Subsequent surgery after primary ACLR results in a significantly inferior subjective outcome at a 2-year follow-up

Purpose To analyze minimal important change (MIC), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) and treatment failure after reoperation within 2 years of primary ACL reconstruction and compare them with patients without additional surgery. Methods This is a retrospective follow-up study of a cohort from a single-clinic database with all primary ACLRs enrolled between 2005 and 2015. Additional surgery within 2 years of the primary ACLR on the ipsilateral knee was identified using procedural codes and analysis of medical records. Patients who completed the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up were included in the study. MIC, PASS and treatment failure thresholds were applied using the aggregate KOOS (KOOS4) and the five KOOS subscales. Results The cohort included 6030 primary ACLR and from this 1112 (18.4%) subsequent surgeries were performed on 1018 (16.9%) primary ACLRs. 24 months follow-up for KOOS was obtained on 523 patients (54%) in the reoperation group and 2084 (44%) in the no-reoperation group. MIC; the no-reoperation group had a significantly higher improvement on all KOOS subscales, Pain 70.3 vs 60.2% (p < 0.01), Symptoms 72.1 vs 57.4% (p < 0.01), ADL 56.3 vs 51.2% (p < 0.01), Sport/Rec 67.3 vs 54.4% (p < 0.01), QoL 73.9 vs 56.3% (p < 0.01). PASS; 62% in the non-reoperation group reported their KOOS4 scores to be satisfactory, while only 35% reported satisfactory results in the reoperated cohort (p < 0.05). Treatment failure; 2% in the non-reoperation group and 6% (p < 0.05) in the reoperation group considered their treatment to have failed. Conclusion Patients who underwent subsequent surgeries within 2 years of primary ACLR reported significantly inferior outcomes in MIC, PASS and treatment failure compared to the non-reoperated counterpart at the 2-year follow-up. This study provides clinicians with important information and knowledge about the outcomes after an ACLR with subsequent additional surgery. Level of evidence III.

Substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptom states of the Forgotten Joint Score 12 after primary knee arthroplasty

Background and purpose — Knowing how to interpret values obtained with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) is essential. We estimated the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for Forgotten Joint Score 12 (FJS) and explored differences depending on methods used for the estimates. Patients and methods — The study was based on 195 knee arthroplasties (KA) performed at a university hospital. We used 1 item from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score domain quality of life and satisfaction with surgery, obtained 1-year postoperatively, to assess SCB and PASS thresholds of the FJS with anchor-based methods. We used different combinations of anchor questions for SCB and PASS (satisfied, satisfied with no or mild knee difficulties, and satisfied with no knee difficulties). A novel predictive approach and receiver-operating characteristics curve were applied for the estimates. Results — 70 and 113 KAs were available for the SCB and PASS estimates, respectively. Depending on method, SCB of the FJS (range 0–100) was 28 (95% CI 21–35) and 22 (12–45) respectively. PASS was 31 (2–39) and 20 (10–29) for satisfied patients, 40 (31–47) and 38 (32–43) for satisfied patients with no/mild difficulties, and 76 (39–80) and 64 (55–74) for satisfied patients with no difficulties. The areas under the curve ranged from 0.82 to 0.88. Interpretation — Both the SCB and PASS thresholds varied depending on methodology. This may indicate a problem using meaningful values from other studies defining outcomes after KA. This study supports the premise of the FJS as a PROM with good discriminatory ability in patients undergoing KA.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Treated With PRP Injection

Background: Although several injection-based treatments have been proposed to address knee osteoarthritis (OA), it is often difficult to understand the clinical relevance of the obtained results. The psychometric measures of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were developed to better interpret study findings. Purpose: To establish the MCID and the PASS for the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective score and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients treated with intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee OA. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This study included 215 patients with knee OA (68% men, 32% women; age, 53.2 ± 11.3 years; body mass index, 26.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2) who underwent intra-articular PRP injections. Patients were assessed through the IKDC Subjective score and KOOS subscales, and the MCID and the PASS for both measures were independently calculated at 6 and 12 months post-injection. The MCID was calculated using the value equal to half of the standard deviation of the overall cohort improvement. The PASS was assessed using a 2-point scale ( satisfied or not satisfied), with threshold values being detected through a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and the Youden index to maximize the sensitivity and the specificity of the threshold values. Results: All scores improved significantly from baseline to 6 months and baseline to 12 months ( P < .001 for all scores). All scores were stable from 6 to 12 months except for the KOOS Quality of Life subscale, which improved further ( P = .033). For the IKDC, the MCID values were 8.6 and 8.5 points and the PASS scores were 59.7 and 62.1 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Overall, the MCID and the PASS for all KOOS subscales remained constant at the 2 follow-up points. The percentage of patients who achieved the MCID and the PASS was higher than 85% at both 6 and 12 months post-injection. Conclusion: This study provided the MCID and PASS thresholds for the IKDC and KOOS scores in patients with knee OA treated with PRP injections. These psychometric measures may allow a better interpretation of the clinical relevance of injection-based treatment outcomes for knee OA.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in Patients Who Underwent Rotator Cuff Tear Repair

The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) is a valid patient-reported outcome measure developed to assess sleep quality and disturbances in clinical populations. This study aimed to calculate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the PSQI in patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR). Preoperative and six-month postoperative follow-up questionnaires were completed by 50 patients (25 males and 25 females, mean age 58.7 ± 11.1 years). The MCID of the PSQI was calculated using distribution-based and anchor methods. To calculate the PSQI’s PASS, the 75th percentile approach and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used. The MCID from preoperative to 6 months postoperative follow-up is 4.4. Patients who improved their PSQI score of 4.4 from baseline to 6 months follow-up had a clinically significant increase in their health status. The PASS is 5.5 for PSQI; therefore, a value of PSQI at least 5.5 at six months follow-up indicates that the symptom state can be considered acceptable by most patients.

Patient-acceptable symptom state for reporting outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Aims The patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a level of wellbeing, which is measured by the patient. The aim of this study was to determine if the proportion of patients who achieved an acceptable level of function (PASS) after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was different based on the status of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) at the time of surgery. Methods A total of 114 patients who underwent UKA for isolated medial osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee were included in the study. Their mean age was 65 years (SD 10). No patient underwent a bilateral procedure. Those who had undergone ACL reconstruction during the previous five years were excluded. The Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (KOOS ADL) function score was used as the primary outcome measure with a PASS of 87.5, as described for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients completed all other KOOS subscales, Lysholm score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Veterans Rand 12-item health survey score. Failure was defined as conversion to TKA. Results Survivorship at ten years was 97% in both the ACL-deficient and ACL-intact groups. The mean survival was 16.1 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.3 to 16.8) for the ACL-deficient group and 15.6 years (95% CI 14.8 to 16.361) for the ACL-intact group (p = 0.878). At a mean of nine years (SD 3.5) in the ACL-deficient group, 32 patients (87%) reached the PASS for the KOOS ADL. In the ACL-intact group, at a mean of 8.6 years (SD 3) follow-up, 63 patients (85%) reached PASS for the KOOS ADL. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients who reached PASS for all KOOS subscales and Lysholm between the two groups. Conclusion PASS was achieved in 85% of all UKAs for KOOS ADL, similar to reports for TKA. Fixed-bearing, medial, non-robotically-assisted UKA resulted in 97% survival at ten years in both the ACL-deficient and ACL-intact groups. There was no significant difference in all outcomes between the two groups. Understanding PASS will allow better communication between surgeons and patients to improve the surgical management of patients with single compartment OA of the knee. This study provides mid- to long-term data supporting the use of PASS to document outcomes following UKA. PASS was met in more than 85% of patients with no differences between ACL-deficient and ACL-intact knees at a mean follow-up of nine years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1367–1372.