PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are evaluated by laxity measures, functional tests, and patients\' perception by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It is not known, if one of these evaluation instruments is representative or if outcome scores from all must be reported to obtain a full evaluation of the condition. The aim was to study the correlations between these three types of outcomes 1 year after primary ACLR.
METHODS: All adult patients (range 18-45 years) who had an ACLR between 1.1.2019 and 31.12.2021 were offered 1-year follow-up by an independent observer. Preoperative information about knee laxity and peroperative information about the condition of menisci and cartilage were registered. At 1-year follow-up clinical and instrumented knee stability and function assessed by four different hop tests were registered. Patients completed four PROMs (the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Lysholm score) and Tegner activity scale and answered anchor questions regarding satisfaction and willingness to repeat the operation.
RESULTS: A total of 190 adults attended the 1-year follow-up and 151 had all assessments. There were only a few positive and weak correlations between performance tests and PROMS and between clinical measurements and PROMS (r = 0.00-0.38), and the majority were of negligible strength. Tegner score had in general the highest correlation (low to moderate). The highest correlation was 0.53 (moderate) between the anchor question about patient satisfaction and Lysholm/IKDC scores. There was no difference in the correlations depending on meniscal condition.
CONCLUSIONS: In ACLR patients there was no clinically relevant correlation between scores obtained by PROMs, a battery of functional performance tests and instrumented laxity of the knee at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, one type of outcome cannot represent the others. This is an argument for always to include and report all three types of outcomes, and conclusions based on one type of outcome may not be sufficient.
METHODS: II.
METHODS: All adult patients (range 18-45 years) who had an ACLR between 1.1.2019 and 31.12.2021 were offered 1-year follow-up by an independent observer. Preoperative information about knee laxity and peroperative information about the condition of menisci and cartilage were registered. At 1-year follow-up clinical and instrumented knee stability and function assessed by four different hop tests were registered. Patients completed four PROMs (the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Lysholm score) and Tegner activity scale and answered anchor questions regarding satisfaction and willingness to repeat the operation.
RESULTS: A total of 190 adults attended the 1-year follow-up and 151 had all assessments. There were only a few positive and weak correlations between performance tests and PROMS and between clinical measurements and PROMS (r = 0.00-0.38), and the majority were of negligible strength. Tegner score had in general the highest correlation (low to moderate). The highest correlation was 0.53 (moderate) between the anchor question about patient satisfaction and Lysholm/IKDC scores. There was no difference in the correlations depending on meniscal condition.
CONCLUSIONS: In ACLR patients there was no clinically relevant correlation between scores obtained by PROMs, a battery of functional performance tests and instrumented laxity of the knee at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, one type of outcome cannot represent the others. This is an argument for always to include and report all three types of outcomes, and conclusions based on one type of outcome may not be sufficient.
METHODS: II.
摘要：
目的：通过松弛措施评估前交叉韧带重建（ACLR）后的结果，功能测试,和患者通过患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)感知。不知道,如果这些评估工具之一具有代表性，或者必须报告所有评估工具的结果分数以获得对病情的全面评估。目的是研究主要ACLR后1年这三种结局之间的相关性。
方法：所有在1.1.2019和31.12.2021之间有ACLR的成年患者（18-45岁）由独立观察者提供1年随访。记录了有关膝关节松弛的术前信息以及有关半月板和软骨状况的术前信息。在1年的随访中，通过四种不同的跳跃测试评估了临床和仪器的膝关节稳定性和功能。患者完成了四个PROM（主观国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分，膝盖数字实体评估得分(KNEES-ACL)，膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分（KOOS）和Lysholm评分）和Tegner活动量表，并回答了有关满意度和重复手术意愿的主要问题。
结果：共有190名成年人参加了为期1年的随访，151名成年人接受了所有评估。性能测试与PROMS之间以及临床测量与PROMS之间只有少数正相关和弱相关（r=0.00-0.38），大多数人的实力微不足道。Tegner评分通常具有最高的相关性（低至中等）。关于患者满意度的锚定问题与Lysholm/IKDC评分之间的相关性最高为0.53（中等）。根据半月板状况，相关性没有差异。
结论：在ACLR患者中，通过PROMs获得的评分之间没有临床相关的相关性，在1年的随访中，进行了一系列功能性能测试和仪器化的膝盖松弛度。因此,一种结果不能代表其他。这是一个论点，总是包括并报告所有三种类型的结果，基于一种结果的结论可能还不够。
方法：II.
方法：所有在1.1.2019和31.12.2021之间有ACLR的成年患者（18-45岁）由独立观察者提供1年随访。记录了有关膝关节松弛的术前信息以及有关半月板和软骨状况的术前信息。在1年的随访中，通过四种不同的跳跃测试评估了临床和仪器的膝关节稳定性和功能。患者完成了四个PROM（主观国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分，膝盖数字实体评估得分(KNEES-ACL)，膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分（KOOS）和Lysholm评分）和Tegner活动量表，并回答了有关满意度和重复手术意愿的主要问题。
结果：共有190名成年人参加了为期1年的随访，151名成年人接受了所有评估。性能测试与PROMS之间以及临床测量与PROMS之间只有少数正相关和弱相关（r=0.00-0.38），大多数人的实力微不足道。Tegner评分通常具有最高的相关性（低至中等）。关于患者满意度的锚定问题与Lysholm/IKDC评分之间的相关性最高为0.53（中等）。根据半月板状况，相关性没有差异。
结论：在ACLR患者中，通过PROMs获得的评分之间没有临床相关的相关性，在1年的随访中，进行了一系列功能性能测试和仪器化的膝盖松弛度。因此,一种结果不能代表其他。这是一个论点，总是包括并报告所有三种类型的结果，基于一种结果的结论可能还不够。
方法：II.
