Background and purpose The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is distinguished from other knee-specific measures by the inclusion of separate scales for evaluation of activities of daily living, sports and recreation function, and knee-related quality of life, with presentation of separate subscale scores as a profile. However, its applicability in children has not been established. In this study, we examined how well the KOOS could be understood in a cohort of children with knee injury, with a view to preparing a pediatric version (KOOS-Child).Material and methods A trained researcher conducted cognitive interviews with 34 Swedish children who had symptomatic knee injuries (either primary or repeated). They were 10–16 years of age, and were selected to allow for equal group representation of age and sex. All the interviews were recorded. 4 researchers analyzed the data and modified the original KOOS questionnaire.Results Many children (n =14) had difficulty in tracking items based on the time frame and an equivalent number of children had trouble in understanding several terms. Mapping errors resulted from misinterpretation of items and from design issues related to the item such as double-barreled format. Most children understood how to use the 5-point Likert response scale. Many children found the instructions confusing from both a lexical and a formatting point of view. Overall, most children found that several items were irrelevant.Interpretation The original KOOS is not well understood by children. Modifications related to comprehension, mapping of responses, and jargon in the KOOS were made based on qualitative feedback from the children.

The final KOOS-Child demonstrates good psychometric properties and supports the use of the KOOS-Child when evaluating children with knee disorders.

Background and purpose To support clinical decision‐making in central neurological disorders, a physical examination is used to assess responses to passive muscle stretch. However, what exactly is being assessed is expressed and interpreted in different ways. A clear diagnostic framework is lacking. Therefore, the aim was to arrive at unambiguous terminology about the concepts and measurement around pathophysiological neuromuscular response to passive muscle stretch. Methods During two consensus meetings, 37 experts from 12 European countries filled online questionnaires based on a Delphi approach, followed by plenary discussion after rounds. Consensus was reached for agreement ≥75%. Results The term hyper‐resistance should be used to describe the phenomenon of impaired neuromuscular response during passive stretch, instead of for example ‘spasticity’ or ‘hypertonia’. From there, it is essential to distinguish non‐neural (tissue‐related) from neural (central nervous system related) contributions to hyper‐resistance. Tissue contributions are elasticity, viscosity and muscle shortening. Neural contributions are velocity dependent stretch hyperreflexia and non‐velocity dependent involuntary background activation. The term ‘spasticity’ should only be used next to stretch hyperreflexia, and ‘stiffness’ next to passive tissue contributions. When joint angle, moment and electromyography are recorded, components of hyper‐resistance within the framework can be quantitatively assessed. Conclusions A conceptual framework of pathophysiological responses to passive muscle stretch is defined. This framework can be used in clinical assessment of hyper‐resistance and will improve communication between clinicians. Components within the framework are defined by objective parameters from instrumented assessment. These parameters need experimental validation in order to develop treatment algorithms based on the aetiology of the clinical phenomena.

No abstract

Background and purpose — Children with cerebral palsy (CP) have an increased risk of hip dislocation. Outcome studies after surgery to prevent hip dislocation in children with CP are usually retrospective series from single tertiary referral centers. According to the national CP surveillance program in Sweden (CPUP), hip surgery should preferably be performed at an early age to prevent hip dislocation. Preventive operations are performed in 12 different Swedish hospitals. We compared the outcomes between soft tissue release and femoral osteotomy in children with CP treated in these hospitals.Patients and methods — 186 children with CP underwent either adductor–iliopsoas tenotomy (APT) or femoral osteotomy (FO) as the primary, preventive surgery because of hip displacement. They were followed for a minimum of 5 years (mean 8 years) regarding revision surgery and hip migration. A good outcome was defined as the absence of revision surgery and a migration percentage (MP) < 50% at the latest follow-up. Logistic and Cox regression analysis were used to investigate the influence of age, sex, preoperative MP, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) level, and CP subtype.Results — APT was performed in 129 (69%) children. After 5 years, the reoperation rate was 43%, and 2 children (2%) had an MP > 50%. For the 57 children who underwent FO, the corresponding figures were 39% and 9%. Of the potential risk factors studied, the outcome was statistically significantly associated with preoperative MP only in children who underwent APT, but not in those who underwent FO. None of the other factors were significantly associated with the outcome in the 2 procedure groups.Interpretation — Reoperation rates after preventive surgery are high and indicate the importance of continued postoperative follow-up. Age, sex, GMFCS level, and CP subtype did not influence the outcome significantly.

The Single-limb mini squat test showed a moderate reliability and the Q-angle showed a fair to moderate reliability. A difference found for age and gender was lower than 5° and may not be clinical significant. No association were found between the two tests, indicating dynamic and static knee position being two different concepts. In a clinical perspective, we suggest that the Single-limb mini squat test is a contribution to the available tool box for evaluation of dynamic medio-lateral knee position in children, although the Q-angle may not be used before more research has been done justifying its use.

BackgroundIt is not well understood why one in five patients report poor outcomes following knee arthroplasty. This study evaluated changes in knee biomechanics, and perceived pain among patients reporting either a good or a poor outcome in knee-related quality of life after total knee arthroplasty.MethodsTwenty-eight patients (mean age 66 (SD 7) years) were included in this prospective study. Within one month of knee arthroplasty and one year after surgery, patients underwent three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis, completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and rated perceived pain using a visual analogue scale. A “good outcome” was defined as a change greater than the minimally detectable change in the KOOS knee-related quality of life, and a “poor outcome” was defined as change below the minimally detectable change. Nineteen patients (68%) were classified as having a good outcome. Groups were analyzed separately and knee biomechanics were compared using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Differences in pain between groups were evaluated using Mann Whitney U test.ResultsPatients classified as having a good outcome improved significantly in most knee gait biomechanical outcomes including increased knee flexion-extension range, reduced peak varus angle, increased peak flexion moment, and reduced peak valgus moment. The good outcome group also displayed a significant increase in walking speed, a reduction (normalization) of stance phase duration (% of gait cycle) and increased passive knee extension. Whereas, the only change in knee biomechanics, one year after surgery, for patients classified as having a poor outcome was a significant reduction in peak varus angle. No differences in pain postoperatively were found between groups.ConclusionPatients reporting a good outcome in knee-related quality of life improved in knee biomechanics during gait, while patients reporting a poor outcome, despite similar reduction in pain, remained unchanged in knee biomechanics one year after total knee arthroplasty. With regards to surgeon-controlled biomechanical factors, surgery may most successfully address frontal plane knee alignment. However, achieving a good outcome in patient-reported knee-related quality of life may be related to dynamic improvements in the sagittal plane.

No abstract