PurposeReturn to sport (RTS) after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been recognized as an important outcome, which is associated with success of the surgery. This study aimed to assess the methods used to determine return to sport after ACLR in the published literature, report on variability of methods and evaluate their strength in establishing accurate RTS data. MethodsElectronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase) were searched via a defined search strategy with no limits, to identify relevant studies from January 2008 to December 2020 for inclusion in the review. Defined eligibility criteria included studies specifically measuring and reporting on return to sport after ACLR with a clear methodology. Each included study was assessed for the definition of successful RTS, successful return to pre‐injury level of sport and for methods used to determine RTS. ResultsOne hundred and seventy‐one studies were included. Of the included studies, six studies (4%) were level of evidence 1 and seventy‐two studies (42%) were level of evidence 4. Forty‐one studies (24%) reported on return to a specific sport and 130 studies (76%) reported on return to multiple sports or general sport. Sixteen studies (9%) reported on RTS in the pediatric population, 36 (21%) in the adult population and 119 (70%) reported on a mixed‐aged population. The most commonly used definition of successful RTS was return to the same sport (44 of 125 studies, 35%). The most common method used to determine RTS was a non‐validated study‐specific questionnaire (73 studies, 43%), which was administered in various ways to the patients. Time of RTS assessment was variable and ranged between 6 months and 27 years post‐surgery. ConclusionThis review demonstrates high variability in defining, evaluating and reporting RTS following ACLR. The findings of this study reveal low reliability and unproven validity of methods used to evaluate RTS and highlight the challenges in interpreting and using RTS data reported in literature. Level of evidenceIV.

No abstract

Purpose The Marx Activity Rating Scale (Marx Scale) is a commonly used activity-related patient-reported outcome which evaluates the highest activity level within the last year, whereas the Hospital for Special Surgery Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (HSS Pedi-FABS) assesses highest activity level within the last month. This study aims to determine whether the different timeframes used for the common items of Marx Scale and HSS Pedi-FABS affect scores, and if so, to determine whether age or injury status affect this difference. Methods The Marx Scale and four analogous items on the HSS Pedi-FABS were administered in random order to patients being evaluated for knee injuries and in addition to healthy controls to enroll an uninjured comparison group. Responses to each question were scored from 0 to 4 for a maximum overall score of 16. Paired and independent-sample t tests were used to determine mean differences between groups. ResultsThe final cohort included 88 participants of which 47% were children (ages 10-17) and 51% had a knee injury. All participants except for healthy adults scored significantly lower on the HSS Pedi-FABS than the Marx Scale (p < 0.05). On the HSS Pedi-FABS activity scale, healthy participants scored significantly higher than injured participants (p < 0.01), but there were no significant differences based on age. Conversely, on the Marx Scale, children scored higher than adults (p ≤ 0.001), but there were no significant differences based on injury. Conclusion Physical activity level differs when evaluated with the Marx Scale or the analogue part of HSS Pedi-FABS with timeframe being the only difference between the two. The lower scores on the HSS Pedi-FABS are likely due to seasonal changes in activity which do not affect the Marx Scale. HSS Pedi-FABS analyzes a shorter window and it is more likely to capture changes in physical activity due to a recent injury than the Marx Scale which is better suited for assessing general physical activity level unaffected by seasonality or recent injury. Understating the differences between these physical activity scales can better guide clinicians when using them and interpreting scores. Level of evidence II.

No abstract