent with current recommendations for PA assessment and do not allow for comparison with contemporary PA recommendations or guidelines. Return to sport, patient-reported outcome measures, and device-based assessment approaches should be used in complementary manners to comprehensively assess PA participation after ACLR. However, appropriate techniques should be used when assessing PA in adult and adolescent populations.
Authors: Maura D Iversen; Johan von Heideken; Elisabeth Farmer; Jessica Rihm; Benton E Heyworth; Mininder S Kocher Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2016 Apr-May Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: Lindsay P Toth; Susan Park; Cary M Springer; McKenzie D Feyerabend; Jeremy A Steeves; David R Bassett Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: E Tengman; L Brax Olofsson; K G Nilsson; Y Tegner; L Lundgren; C K Häger Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Christopher Kuenze; Katherine Collins; Ashley Triplett; David Bell; Grant Norte; Shelby Baez; Matthew Harkey; Luke Wilcox; Caroline Lisee Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-02-21