Kinesiophobia contributes to worse functional and patient‐reported outcome measures in Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose To assess the efect of kinesiophobia or fear of reinjury on patient-reported outcome measures and physical performance measures in patients with chronic Achilles tendinopathy (AT). Methods Three databases were systematically screened for studies from inception to May 22nd, 2023 for literature investigating the impact of kinesiophobia on PROMs or physical performance metrics in AT. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, pain, level of activity, self-reported injury severity, quality of life, single-leg hop performance, and heel-raise performance were recorded. Data was presented primarily in a narrative summary fashion. The MINORS score was used for all studies to perform a quality assessment of included studies. Results Six studies comprising 705 patients were included in this review. Variations of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11 or TSK-17) were used in all studies. TSK scores were strongly correlated with the Pain Catastrophizing Score (PCS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and were correlated with decreased Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment Achilles (VISA-A) and Foot and Ankle Outcome Scores Quality of Life (FAOS-QoL) subscale scores. Kinesiophobia was associated with heel raise completion with conlicting evidence on correlations with hop test performance. Conclusion Increased kinesiophobia scores (> 35 points), measured by TSK are associated with worse PROMs, including increased pain, decreased quality of life, increased self-reported severity, and is also associated with poorer physical performance measures in patients with AT. Level of evidence IV.

Approximately half of pediatric or adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction return to the same level of sport or higher: A systematic review

“…Based on the MINORS criteria, noncomparative and comparative studies could get a maximum score of 16 and 24, respectively [15]. For noncomparative studies classification was a priori based on a previous systematic review as follows: 0–4 very low quality evidence, 5–7 low quality, 8–12 fair quality, and scores ≥13 high quality [16]. Comparative studies were categorised as below: 0–6 very low quality, 7–10 low quality, 11–15 fair quality, 16–20 good quality and ≥20 high quality [16].…”