Quality of Life Following ACL Reconstruction: Baseline Predictors of Patient-Reported Outcomes
The study by Dunn et al., “Baseline Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A longitudinal analysis of a multicenter cohort at two and six years,” evaluates patient factors that are predictive of outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The current review critically analyzes the findings of this study in light of the current body of literature on the subject and assesses its contribution to the development of evidence-based guidelines. The authors’ primary endpoint, the Short Form-36 (SF-36), is used ubiquitously in health care research and allows their results to be compared across different disease states and studies. Despite its widespread use, the SF-36 has been shown to be sensitive to outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The authors’ use of generic health-related quality of life outcome as a primary endpoint represents an important contribution to the field, and their findings allow for improved preoperative counseling by identifying baseline patient factors that predict outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Furthermore, by deriving utilities from SF-36 scores, the authors are able to assess the value of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as compared to other medical and surgical procedures.
KeywordsACL reconstruction quality of life SF-36 Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON)
Conflict of Interest
Christine C. Johnson, MD, Grant H. Garcia, MD, and Matthew R. Garner, MD, have declared that they have no conflict of interest. Robert G. Marx MD, MSc, FRCSC reports personal fees from Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Springer, Demos Health and Mend, outside the work.
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.
Required Author Forms
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.
- 3.Borchers JR, Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Wright RW. MOON Consortium and the MARS Group. Intra-articular findings in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: A comparison of the MOON and MARS study groups. Am J Sports Med. 2011; 9: 1889-1893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Holm I, Oiestad BE, Risberg MA, Aune AK. No difference in knee function or prevalence of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with 4-strand hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon-bone autograft: A randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2010; 3: 448-454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Keays SL, Bullock-Saxton JE, Keays AC, Newcombe PA, Bullock MI. A 6-year follow-up of the effect of graft site on strength, stability, range of motion, function, and joint degeneration after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendon graft. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 5: 729-739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.O’Neill DB. Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A follow-up report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 9: 1329-1332.Google Scholar
- 16.Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen JE, et al. Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A study of 12,643 patients from the norwegian cruciate ligament registry, 2004–2012. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 2: 285-291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Wu WH, Hackett T, Richmond JC. Effects of meniscal and articular surface status on knee stability, function, and symptoms after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A long-term prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 2002; 6: 845-850.Google Scholar