Purpose
To determine whether subgroups of patients exist based on the rate-of-recovery pattern
of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores after anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to determine clinical predictors for these subgroups.
Methods
Patients who underwent primary or revision ACLR at a single institution from January
2014 to January 2019 were identified. Latent class growth analyses and growth mixture
models (GMMs) with 1 to 6 classes were used to identify subgroups of patients based
on functional rate-of-recovery patterns by use of preoperative, 1-year postoperative,
and 2-year postoperative IKDC scores.
Results
A total of 245 patients who underwent ACLR were included in the analysis. A 3-class
GMM was chosen as the final model after 6 different models were run. Class 1, showing
improvement from preoperatively to 1-year follow-up, with sustained improvement from
1 to 2 years postoperatively, constituted 77.1% of the study population (n = 189),
whereas class 2, showing functional improvement between 1- and 2-year follow-up, was
the smallest class, constituting 10.2% of the study population (n = 25), and class
3, showing slight improvement at 1-year follow-up, with a subsequent decline in IKDC
scores between 1- and 2-year follow-up, constituted 12.7% of the study population
(n = 31). Revision surgery (P = .005), a psychiatric history (P = .025), preoperative chronic knee pain (P = .024), and a subsequent knee injury within the follow-up period (P = .011) were the predictors of class 2 and class 3 rate-of-recovery patterns. Patient
demographic characteristics, graft type, and concomitant ligament, meniscus, or cartilage
injury at the time of surgery were not associated with the different recovery patterns
described in this study.
Conclusions
Patients may follow different rate-of-recovery patterns after ACLR. By use of the
GMMs, 3 different rate-of-recovery patterns based on IKDC scores were identified.
Although most patients follow a more ideal rate-of-recovery pattern, fewer patients
may follow less favorable patterns. Revision surgery, a history of psychiatric illness,
preoperative chronic knee pain, and a subsequent knee injury within the follow-up
period were predictive of less favorable rate-of-recovery patterns.
Level of Evidence
Level III, retrospective cohort study.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Ten-year outcomes and risk factors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A MOON longitudinal prospective cohort study.Am J Sports Med. 2018; 46: 815-825
- The prognosis and predictors of sports function and activity at minimum 6 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A population cohort study.Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 348-359
- Predictors of patient-reported outcomes at 2 years after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47: 2394-2401
- Functional results of allograft vs. autograft tendons in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction at 10-year follow-up.Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021; 31: 729-735
- Effect of concomitant cartilage lesions on patient-reported outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A nationwide cohort study from Norway and Sweden of 8470 patients with 5-year follow-up.Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 62325967118786219
- 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.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 551-557
- An introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part 2): Longitudinal latent class growth analysis and growth mixture models.J Pediatr Psychol. 2014; 39: 188-203
- An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling.Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008; 2: 302-317
- Group-based trajectory modeling in clinical research.Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010; 6: 109-138
- Estimating multilevel linear models as structural equation models.J Educ Behav Stat. 2003; 28: 135-167
- Fast starters, slow starters, and late dippers: Trajectories of patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: Results from a Dutch nationwide database.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019; 101: 2175-2186
- Latent class growth analysis predicts long term pain and function trajectories in total knee arthroplasty: A study of 689 patients.Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015; 23: 2141-2149
- Exercise trajectories of women from entry to a 6-month cardiac rehabilitation program to one year after discharge.Biomed Res Int. 2013; 2013: 121030
- Defining recovery trajectories after shoulder arthroplasty: A latent class analysis of patient reported outcomes.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30: 2375-2385
- The natural course of recovery after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement according to the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 and Hip Outcome Score Sports Subscale.Am J Sports Med. 2021; 49: 3250-3260
- Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.Ed 5. American Psychiatric Publishing, Arlington2013
- Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form.Joint Bone Spine. 2007; 74: 594-599
- Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form.Am J Sports Med. 2001; 29: 600-613
- The GRoLTS-Checklist: Guidelines for reporting on latent trajectory studies.Struct Equ Modeling. 2017; 24: 451-467
- Defining the clinically meaningful outcomes for arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at minimum 5-year follow-up.Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 901-907
- The influence of lumbosacral spine pathology on minimum 2-year outcome after hip arthroscopy: A nested case-control analysis.Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 403-408
- Defining thresholds for the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC subjective knee form and KOOS for patients who underwent ACL reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44: 2820-2826
- Group-based modeling of development.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA2005
- Higher-order growth curves and mixture modeling with Mplus: A practical guide.Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), London2016
- Three distinct recovery patterns following primary total knee arthroplasty: Dutch arthroplasty register study of 809 patients.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 29: 529-539
- Speed of recovery after shoulder arthroplasty: A comparison of reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23: 1872-1881
- Complications after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and their relation to the type of graft: A prospective study of 958 cases.Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47: 2543-2549
- Prediction of patient-reported outcome after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Arthroscopy. 2009; 25: 457-463
- Predictors of activity level 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR): A Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) ACLR cohort study.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 2040-2050
- Self-reported activity level and knee function in amateur football players: The influence of age, gender, history of knee injury and level of competition.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008; 16: 713-719
- Which preoperative factors, including bone bruise, are associated with knee pain/symptoms at index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)? A Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) ACLR Cohort Study.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 1778-1787
- Factors associated with a more rapid recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using multivariate analysis.Knee. 2016; 23: 121-126
- Timing of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and preoperative pain are important predictors for postoperative kinesiophobia.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 28: 2502-2510
- A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears.N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 331-342
- Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: Five year outcome of randomised trial.BMJ. 2013; 346: f232
- Evidence for the effects of prehabilitation before ACL-reconstruction on return to sport-related and self-reported knee function: A systematic review.PLoS One. 2020; 15e0240192
- Preoperative quadriceps strength is a significant predictor of knee function two years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Br J Sports Med. 2009; 43: 371-376
- Should patients reach certain knee function benchmarks before anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Does intense 'prehabilitation' before anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction influence outcome and return to sports?.Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 1423-1424
- The effect of preoperative quadriceps strength on strength and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.J Sport Rehabil. 2012; 21: 89-93
- How does a combined preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation programme influence the outcome of ACL reconstruction 2 years after surgery? A comparison between patients in the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry.Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 385-389
- Effect of graft choice on the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort.Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 2301-2310
- Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft in skeletally mature patients aged 25 years or younger.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24: 3627-3633
- Allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR): A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term comparative effectiveness and safety. Results of a health technology assessment.Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2020; 2: e873-e891
- An autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in better biomechanical performance and tendon-bone incorporation than does a hybrid graft in a rat model.Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 3515-3524
- Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort.Sports Health. 2011; 3: 73-81
- A systematic review of failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft compared with allograft in young patients.Sports Health. 2015; 7: 207-216
- Fresh-frozen free-tendon allografts versus autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Delayed remodeling and inferior mechanical function during long-term healing in sheep.Arthroscopy. 2008; 24: 448-458
- Depression symptomatology and anterior cruciate ligament injury: Incidence and effect on functional outcome—A prospective cohort study.Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44: 572-579
- Patient-related risk factors for contralateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear after ACL reconstruction: An analysis of 3707 primary ACL reconstructions.HSS J. 2020; 16: 226-229
- Factors associated with psychological readiness to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.Am J Sports Med. 2018; 46: 1545-1550
- Opioid demand before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 3098-3103
- Comparison of concomitant injuries and patient-reported outcome in patients that have undergone both primary and revision ACL reconstruction—A national registry study.J Orthop Surg Res. 2020; 15: 9
- Patients with concomitant intra-articular lesions at index surgery deteriorate in their knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in the long term more than patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture: A study from the Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register.Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 1520-1529
- Meniscal repair in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A long-term outcome study.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19: 1729-1734
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: March 22, 2022
Accepted:
February 25,
2022
Received:
November 6,
2021
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: B.R.B. receives research support from Arthrex , ConMed Linvatec, DJ Orthopaedics, Ossur, SLACK, Smith & Nephew, and Tornier, outside the submitted work. C.A.B-J. owns stock or stock options in Cresco Lab, outside the submitted work; is on the editorial or governing board of American Journal of Sports Medicine; and is a board or committee member of American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM). B.F. receives research support from Arthrex , Smith & Nephew, and Stryker; receives publishing royalties and financial or material support from Elsevier; owns stock or stock options in iBrainTech, Jace Medical, and Sparta Biopharma; is a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew and Stryker; is a board or committee member of AOSSM; and is on the editorial or governing board of Video Journal of Sports Medicine. A.B.Y. receives personal fees from ConMed Linvatec, JRF Ortho, and Olympus; receives grants from Organogenesis, Vericel, and Arthrex; owns stock or stock options in PatientIQ; and receives nonfinancial support from PatientIQ, Smith & Nephew, and Sparta Biomedical. N.N.V. is a board or committee member of AOSSM , American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons , and AANA; receives research support from Arthrex , Breg, Ossur, Smith & Nephew, and Wright Medical Technology; receives publishing royalties and financial or material support from Arthroscopy and Vindico Medical–Orthopedics Hyperguide; owns stock or stock options in Cymedica, Minivasive, and Omeros; is on the editorial or governing board of Knee and SLACK; is a paid consultant for Minivasive and Orthospace; and receives intellectual property royalties from Smith & Nephew, outside the submitted work. B.J.C. receives research support from Aesculap, National Institutes of Health , Regentis, and Arthrex; is a paid consultant for Aesculap, Regentis, Arthrex , Acumed , and Vericel; receives other financial or material support from Aesculap, Smith & Nephew, Arthrex , Encore Medical, GE Healthcare , Merck Sharp & Dohme , SportsTek Medical, and Vericel; receives publishing royalties and financial or material support from Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine; owns stock or stock options in Ossio, Regentis, and Bandgrip; receives royalties from Arthrex; and receives intellectual property royalties from Elsevier, outside the submitted work. J.C. is a paid consultant for Arthrex , ConMed Linvatec, Ossur, and Smith & Nephew, outside the submitted work, and is a board or committee member of AOSSM , AANA , and International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery, and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 by the Arthroscopy Association of North America
