Abstract

Review Article

The role of UK national ligament registry as additional source of evidence for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Review of the literature and future Perspectives

Tarek Boutefnouchet*, Thomas Laios and Keshav Mathur

Published: 20 August, 2017 | Volume 2 - Issue 3 | Pages: 081-090

Background: There is paucity in studies reporting long-term results following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. A UK national ligament registry (NLR) designed to collect demographic, clinical and outcome data on patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was launched in 2013. There was therefore an emergent question on the role of such registry as an additional source of evidence.

Study aims: A framework analysis aimed to provide a basis for the evaluation of outcomes following ACL management and formulate a structure of the evidence, which can be derived from the registry.

Methods: A systematic approach was adopted to select relevant studies. Qualitative thematic and meta-narrative analyses were conducted. Level-1 registry data were recorded for all primary ACL reconstruction procedures from January to June 2016. Registry data content and validity were evaluated.

Results: Seven studies were suitable for analyses yet none defined the pattern of meniscal injury following initial treatment. When reported the incidence varied markedly between 23% and 80%. There was evidence of collection of at least one principal outcome measure in at least 85% of participants across all studies. Thematic analysis identified four key domains of outcome measures (1) intervention selection, (2) Knee stability evaluation, (3) Patient reported outcomes, (4) Radiographic evaluation and risk of secondary osteoarthritis. Graft choice, rate of meniscal and chondral injuries and cumulative risk of revision surgery had incomplete and inconsistent reports. Comparison of demographic and clinical data with the first registry report demonstrated: predominately younger patient population; older female patients at time of intervention; and higher incidence of meniscal tears.

Conclusions: Registry data driven quality and research improvement open a new paradigm in ACL reconstruction evidence base and future practice. Early observations have consolidated the importance of associated meniscal injuries in the management of ACL rupture. Further work is needed to improve registry data completeness, accuracy and validity. A proposed data migration process using available technologies can help harmonise data collection without the added burden on clinical services.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.jsmt.1001012 Cite this Article Read Full Article PDF

Keywords:

Anterior cruciate ligament; Surgical management; Physiotherapy; Clinical decision-making; Clinical Registry; Cost-effectiveness

References

  1. Linko E, Harilainen A, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S. Surgical versus conservative interventions for anterior cruciate ligament ruptures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005. Ref.: https://goo.gl/fwqQD6
  2. Kwok CS, Harrison T, Servant C. The optimal timing for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with respect to the risk of postoperative stiffness. Arthroscopy. 2013; 29: 556-565. Ref.: https://goo.gl/p3Hzfk
  3. Smith TO, Davies L, Hing CB. Early versus delayed surgery for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010; 18: 304-311. Ref.: https://goo.gl/rJMNKN
  4. Mather RC 3rd, Koenig L, Kocher MS, Dall TM, Gallo P, et al. Societal and economic impact of anterior cruciate ligament tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95: 1751-1759. Ref.: https://goo.gl/k25ZnU
  5. Chalmers PN, Mall NA, Moric M, Sherman SL, Paletta GP, et al. Does ACL reconstruction alter natural history?: A systematic literature review of long-term outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: 292-300. Ref.: https://goo.gl/1DSZpt
  6. Kapoor B, Clement DJ, Kirkley A, Maffulli N. Current practice in the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the United Kingdom. Br J Sports Med. 2004; 38: 542-544. Ref.: https://goo.gl/r9mJnu
  7. Nordenvall R, Bahmanyar S, Adami J, Mattila VM, Felländer-Tsai L. Cruciate ligament reconstruction and risk of knee osteoarthritis: the association between cruciate ligament injury and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. a population based nationwide study in Sweden, 1987-2009. PLoS One. 2014; 9. Ref.: https://goo.gl/HazmXG
  8. Lohmander LS, Roos EM. The evidence base for orthopaedics and sports medicine. Bmj. 2015; 350. Ref.: https://goo.gl/yHSzek
  9. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 331-342. Ref.: https://goo.gl/pFrWgW
  10. Levy BA. Is early reconstruction necessary for all anterior cruciate ligament tears? N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 386-388. Ref.: https://goo.gl/H51jXb
  11. Richmond JC, Lubowitz JH, Poehling GG. Prompt operative intervention reduces long-term osteoarthritis after knee anterior cruciate ligament tear. Arthroscopy. 2011: 27: 149-52. Ref.: https://goo.gl/XSBfDP
  12. Sri-Ram K, Salmon LJ, Pinczewski LA, Roe JP. The incidence of secondary pathology after anterior cruciate ligament rupture in 5086 patients requiring ligament reconstruction. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95: 59-64. Ref.: https://goo.gl/fCDPBf
  13. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One. 2013; 8. Ref.: https://goo.gl/GWyCbr
  14. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014; 383: 257-266. Ref.: https://goo.gl/vFjpZ5
  15. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Cmaj. 2004; 171: 735-740. Ref.: https://goo.gl/eg5JuL
  16. Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Clinical research involving children: registration, completeness, and publication. Pediatrics. 2012; 129. Ref.: https://goo.gl/M3wRqn
  17. Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 153: 158-166. Ref.: https://goo.gl/NtXx3X
  18. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 252-260. Ref.: https://goo.gl/5DcFXT
  19. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. Jama. 1990; 263: 1405-1408. Ref.: https://goo.gl/9c1q2c
  20. Smyth RM, Kirkham JJ, Jacoby A, Altman DG, Gamble C, et al. Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists. Bmj. 2011; 342. Ref.: https://goo.gl/fypysz
  21. Saini P, Loke YK, Gamble C, Altman DG, Williamson PR, et al. Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews. Bmj. 2014; 349. Ref.: https://goo.gl/38qTuY
  22. Makhni EC, Padaki AS, Petridis PD, Steinhaus ME, Ahmad CS, et al. High Variability in Outcome Reporting Patterns in High-Impact ACL Literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1529-1542. Ref.: https://goo.gl/1hy5ka
  23. Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM, Roemer FW, Ranstam J, et al. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial. Bmj. 2013; 346. Ref.: https://goo.gl/qxC93j
  24. Meuffels DE, Favejee MM, Vissers MM, Heijboer MP, Reijman M, et al. Ten year follow-up study comparing conservative versus operative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament ruptures. A matched-pair analysis of high level athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2009; 43: 347-351. Ref.: https://goo.gl/T82rB5
  25. Swirtun LR, Renstrom P. Factors affecting outcome after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a prospective study with a six-year follow-up. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008; 18: 318-324. Ref.: https://goo.gl/zZgNQV
  26. Kessler MA, Behrend H, Henz S, Stutz G, Rukavina A, et al. Function, osteoarthritis and activity after ACL-rupture: 11 years follow-up results of conservative versus reconstructive treatment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008; 16: 442-448. Ref.: https://goo.gl/ycJ2H8
  27. Fink C, Hoser C, Hackl W, Navarro RA, Benedetto KP. Long-term outcome of operative or nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture--is sports activity a determining variable? Int J Sports Med. 2001; 22: 304-309. Ref.: https://goo.gl/FEJPX8
  28. Mihelic R, Jurdana H, Jotanovic Z, Madjarevic T, Tudor A. Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparison with non-operative treatment with a follow-up of 17-20 years. International Orthopaedics. 2011; 35: 1093-1097. Ref.: https://goo.gl/2ciqy8
  29. Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Marti RK, et al. Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 550-558. Ref.: https://goo.gl/9QQ8hr
  30. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Rasmussen JV, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. Int J Epidemiol. 2014; 43: 937-948. Ref.: https://goo.gl/EMMto8
  31. Smith TO, Postle K, Penny F, McNamara I, Mann CJ. Is reconstruction the best management strategy for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus non-operative treatment. Knee. 2014; 21: 462-470. Ref.: https://goo.gl/LD7vEQ
  32. Streich NA, Zimmermann D, Bode G, Schmitt H. Reconstructive versus non-reconstructive treatment of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. A retrospective matched-pair long-term follow-up. Int Orthop. 2011; 35: 607-613. Ref.: https://goo.gl/YBGcy4
  33. Kvist J, Kartus J, Karlsson J, Forssblad M. Results from the Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register. Arthroscopy. 2014; 30: 803-810. Ref.: https://goo.gl/1UcyMw
  34. Ahlden M, Samuelsson K, Sernert N, Forssblad M, Karlsson J, et al. The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register: a report on baseline variables and outcomes of surgery for almost 18,000 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 2230-2235. Ref.: https://goo.gl/1y1F4t
  35. Lynch TS, Parker RD, Patel RM, Andrish JT, MOON Group, et al. The Impact of the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Research on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Orthopaedic Practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015; 23: 154-163. Ref.: https://goo.gl/72ZgNE
  36. Mather RC, 3rd, Hettrich CM, Dunn WR, Cole BJ, Bach BR Jr, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Early Reconstruction Versus Rehabilitation and Delayed Reconstruction for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 1583-1591. Ref.: https://goo.gl/kWLd6y
  37. Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML, Luetzow WF, Csintalan RP, et al. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med. 2005; 33: 335-346. Ref.: https://goo.gl/cJpDHv
  38. Fithian DC. To Operate or Not to Operate? That Is (Still) the Question: Commentary on an article by Hege Grindem, PT, PhD, et al.: "Nonsurgical or Surgical Treatment of ACL Injuries: Knee Function, Sports Participation, and Knee Reinjury. The Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort Study". J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96. Ref.: https://goo.gl/eTVCVi
  39. Grindem H, Eitzen I, Engebretsen L, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. Nonsurgical or Surgical Treatment of ACL Injuries: Knee Function, Sports Participation, and Knee Reinjury: The Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: 1233-1241. Ref.: https://goo.gl/Lkb7QP
  40. Hurd WJ, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. A 10-year prospective trial of a patient management algorithm and screening examination for highly active individuals with anterior cruciate ligament injury: Part 1, outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36: 40-47. Ref.: https://goo.gl/6RyHXt
  41. Bray RC, Dandy DJ. Meniscal lesions and chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Meniscal tears occurring before and after reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989; 71: 128-130. Ref.: https://goo.gl/aYQiEU
  42. Robb C, Kempshall P, Getgood A, Standell H, Sprowson A, et al. Meniscal integrity predicts laxity of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23: 3683-3690. Ref.: https://goo.gl/KqehRu
  43. Fetzer GB, Spindler KP, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Bergfeld JA, et al. Potential market for new meniscus repair strategies: evaluation of the MOON cohort. J Knee Surg. 2009; 22: 180-186. Ref.: https://goo.gl/rERJNz
  44. Jameson SS, Dowen D, James P, Serrano-Pedraza I, Reed MR, et al. Complications following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the English NHS. Knee. 2012; 19: 14-19. Ref.: https://goo.gl/unDQmb
  45. Tibor L, Chan PH, Funahashi TT, Wyatt R, Maletis GB, et al. Surgical Technique Trends in Primary ACL Reconstruction from 2007 to 2014. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016; 98: 1079-1089. Ref.: https://goo.gl/YEjsgx
  46. Duffee A, Magnussen RA, Pedroza AD, Flanigan DC, MOON Group, et al. Transtibial ACL femoral tunnel preparation increases odds of repeat ipsilateral knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95: 2035-2042. Ref.: https://goo.gl/XuVKN5
  47. Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind M. Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: results from the danish registry of knee ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 278-284. Ref.: https://goo.gl/bUAVKD
  48. Sabah SA, Henckel J, Cook E, Whittaker R, Hothi H, et al. Validation of primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties on the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland using data from the London Implant Retrieval Centre: a study using the NJR dataset. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97: 10-18. Ref.: https://goo.gl/NqNh97
  49. Gundtoft PH, Pedersen AB, Schonheyder HC, Overgaard S. Validation of the diagnosis 'prosthetic joint infection' in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98: 320-325. Ref.: https://goo.gl/hfrD5S
  50. Samuel AM, Lukasiewicz AM, Webb ML, Bohl DD, Basques BA, et al. Do we really know our patient population in database research? A comparison of the femoral shaft fracture patient populations in three commonly used national databases. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98: 425-432. Ref.: https://goo.gl/VfnBvU
  51. Atherton H, Sawmynaden P, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Car J. Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11. Ref.: https://goo.gl/zN8pYT
  52. Haun JN, Patel NR, Lind JD, Antinori N. Large-Scale Survey Findings Inform Patients' Experiences in Using Secure Messaging to Engage in Patient-Provider Communication and Self-Care Management: A Quantitative Assessment. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17. Ref.: https://goo.gl/yhH19w
  53. National Joint Registry: Supporting Data Quality. 2016.

Figures:

Figure 1

Figure 1

Similar Articles

Recently Viewed

Read More

Most Viewed

Read More