MacDonald, Peter B.

Unfortunately, the middle name of Olufemi R. Ayeni was accidentally omitted in the original publication and the author name is corrected here. The original article has been corrected.

AbstractPurposeThe aim of this review was to compare the clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with either meniscal repair or meniscectomy for concomitant meniscal injury. The primary hypothesis was that short‐term clinical outcomes (≤ 2‐year follow‐up) for ACLR concomitant with either meniscal repair or resection would be similar. The secondary hypothesis was that ACLR with meniscal repair would result in better longer term outcomes compared with meniscal resection.MethodsThe authors searched two online databases (EMBASE and MEDLINE) from inception until March 2018 for the literature on ACLR and concurrent meniscal surgery. Two reviewers systematically screened studies in duplicate, independently, and based on a priori criteria. Quality assessment was also performed in duplicate. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) sub‐scale scores at 2 years post‐operatively were combined in a meta‐analysis of proportions using a random‐effects model.ResultsOf 2566 initial studies, 25 studies satisfied full‐text inclusion criteria. Mean follow‐up was 2.09 years, with a total sample of 37,087 subjects including controls. The meta‐analysis demonstrated equivocal results at 2 years, except for KOOS symptom scores which favoured meniscal resection over repair. Mean KT‐1000 side‐to‐side difference (SSD) scores were 1.51 ± 0.60 mm for meniscal repair, 1.96 ± 0.36 mm for meniscal resection, and 1.58 ± 0.20 for control patients (isolated ACLR). Medial meniscal repair showed decreased anterior knee joint laxity compared to medial meniscal resection (P < 0.001). Patients with meniscal repair had higher rates of re‐operation (13.3% vs 0.8% for meniscal resection, P < 0.001).ConclusionPatients with ACLR combined with meniscal resection demonstrate better symptoms at 2‐year follow‐up compared to patients with ACLR combined with meniscal repair. ACLR combined with meniscal repair results in decreased anterior knee joint laxity with evidence of improved patient‐reported outcomes in the long term, but also higher re‐operation rates.Level of evidenceIII.

Background: Existing knee joint–specific outcome questionnaires lack content pertinent to patients with multiligament knee injuries. Purpose: To develop and test the reliability and validity of a novel disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with multiligament knee injuries. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Participants in this study included patients with multiligament knee injuries and clinician experts. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with multiligament knee injury (age, 18-60 years), (2) ≥6 months after injury, and (3) operative or nonoperative treatment. Exclusion criteria were (1) preexisting osteoarthritis or inflammatory arthritis and (2) intracerebral/spinal cord injury. In phase I of the study, 85 eligible patients were mailed a questionnaire composed of 132 items from 11 existing knee questionnaires. Items were rated with regard to importance and frequency on a 5-point Likert scale. Criteria for inclusion in the first draft of the Multiligament Quality of Life (MLQOL) questionnaire included mean importance rating ≥3.5 and frequency <30% for the response “never experienced.” In phase II, patient focus groups and expert interviews were conducted until no further new content was generated for the MLQOL, and in phase III, 99 eligible patients across 2 centers were mailed a preliminary MLQOL questionnaire along with the Tegner activity scale, Short Form (SF)–36, and anchor questions. Interitem and item-to-total correlations were used to perform item reduction to generate a final MLQOL instrument, which was tested for internal consistency (Cronbach alpha), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and construct validity. Results: At the end of phase III, a final MLQOL instrument was developed that was composed of 4 domains (physical impairments [PI], emotional impairments [EI], activity limitations [AL], and societal involvement [SI]) with 52 items in total. The MLQOL had adequate content validity, as none of the domains had any floor or ceiling effects. The Cronbach alpha was .94 (PI), .93 (EI), .94 (AL), and .91 (SI); ICC values were .89 (PI), .86 (EI), .91 (AL), and .88 (SI). Seven of 8 a priori hypotheses were satisfied, indicating good construct validity. Conclusion: The MLQOL instrument is a novel disease-specific quality of life tool that has demonstrated excellent content validity, reliability, and construct validity.

AbstractPurposeTo compare the accuracy and reliability of the anatomic and radiographic techniques for identifying the isometric point of the knee.MethodsOnly four specimens were used; however, eight experienced multiligament knee injury surgeons were recruited to address this limitation. Surgeons estimated the isometric point (EIP) on the medial and lateral sides using an anatomic and radiographic method. The x and y coordinates of the EIP were compared to the true isometric point (TIP). T‐tests and interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were performed to determine the accuracy and reliability between the methods.ResultsThere was no difference in placement of the EIP on the medial side of the knee in the anterior/posterior (x; p = n.s.) and superior/inferior direction (y;p = n.s). The EIP was anterior (p = 0.001) to the TIP with the radiographic method on the lateral side and approached significance (p = 0.05) in the superior/inferior direction. The ICC (95 % CI) for identifying the EIP on the medial side in the anterior/posterior direction using the anatomic method was 0.64 (0.28–0.96) and 0.11 (−0.06 to 0.77) in the superior/inferior direction. Using the radiographic method, the ICC in the anterior/posterior and superior/inferior direction was 0.49 (0.14–0.94) and 0.15 (−0.47 to 0.81), respectively. On the lateral side, the ICC for the anatomic method was 0.84 (0.56–0.99) in the anterior/posterior direction and 0.36 (0.05–0.90) in the superior/inferior direction. Using the radiographic method, the ICC in the anterior/posterior and superior/inferior direction was 0.61 (0.26–0.96) and 0.89 (0.67–0.99), respectively.ConclusionsThere was no difference in accuracy on the medial side of the knee. On the lateral side, the anatomic method was more accurate in the anterior/posterior direction. Reliability was greater in the anterior/posterior direction on both sides of the knee. Surgeons were most likely to place the isometric point anterior and superior to the TIP on both the medial and lateral sides of the knee with either method which has the potential to cause graft lengthening. This should be taken into consideration during reconstruction/repair of the MCL/PMC and LCL/PLC.