The Dutch language short Anterior Cruciate Ligament—Return to Sport after Injury scale has good to excellent construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability when assessing athletes undergoing rehabilitation after ACL injury or ACL reconstruction

Objectives: To examine the validity and reliability of the Dutch language short Anterior Cruciate Ligament—Return to Sport after Injury scale (short ACL-RSI-NL) in recreational athletes undergoing rehabilitation after ACL injury or ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: The original 12-item version of the ACL-RSI had been translated into Dutch. Short ACL-RSI-NL items were derived from this 12-item Dutch version. Content validity was evaluated by a team consisting of eight ACL experts and eight athletes. A cohort of 115 athletes with ACL injury or after ACLR completed the short ACL-RSI-NL and related questionnaires at various time points during their rehabilitation. Construct validity (hypothesis testing using Spearman correlations), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), floor and ceiling effects (percentage of athletes having the lowest or highest score possible), and structural validity (exploratory factor analysis) were evaluated in the entire ACL athlete group. Test-retest reliability (using intra-class correlation, ICC; standard error of measurement, SEM; smallest detectable change, SDC, at both group and individual levels) was investigated in a subgroup of athletes with a stable outcome on psychological readiness within a two-week interval (n ​= ​27). Results: The short ACL-RSI-NL demonstrated good construct validity (83% of hypotheses confirmed). Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha 0.84), and there were no floor and ceiling effects (≤13.9% lowest or highest score). Test-retest reliability was good (ICC 0.89 with 95% CI 0.77–0.95, SEM 6.93, SDC individual level 19.2, SDC group level 3.7). Exploratory factor analysis confirmed the presence of a single underlying factor (accounting for 56.4% of the total variance of the score). Conclusion: The short ACL-RSI-NL exhibited good to excellent construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. An averaged score ranging from 0 to 100 can be used to measure psychological readiness to return to sport. The short ACL-RSI-NL has potential for use in day-to-day practice to assess the psychological readiness of recreational athletes to return to sport after ACL injury or ACLR during their rehabilitation process. Level of evidence: Level II.</p

The results of downgrading moderate and severe slipped capital femoral epiphysis by an early Imhauser femur osteotomy

Purpose: Patients with moderate and severe slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) develop osteoarthritis earlier in life in association with mechanical impingement. Methods: To correct deformity and diminishim pingement, we performed epiphysiodesis combined with an Imhauser intertrochanteric osteotomy (ITO) in moderate and severe slipped capital femoral epiphysis. We downgraded the angle of the head relative to the acetabulum into an angle corresponding to a mild slip or even an anatomical position. Our hypothesis is that the avoidance of anterior impingement at an early stage can prevent the development of osteoarthritis. Results: The results of 28 patients (32 hips) were evaluated. Outcome parameters were SF-36, Harris Hip Score, range of motion, Kellgren-Lawrence score, chondrolysis and avascular necrosis. After a median follow-up of 8 (range 2-25) years, the group was clinically, functionally and socially performing well. Radiologically, there was no sign of chondrolysis or avascular necrosis, and more than 80% of the patients did not show any signs of osteoarthritis. Conclusions: Based on these results, we conclude that a one-stage Imhauser ITO combined with epiphysiodesis performed on patients with moderate and severe SFCE gives satisfactory results

Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?

BACKGROUND: The Levels of Evidence Rating System is widely believed to categorize studies by quality, with Level I studies representing the highest quality evidence. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in the most frequently cited general orthopaedic journals. METHODS: Two assessors identified orthopaedic journals that reported a level of evidence rating in their abstracts from January 2003 to December 2004 by searching the instructions for authors of the highest impact general orthopaedic journals. Based upon a priori eligibility criteria, two assessors hand searched all issues of the eligible journal from 2003–2004 for RCTs. The assessors extracted the demographic information and the evidence rating from each included RCT and scored the quality of reporting using the reporting quality assessment tool, which was developed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. Scores were conducted in duplicate, and we reached a consensus for any disagreements. We examined the correlation between the level of evidence rating and the Cochrane reporting quality score. RESULTS: We found that only the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – American Volume (JBJS-A) used a level of evidence rating from 2003 to 2004. We identified 938 publications in the JBJS-A from January 2003 to December 2004. Of these publications, 32 (3.4%) were RCTs that fit the inclusion criteria. The 32 RCTs included a total of 3543 patients, with sample sizes ranging from 17 to 514 patients. Despite being labelled as the highest level of evidence (Level 1 and Level II evidence), these studies had low Cochrane reporting quality scores among individual methodological safeguards. The Cochrane reporting quality scores did not differ significantly between Level I and Level II studies. Correlations varied from 0.0 to 0.2 across the 12 items of the Cochrane reporting quality assessment tool (p > 0.05). Among items closely corresponding to the Levels of Evidence Rating System criteria assessors achieved substantial agreement (ICC = 0.80, 95%CI:0.60 to 0.90). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that readers should not assume that 1) studies labelled as Level I have high reporting quality and 2) Level I studies have better reporting quality than Level II studies. One should address methodological safeguards individually

Quality of patient- and proxy-reported outcomes for children with impairment of the lower extremity:A systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures have become crucial in the clinical evaluation of patients. Appropriate selection, in a young population, of the instrument is vital to providing evidence-based patient-centered healthcare. This systematic review applies the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology to provide a critically appraised overview of patient-reported outcome measures targeted at pediatric orthopedic patients with lower limb impairment.Method: A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify original studies reporting the development and/or validation of patient-reported outcome measures evaluating children with impairment of the lower extremity. Data extraction, quality assessment, and risk of bias evaluation were performed following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.Results: A total of 6919 articles were screened. Thirty-three studies were included, reporting evidence on the measurement properties of 13 different patient-reported outcome measures and 20 translations. Four studies reported on content validity and patient-reported outcome measure development. The methodological quality of studies on structural validity, content validity, or patient-reported outcome measure development was mostly rated as "doubtful" or "very good." The quality of evidence on measurement properties varied noticeably, with most studies needing to perform improve their methodological quality to justify their results.Conclusion: This review provides an extensive overview of all available patient-reported outcome measures for patients with lower extremity impairment within pediatric orthopedics. We cautiously advise the use of four patient-reported outcome measures. However, the scarce availability of research on content validity and patient-reported outcome measure development highlights an area for future research endeavors to improve our knowledge on the currently available patient-reported outcome measures.Level of evidence: Diagnostic level

Does Perception of Usefulness of Arthroscopic Simulators Differ with Levels of Experience?

Some commercial simulators are available for training basic arthroscopic skills. However, it is unclear if these simulators allow training for their intended purposes and whether the perception of usefulness relates to level of experience. We addressed the following questions: (1) Do commercial simulators have construct (times to perform tasks) and face validity (realism), and (2) is the perception of usefulness (educational value and user-friendliness) related to level of experience? We evaluated two commercially available virtual reality simulators (Simulators A and B) and recruited 11 and nine novices (no arthroscopies), four and four intermediates (one to 59 arthroscopies), and seven and nine experts (> 60 arthroscopies) to test the devices. To assess construct validity, we recorded the median time per experience group for each of five repetitions of one identical navigation task. To assess face validity, we used a questionnaire to judge up to three simulator characteristic tasks; the questionnaire asked about the realism, perception of educational value, and perception of user-friendliness. We observed partial construct validity for Simulators A and B and considered face validity satisfactory for both simulators for simulating the outer appearance and human joint, but barely satisfactory for the instruments. Simulators A and B had equal educational value according to the participants. User-friendliness was judged better for Simulator B although both were graded satisfactory. The perception of usefulness did not differ with level of experience. Our observations suggest training on either simulator is reasonable preparation for real-life arthroscopy, although there is room for improvement for both simulators. These simulators provide training in surgical skills without compromising patient safet