Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 1—definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes

Introduction Primary cam morphology is a mostly benign bony prominence that develops at the femoral head-neck junction of the hip, but it is highly prevalent in many athlete populations. In the small proportion of athletes for whom it is not benign, the resulting hip osteoarthritis can be debilitating. Clinicians, athletes, patients and researchers do not yet agree on important primary cam morphology elements. We aimed to ascertain and improve the level of agreement on primary cam morphology definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome measures. Methods To collect and aggregate informed opinions, an expert panel—the Young Athlete’s Hip Research Collaborative—rated primary cam morphology definition, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome statements through an online Delphi exercise followed by an online meeting to explore areas of tension and dissent. Reporting followed Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. Results A diverse and inclusive Delphi panel (n=65 for rounds 1 and 2, representing 18 countries; 6 stakeholder groups; 40% women) agreed on 35 of 47 statements in 4 domains, while surfacing areas of tension and dissent. This Delphi panel agreed on four key issues essential to moving research and clinical care forward around primary cam morphology. They agreed on: (1) definition, confirming its conceptual attributes (tissue type, size, location, shape and ownership); (2) terminology—use ‘morphology’ and not terms with a negative connotation like ‘lesion’, ‘abnormality’ or ‘deformity’; (3) taxonomy, distinguishing between primary and secondary cam morphology, and (4) imaging outcomes, a continuous bone/cartilage alpha angle on radial femoral head-neck MRI for primary cam morphology aetiology research. Conclusion This consensus provides athletes, patients, clinicians and researchers with a strong foundation to guide more precise communication, better clinical decision-making and higher value research about primary cam morphology and its natural history

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 1—definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes

INTRODUCTION: Primary cam morphology is a mostly benign bony prominence that develops at the femoral head-neck junction of the hip, but it is highly prevalent in many athlete populations. In the small proportion of athletes for whom it is not benign, the resulting hip osteoarthritis can be debilitating. Clinicians, athletes, patients and researchers do not yet agree on important primary cam morphology elements. We aimed to ascertain and improve the level of agreement on primary cam morphology definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome measures. METHODS: To collect and aggregate informed opinions, an expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research Collaborative-rated primary cam morphology definition, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome statements through an online Delphi exercise followed by an online meeting to explore areas of tension and dissent. Reporting followed Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. RESULTS: A diverse and inclusive Delphi panel (n=65 for rounds 1 and 2, representing 18 countries; 6 stakeholder groups; 40% women) agreed on 35 of 47 statements in 4 domains, while surfacing areas of tension and dissent. This Delphi panel agreed on four key issues essential to moving research and clinical care forward around primary cam morphology. They agreed on: (1) definition, confirming its conceptual attributes (tissue type, size, location, shape and ownership); (2) terminology-use 'morphology' and not terms with a negative connotation like 'lesion', 'abnormality' or 'deformity'; (3) taxonomy, distinguishing between primary and secondary cam morphology, and (4) imaging outcomes, a continuous bone/cartilage alpha angle on radial femoral head-neck MRI for primary cam morphology aetiology research. CONCLUSION: This consensus provides athletes, patients, clinicians and researchers with a strong foundation to guide more precise communication, better clinical decision-making and higher value research about primary cam morphology and its natural history

ICON 2019: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: Clinical Terminology

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Background Persistent tendon pain that impairs function has inconsistent medical terms that can influence choice of treatment.1 When a person is told they have tendinopathy by clinician A or tendinitis by clinician B, they might feel confused or be alarmed at receiving what they might perceive as two different diagnoses. This may lead to loss of confidence in their health professional and likely adds to uncertainty if they were to search for information about their condition. Clear and uniform terminology also assists inter-professional communication. Inconsistency in terminology for painful tendon disorders is a problem at numerous anatomical sites. Historically, the term ‘tendinitis’ was first used to describe tendon pain, thickening and impaired function (online supplementary figure S1). The term ‘tendinosis’ has also been used in a small number of publications, some of which were very influential.2 3 Subsequently, ‘tendinopathy’ emerged as the most common term for persistent tendon pain.4 5 To our knowledge, experts (clinicians and researchers) or patients have never engaged in a formal process to discuss the terminology we use. We believe that health professionals have not yet agreed on the appropriate terminology for painful tendon conditions.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

ICON 2019—International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: There are nine core health-related domains for tendinopathy (CORE DOMAINS): Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patients

Background: The absence of any agreed-upon tendon health-related domains hampers advances in clinical tendinopathy research. This void means that researchers report a very wide range of outcome measures inconsistently. As a result, substantial synthesis/meta-analysis of tendon research findings is almost futile despite researchers publishing busily. We aimed to determine options for, and then define, core health-related domains for tendinopathy. Methods: We conducted a Delphi study of healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients in a three-stage process. In stage 1, we extracted candidate domains from clinical trial reports and developed an online survey. Survey items took the form: ‘The ‘candidate domain’ is important enough to be included as a core health-related domain of tendinopathy’; response options were: agree, disagree, or unsure. In stage 2, we administered the online survey and reported the findings. Stage 3 consisted of discussions of the findings of the survey at the ICON (International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus) meeting. We set 70% participant agreement as the level required for a domain to be considered ‘core’; similarly, 70% agreement was required for a domain to be relegated to ‘not core’ (see Results next). Results: Twenty-eight HCP (92% of whom had >10 years of tendinopathy experience, 71% consulted >10 cases per month) and 32 patients completed the online survey. Fifteen HCP and two patients attended the consensus meeting. Of an original set of 24 candidate domains, the ICON group deemed nine domains to be core. These were: (1) patient rating of condition, (2) participation in life activities (day to day, work, sport), (3) pain on activity/loading, (4) function, (5) psychological factors, (6) physical function capacity, (7) disability, (8) quality of life and (9) pain over a specified time. Two of these (2, 6) were an amalgamation of five candidate domains. We agreed that seven other candidate domains were not core domains: range of motion, pain on clinician applied test, clinical examination, palpation, drop out, sensory modality pain and pain without other specification. We were undecided on the other five candidate domains of physical activity, structure, medication use, adverse effects and economic impact. Conclusion: Nine core domains for tendon research should guide reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Further research should determine the best outcome measures for each specific tendinopathy (ie, core outcome sets)

Residual deficits in reactive strength indicate incomplete restoration of athletic qualities following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in professional soccer players

Context: Deficits in plyometric abilities are common following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Vertical rebound tasks may provide a targeted evaluation of knee function. Objective: Examine the utility of a vertical hop test to assess function following ACLR and establish factors associated with performance. Design: Cross-sectional Setting: Rehabilitation Participants: Soccer players with a history of ACLR (N = 73) and matched controls (N = 195) Main outcome measures: 10 second vertical hop test including measures of jump height, reactive strength index (RSI) and asymmetry. We also examined possible predictors of hop performance including single leg vertical drop jump (SLDVJ), isokinetic knee extension strength, and the international knee documentation committee questionnaire. Results: Significant between-limb differences were identified for the ACLR group only and asymmetry scores increased in those with a history of ACLR (P < 0.001) compared to controls. SLDVJ RSI and knee extension torque were significant predictors of 10 second hop height (R2 = 20.1%) and RSI (R2 = 47.1%). Conclusions: Vertical hop deficits are present following ACLR even after completing a comprehensive rehabilitation program. This may be due to reduced knee extension and reactive strength. Vertical hop tests warrant inclusion as part of return to sport test battery

Participant characteristics are poorly reported in exercise trials in tendinopathy: A systematic review

Objective: To evaluate the reporting of eligibility criteria and baseline participant characteristics in randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of exercise interventions in tendinopathy. Methods: Randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of exercise therapy compared to a nonexercising intervention in upper and lower limb tendinopathy were included. Data extraction was categorised into the following domains: participant demographics, tendinopathy descriptors, general health, participant recruitment and eligibility criteria. Results: The review included the following tendinopathies: Achilles (n ¼ 9), gluteal (n ¼ 2), lateral elbow tendinopathy (n ¼ 15), patellar (n ¼ 3) plantar (n ¼ 3), and rotator cuff (n ¼ 13). Age, sex, duration of symptoms and symptom severity were commonly reported across the review, while prior history of tendinopathy was poorly reported (6/45). Variables such as physical activity level (17/45), sleep (0/45), psychological factors (2/45), medication at baseline (8/45), co morbid health complaints (10/45) and sociodemographic factors (11/45) were poorly reported across the included studies. Substantial variation existed between studies in the specific eligibility criteria used. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review demonstrate that participant characteristics are poorly reported in exercise trials in tendinopathy. To improve effectiveness of exercise interventions in tendinopathy, improved reporting of participan

The strength of association between psychological factors and clinical outcome in tendinopathy: A systematic review

Objective: Tendinopathy is often a disabling, and persistent musculoskeletal disorder. Psychological factors appear to play a role in the perpetuation of symptoms and influence recovery in musculoskeletal pain. To date, the impact of psychological factors on clinical outcome in tendinopathy remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the strength of association between psychological factors and clinical outcome in tendinopathy. Methods A systematic review of the literature and qualitative synthesis of published trials was conducted. Electronic searches of ovid MEDLINE, ovid EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library was undertaken from their inception to June 2020. Eligibility criteria included RCT’s and studies of observational design incorporating measurements of psychological factors and pain, disability and physical functional outcomes in people with tendinopathy. Risk of Bias was assessed by two authors using a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. High or low certainty evidence was examined using the GRADE criteria. Results Ten studies of observational design (6-cross sectional and 4 prospective studies), involving a sample of 719 participants with tendinopathy were included. Risk of bias for the included studies ranged from 12/21 to 21/21. Cross-sectional studies of low to very low level of certainty evidence revealed significant weak to moderate strength of association (r = 0.24 to 0.53) between psychological factors and clinical outcomes. Prospective baseline data of very low certainty evidence showed weak strength of association between psychological factors and clinical outcome. However, prospective studies were inconsistent in showing a predictive relationship between baseline psychological factors on long-term outcome. Cross sectional studies report similar strengths of association between psychological factors and clinical outcomes in tendinopathy to those found in other musculoskeletal conditions. Conclusion The overall body of the evidence after applying the GRADE criteria was low to very low certainty evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness found across included studies. Future, high quality longitudinal cohort studies are required to investigate the predictive value of baseline psychological factors on long-term clinical outcome