OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a 3-month post-hip arthroscopy rehabilitation program within a randomized controlled trial comparing hip arthroscopy to sham surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (HIP ARThroscopy International [HIPARTI] trial) by describing exercise adherence, type, and pain; 6-month changes in International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33); and physical impairments and functional performance. DESIGN: Exploratory cohort study nested in a pilot randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants aged 18 to 50 years with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome completed a 3-month, physical therapist-led, postsurgical rehabilitation program, self-reporting rehabilitation adherence and pain levels on the visual analog scale using weekly training diaries. Baseline to 6-month changes in quality of life (iHOT-33), physical impairment (hip strength, range of motion [ROM]), and functional performance (single-leg hop, side bridge endurance) were reported as mean (standard deviation). RESULTS: Twenty-nine people (37% female, 29.9 ± 7.9 years) participated. Hip extension, abduction, and functional exercises were performed most often. Exercise adherence analysis was limited by underreporting. Training diary data adequate to assess adherence were available for 20 participants (69%). Among those with available data, 16 (80%) met the predefined adherence target of ≥2 sessions per week, and average pain remained acceptable (<2 visual analog scale); iHOT-33 (+18.6 ± 22.5; 95% confidence interval: 10.2, 27.0) and hip flexion ROM (+6°; 95% confidence interval: 2.14, 9.60) improved significantly. Hip extension, adduction, external and internal rotation strength improvements exceeded the minimal detectable change, although they were not significant. CONCLUSION: Adherence was generally high among participants with available data, though limited by underreporting. Hip-related quality of life (iHOT-33) improved despite limited changes in physical impairments, and no improvement in functional performance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2026;56(7):456-464. Epub 23 April 2026. doi:10.2519/jospt.2026.13775.

Osteoarthritis is a heterogeneous whole-joint disease that can cause pain and is a leading cause of disability and premature work loss. The predominant disease risk factors - obesity and joint injury - are well recognized and modifiable. A greater understanding of the complex mechanisms, including inflammatory, metabolic and post-traumatic processes, that can lead to disease and of the pathophysiology of pain is helping to delineate mechanistic targets. Currently, management is primarily focused on alleviating the main symptoms of pain and obstructed function through lifestyle interventions such as self-management programmes, education, physical activity, exercise and weight management. However, lack of adherence to known effective osteoarthritis therapeutic strategies also contributes to the high global disease burden. For those who have persistent symptoms that are compromising quality of life and have not responded adequately to core treatments, joint replacement is an option to consider. The burden imparted by the disease causes a substantial impact on individuals affected in terms of quality of life. For society, this disease is a substantial driver of increased health-care costs and underemployment. This Primer highlights advances and controversies in osteoarthritis, drawing key insights from the current evidence base.

Introduction: The existing rehabilitation guidelines following periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) offer phase-based recommendations. They do not sufficiently address the perceived challenges and opportunities in rehabilitating patients with diverse needs, different goals or within varying healthcare contexts. Aim: The present study explored the perceived challenges in navigating and the opportunities in embracing various post-PAO rehabilitation approaches from the perspectives of Danish and Australian physiotherapists. Methods: The perspectives of 18 physiotherapists (7 males), aged 29-63, who rehabilitate patients with acetabular dysplasia were explored. The perspectives were examined through a hermeneutic, phenomenological approach and semi-structured interviews. To ensure diversity in the physiotherapists’ characteristics, purposeful sampling based on age and sex was employed. The interviews were coded and analysed using inductive content analysis. Results: The analysis revealed three primary themes: (i) critical factors for successful recovery, (ii) managing the recovery process through targeted rehabilitation, and (iii) building a trustworthy relationship. Subthemes were also identified, showing consistent patterns across countries. Within the critical factors for successful recovery theme two subthemes emerged including “pain is the key” and “continuity in care”. The managing the recovery process through targeted rehabilitation theme revealed four subthemes including “tailored rehabilitation”, “sufficient information to improve aligned expectations”, “sharing experiences with other patients”, and “social support system”. Within the final theme of building a trustworthy relationship emerged two subthemes including “awareness of the therapeutic role” and “different mindsets”. Notably, Australian physiotherapists exhibited a relatively higher focus on the return to sport and related milestones, and appeared to be more structure-specific when providing exercises. In contrast, the Danish physiotherapists emphasised addressing socioeconomic backgrounds and vulnerability among their patients. Conclusion: Danish and Australian physiotherapists rehabilitating patients with acetabular dysplasia emphasised challenges that surfaced across shared themes of recovery, targeted rehabilitation, and building trust in physiotherapy treatment. However, these challenges also offer opportunities for improving rehabilitation approaches. Future initiatives can leverage these insights and examine their integration into rehabilitation approaches to improve outcomes for patients with diverse needs and across different healthcare contexts.

Background:Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) surgery provides better coverage of the femoral head and alleviates symptoms of acetabular dysplasia. While guidelines on rehabilitation following PAO exist, these guidelines may not sufficiently address the challenges and opportunities in providing rehabilitation for patients with diverse needs and goals in various healthcare contexts. Purpose:The purpose was to investigate the perceived challenges and opportunities of various post-PAO rehabilitation approaches from the perspectives of physiotherapists in Denmark and Australia. Study design: Qualitative study. Methods:A hermeneutic, phenomenological approach and semi-structured interviews were applied to explore the perspectives of 18 physiotherapists (7 males), aged 29-63 years, who rehabilitate patients with acetabular dysplasia following PAO. To ensure diversity in the characteristics of physiotherapists, purposeful sampling based on age and sex was employed. The interviews were coded and analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results:The analysis revealed three themes: "Identifying crucial factors for successful recovery", "Managing the recovery process through targeted rehabilitation", and "Building a trustworthy relationship". Several subthemes were identified, showing consistent patterns across countries. However, the Australian physiotherapists focused more on returning to sport and related milestones and providing structure-specific exercises. In contrast, the Danish physiotherapists emphasized addressing socioeconomic backgrounds and vulnerability among their patients. Conclusion:The physiotherapists involved in the rehabilitation of patients with acetabular dysplasia shared common perspectives regarding post-PAO rehabilitation. However, the Australians prioritized returning to sport, while the Danes emphasized socio-economic background. This indicates an opportunity to leverage these insights by focusing on tailored rehabilitation strategies in future initiatives that accommodate patients' needs within their specific healthcare contexts, ultimately enhancing recovery outcomes. Level of Evidence:Not applicable.

BACKGROUND:Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is often recommended for treatment of an ACL injury; however, the literature reports similar outcomes for those undergoing rehabilitation alone. We assessed the clinical, functional, sports participation, and osteoarthritis outcomes following our treatment algorithm, and compared 10-year outcomes among participants who chose progressive rehabilitation alone, early ACLR, or delayed ACLR. METHODS:We included 276 participants who had a unilateral ACL injury without substantial concomitant knee injuries in a prospective cohort study. Treatment choice was based on shared decision-making after a 5-week progressive rehabilitation program. At the 10-year follow-up, we assessed patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form [IKDC-SKF], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], and patient acceptable symptom state [PASS] achievement), quadriceps strength, hop performance, sports participation, and weight-bearing radiographs. RESULTS:Sixty-nine percent of the participants (191 participants; 99 male and 92 female; 6 African American, 7 Asian, 59 Caucasian, 119 unknown) attended the 10-year follow-up, including 98% (53) of 54 participants who had rehabilitation alone, 68% (114) of 167 with early ACLR, and 69% (24) of 35 with delayed ACLR. Among the entire cohort, 78% (126 of 162) reported having a PASS, 72% (109 of 151) had symmetrical quadriceps strength, ≥85% (≥116 of ≤137) had a symmetrical hop performance, 93% (162 of 174) were still engaged in some kind of sports, only 1% (1 of 139) had symptomatic osteoarthritis, and 12% (17 of 139) had radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis. We found similar outcomes after rehabilitation alone and early ACLR. The participants who underwent delayed ACLR had similar outcomes to the other 2 groups except for significantly lower KOOS Sports scores, KOOS Quality of Life scores, and hop performance (p ≤ 0.03). Participants who had rehabilitation alone were older, less active, and more likely to have concomitant lateral meniscal injuries than those who underwent ACLR. CONCLUSIONS:Participants who followed our treatment algorithm after ACL injury had high percentages of satisfaction and of symmetrical quadriceps strength and hop performance, high sports participation rates, and low prevalences of osteoarthritis. Participants who chose progressive rehabilitation alone, despite being older and less active, had similar clinical, functional, sports participation, and osteoarthritis outcomes compared with those who chose early ACLR. Participants who underwent delayed ACLR scored lower on KOOS Sports, KOOS Quality of Life, and hop performance compared with both other groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objective: To describe the SHIELD cohort in terms of symptoms indicative of early knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to investigate associations between patient characteristics (demographics, activity/injury-related) and these symptoms at 1 (cross-sectional) and 3 years (longitudinal) post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Method: 106 participants (50 % women, mean [SD] age 25 [5] years) were included. Symptoms indicative of early knee OA were evaluated by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale pain, KOOS subscale pain <= 72 (KOOSpain <= 72), and <= 85 on two out of four KOOS subscales (pain, symptoms, activity of daily living, quality of life) (modified Luyten). Results: Mean (SD) KOOS pain scores were 83.2 (15.7) and 87.3 (12.7) at 1 and 3 years, respectively. At 1 year and 3 years post ACLR, 18/101 (18 %) and 14/86 (16 %) participants met the KOOSpain <= 72 criterion, whereas 83/101 (82 %) and 67/86 (78 %) met the modified Luyten criterion. 7/15 (47 %) (KOOSpain <= 72) and 59/70 (84 %) (modified Luyten) classified as having knee OA symptoms 1 year post ACLR were still classified as having OA symptoms after 3 years. Lower activity level at 1 year was the sole variable consistently associated with all three outcomes 3 years post ACLR. Conclusion: The proportion of participants fulfilling existing classification criteria for symptoms indicative of early OA after ACLR is highly dependent on the criteria applied and different criteria seem to capture varying aspects of early OA symptoms. Future studies will reveal if these symptoms will persist long-term or just reflect more transient issues.

Background:Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is often recommended for treatment of an ACL injury; however, the literature reports similar outcomes for those undergoing rehabilitation alone. We assessed the clinical, functional, sports participation, and osteoarthritis outcomes following our treatment algorithm, and compared 10-year outcomes among participants who chose progressive rehabilitation alone, early ACLR, or delayed ACLR.Methods:We included 276 participants who had a unilateral ACL injury without substantial concomitant knee injuries in a prospective cohort study. Treatment choice was based on shared decision-making after a 5-week progressive rehabilitation program. At the 10-year follow-up, we assessed patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form [IKDC-SKF], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], and patient acceptable symptom state [PASS] achievement), quadriceps strength, hop performance, sports participation, and weight-bearing radiographs.Results:Sixty-nine percent of the participants (191 participants; 99 male and 92 female; 6 African American, 7 Asian, 59 Caucasian, 119 unknown) attended the 10-year follow-up, including 98% (53) of 54 participants who had rehabilitation alone, 68% (114) of 167 with early ACLR, and 69% (24) of 35 with delayed ACLR. Among the entire cohort, 78% (126 of 162) reported having a PASS, 72% (109 of 151) had symmetrical quadriceps strength, >= 85% (>= 116 of <= 137) had a symmetrical hop performance, 93% (162 of 174) were still engaged in some kind of sports, only 1% (1 of 139) had symptomatic osteoarthritis, and 12% (17 of 139) had radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis. We found similar outcomes after rehabilitation alone and early ACLR. The participants who underwent delayed ACLR had similar outcomes to the other 2 groups except for significantly lower KOOS Sports scores, KOOS Quality of Life scores, and hop performance (p <= 0.03). Participants who had rehabilitation alone were older, less active, and more likely to have concomitant lateral meniscal injuries than those who underwent ACLR.Conclusions:Participants who followed our treatment algorithm after ACL injury had high percentages of satisfaction and of symmetrical quadriceps strength and hop performance, high sports participation rates, and low prevalences of osteoarthritis. Participants who chose progressive rehabilitation alone, despite being older and less active, had similar clinical, functional, sports participation, and osteoarthritis outcomes compared with those who chose early ACLR. Participants who underwent delayed ACLR scored lower on KOOS Sports, KOOS Quality of Life, and hop performance compared with both other groups.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVE:To identify and quantify risk factors for incident knee osteoarthritis (KOA) across the lifespan. METHODS:This systematic review and meta-analysis identified eligible studies from seven electronic databases and three registries. Longitudinal cohort studies or randomised controlled trials evaluating participants who developed incident symptomatic and/or radiographic KOA were included. Two independent reviewers completed data screening and extraction. Estimates were pooled using a random effects model and reported as odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio, or risk ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to determine the certainty of evidence. Population attributable fractions were calculated, including risk factors significantly associated with radiographic KOA based on the pooled meta-analysis and where we could determine communality scores using existing clinical datasets. RESULTS:We identified 131 studies evaluating > 150 risk factors. Previous knee injury, older age and high bone mineral density were associated with an increased risk of incident radiographic KOA based on the pooled analysis [OR (95% CI): 2.67 (1.41, 5.05), 1.15 (1.00, 1.33) and 1.82 (1.12, 2.94), respectively], with moderate-to-high certainty. Two risk factors (overweight/obesity and previous knee injury) accounted for 14% of incident radiographic KOA. Other modifiable risk factors, including occupational physical activity, also contribute to radiographic or symptomatic KOA. CONCLUSION:Novel strategies addressing known modifiable risk factors including overweight/obesity, knee injuries and occupational physical activity are needed to reduce overall burden of KOA. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO ID: CRD42023391187.

BACKGROUND:Horizontal hop testing is a reliable measure included in test batteries after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). Hop test results are typically expressed as limb symmetry indexes (LSIs) comparing the involved limb with the uninvolved limb. Using the uninvolved limb as a comparative measure has been questioned due to concerns that performance may be reduced in this limb also and may not be a stable comparison across time, leading to a falsely inflated LSI. Here, we report changes in uninvolved limb hop scores over 5 timepoints after ACLR. HYPOTHESIS:Uninvolved limb hop scores would be similar between preoperative rehabilitation and 2 years after ACLR. STUDY DESIGN:Cohort study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level III. METHODS:Level I and II athletes were enrolled after isolated ACL injury. Participants completed a preoperative hop testing battery after impairment resolution, preoperative rehabilitation, and 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after ACLR. Linear mixed-effects models were performed separately for each hop and each limb to characterize change in scores over time. Pairwise comparisons for fixed effects of timepoint and estimated marginal means are reported. RESULTS:A total of 182 athletes (25.0 ± 8.8 years, 44% female) were enrolled a mean of 54 days from ACL injury. For each hop, the uninvolved limb hop distance was statistically different from the impairment resolution timepoint only to various follow-up timepoints (P ≤ 0.009). If athletes underwent preoperative rehabilitation, uninvolved limb hop distance was stable throughout the duration of rehabilitation until 2 years, apart from timed hop from 6 months to 2 years (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION:The uninvolved limb is a stable comparison for calculating hop test LSIs as part of return-to-sport decisions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:These results increase confidence in using symmetry as an outcome and are important for clinicians lacking preinjury hop testing data.

Prehabilitation involving a planned exercise program before surgery is proposed to improve rehabilitation and postoperative outcomes. However, the current evidence on the efficacy of prehabilitation for patients awaiting total hip replacement is conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy of preoperative exercises and education (AktivA®) for adults 70 years or older awaiting total hip replacement. In a two-armed randomized controlled trial we recruited 98 participants aged 70 years or older with a Harris Hip Score less than 60 awaiting elective primary total hip replacement. Participants were recruited at three hospitals in Norway between 2019 and 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to prehabilitation or usual care. The prehabilitation group received a tailored exercise program for 6–12 weeks in addition to patient education. Gait speed, the primary outcome, was measured by the 40 m Fast-Paced Walk Test. Secondary outcomes included performance-based tests (Chair Stand Test, Timed Up Go Test, 6-Minute Walk Test, Stair Climb Test) and patient-reported outcomes (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and EQ-5D). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and further 6 weeks, 3-, 6-, and 12 months post-surgery. For the primary outcome gait speed at the primary endpoint (3 months post-surgery), no significant between-group differences were observed. However, post-intervention (before surgery), we found a significant improvement in favor of prehabilitation for both gait speed (0.15 m/s, 95

Objective: To estimate Minimal Important Change (MIC) for improvement in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis (OA), using three recommended anchor-based methods, and examine how methodological choices influence these estimates. Design: Secondary analysis of a three-arm randomized controlled trial. KOOS and a Global Rating of Change (GROC) scale were collected at baseline and 4-month follow-up. MIC values were estimated using predictive modeling, Mean Change, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) methods. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of different anchor cut-offs. Results: Data were available for 131 patients undergoing non-surgical treatment (mean age 57.4 years, 50 ​% female). At follow-up, 19 ​% reported important improvement. Using the predictive modeling method, which allows adjustment for the low proportion of patients reporting important improvement, MICs were 11.3 (Pain), 12.1(Symptoms), 10.2 (ADL), 15.5 (Sport/Rec) and 13.2 (QoL). The Mean Change method yielded comparable MICs (range 10.6–16.1), but due to its reliance on a small subgroup, it is generally considered less robust and showed wider CIs in our sample. ROC-based MICs ranged from −0.4 to 12.5 and were associated with wide CIs, and high misclassification rates. Sensitivity analyses showed lower MICs with broader improvement definitions were used. Conclusion: MIC estimates for KOOS varied considerably by method. Predictive modeling yielded the most precise MIC estimates and should be considered for future research, particularly when the proportion of improved patients deviates from 50 ​%. These results also highlight the importance of methodological transparency for interpreting PROMs in non-surgical knee OA treatment.

Objectives To evaluate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA), from a societal and healthcare perspective.Design Cost-effectiveness analysis embedded in a three-arm randomised controlled trial.Participants and setting A total of 161 people with symptomatic knee OA seeking Norwegian primary or secondary care were included in the analyses.Interventions Participants were randomised to either 12 weeks of strength exercise (n=54), 12 weeks of aerobic exercise (n=53) or usual care (n=54).Outcome measures Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) estimated by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels, and costs related to healthcare utilisation and productivity loss estimated in euros (€), aggregated for 1 year of follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was expressed with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Bootstrapping was used to estimate ICER uncertainty.Results From a 1-year societal perspective, the mean cost per patient was €7954, €8101 and €17 398 in the strength exercise, aerobic exercise and usual care group, respectively. From a 1-year healthcare perspective, the mean cost per patient was €848, €2003 and €1654 in the strength exercise, aerobic exercise and usual care group, respectively. Mean differences in costs significantly favoured strength exercise and aerobic exercise from a 1-year societal perspective and strength exercise from a 1-year healthcare perspective. There were no significant differences in mean QALYs between groups. From a 1-year societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €27 500, the probability of strength exercise or aerobic exercise being cost-effective was ≥98%. From a 1-year healthcare perspective, the probability of strength exercise or aerobic exercise being cost-effective was ≥97% and ≥76%, respectively.Conclusion From a 1-year societal and healthcare perspective, a 12-week strength exercise or aerobic exercise programme is cost-effective compared with usual care in patients with symptomatic knee OA.Trial registration number NCT01682980.

Background: Clinicians need thresholds for the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and Treatment Failure to interpret group-based patient-reported outcome measures after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Validated thresholds that are crucial for accurately discerning patient symptom state and facilitating effective interpretation have not been determined for long-term follow-up after ACL injury. Purpose: To calculate and validate thresholds for PASS and Treatment Failure for the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales at the 10-year follow-up after ACL injury. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 163 participants with unilateral ACL injury (treated with reconstruction or rehabilitation alone) from the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort were included. Thresholds for PASS were calculated for IKDC-SKF and KOOS subscales using anchor-based predictive modeling and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Too few participants had self-reported Treatment Failure to calculate thresholds for that outcome. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to derive 95% CIs. The criterion validity of the predictive modeling and ROC-derived thresholds were assessed by comparing actual patient-reported PASS outcome with the calculated PASS outcome for each method of calculation and calculating their positive and negative predictive values with respect to the anchor questions. Results: A total of 127 (78%) participants reported satisfactory symptom state. Predictive modeling PASS thresholds (95% CIs) were 76.2 points (72.1-79.4 points) for IKDC-SKF, 85.4 points (80.9-89.2 points) for KOOS Pain, 76.5 points (67.8-84.7 points) for KOOS Symptoms, 93.8 points (90.1-96.9 points) for KOOS activities of daily living, 71.6 points (63.4-77.7 points) for KOOS Sports, and 59.0 points (53.7-63.9 points) for KOOS quality of life (QoL). Predictive modeling thresholds classified 81% to 93% of the participants as having satisfactory symptom state, whereas ROC-derived thresholds classified >50% as unsatisfied. The thresholds for IKDC-SKF, KOOS Sports, and KOOS QoL resulted in the most accurate percentages of PASS among all identified thresholds and therefore demonstrate the highest validity. Conclusion: Predictive modeling provided valid PASS thresholds for IKDC-SKF and KOOS at the 10-year follow-up after ACL injury. The thresholds for IKDC-SKF, KOOS Sports, and KOOS QoL should be used when determining satisfactory outcomes. ROC-derived thresholds result in substantial misclassification rates of the participants who reported satisfactory symptom state.

Introduction Guidelines for post-operative rehabilitation following periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) have been established. However, the perspectives of patients undergoing PAO within different healthcare systems have not been considered. The present study aims were to explore perceived challenges in everyday life and aspirations and expectations of post-operative rehabilitation from the perspectives of Danish and Australian patients with acetabular dysplasia undergoing PAO. Material and Methods We used a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach with semi-structured interviews to investigate the perspectives of twenty-six participants (5 males), aged between 15 and 43 years, who underwent a PAO. A purposeful sampling approach on age and sex coupled with criterion was used. Inclusion criteria involved: above 15 years, radiologically verified acetabular dysplasia, PAO within the last seven weeks, and undergoing post-operative rehabilitation. The interviews were analysed with an inductive content analysis approach. Results Analysis of interview transcripts revealed four major themes across country populations: Different expectations, Self-confidence, tailored rehabilitation, and aligning expectations. Within each theme, subthemes emerged, and patterns across countries were identified with minimal variations. Accordingly, the economic burden of self-financed surgery and rehabilitation was challenging for certain Australian participants. Conclusion Our findings elucidate the diverse range of aspirations and expectations among patients undergoing PAO, and how these relate to perceived challenges. Notably, the findings underscore the importance of aligning the expectations between patients and clinicians when tailoring rehabilitation for each patient.

Objective: The global impact of osteoarthritis is growing. Currently no disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs/therapies exist, increasing the need for preventative strategies. Knee injuries have a high prevalence, distinct onset, and strong independent association with post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). Numerous groups are embarking upon research that will culminate in clinical trials to assess the effect of interventions to prevent knee PTOA despite challenges and lack of consensus about trial design in this population. Our objectives were to improve awareness of knee PTOA prevention trial design and discuss state-of-the art methods to address the unique opportunities and challenges of these studies. Design: An international interdisciplinary group developed a workshop, hosted at the 2023 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Congress. Here we summarize the workshop content and outputs, with the goal of moving the field of PTOA prevention trial design forward. Results: Workshop highlights included discussions about target population (considering risk, homogeneity, and possibility of modifying osteoarthritis outcome); target treatment (considering delivery, timing, feasibility and effectiveness); comparators (usual care, placebo), and primary symptomatic outcomes considering surrogates and the importance of knee function and symptoms other than pain to this population. Conclusions: Opportunities to test multimodal PTOA prevention interventions across preclinical models and clinical trials exist. As improving symptomatic outcomes aligns with patient and regulator priorities, co-primary symptomatic (single or aggregate/multidimensional outcome considering function and symptoms beyond pain) and structural/physiological outcomes may be appropriate for these trials. To ensure PTOA prevention trials are relevant and acceptable to all stakeholders, future research should address critical knowledge gaps and challenges.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes were compared between participants who followed the treatment algorithm of the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort, consisting of progressive preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation, patient education, clinical testing and shared decision-making about treatment choice, and those who followed usual care 9-12 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).Methods: Participants with primary ACLR were included from the Norwegian arm of the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (usual care). The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale scores and the International Knee Documentation Committee-Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF) scores were compared. KOOS scores for the usual care group were converted to IKDC-SKF scores with recently published validated crosswalk. The percentages of participants with scores above predefined thresholds for patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were also calculated.Results: Eighty of 100 (80%) participants from the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and 1588 of 3248 (49%) from the usual care group participated in the follow-up. Participants from the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort had higher KOOS subscale (p < 0.001) and IKDC-SKF scores (p < 0.001), and a higher percentage reached PASS (84%-96% vs. 62%-76%, p <= 0.002) for KOOS Pain, symptoms, activities of daily living and sports compared to the usual care group. No significant differences were found for KOOS quality of life scores (not significant [n.s.]) or PASS percentages (80% vs. 74%, n.s.).Conclusion: Participants with ACLR who followed the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort treatment algorithm had reduced knee symptoms, superior function and higher percentages of satisfactory outcomes than participants who followed usual care.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression, development of knee OA, patient-reported outcomes and knee muscle strength at 10-year follow-up after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or exercise therapy for degenerative meniscal tears. METHODS:Randomised controlled trial including 140 participants, with a degenerative meniscal tear and no or minimal radiographic OA changes. Participants were randomised to either APM or 12 weeks of exercise therapy (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was knee OA progression assessed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas sum score (sum of medial and lateral compartment joint space narrowing and osteophyte score). Secondary outcomes included incidence of radiographic and symptomatic knee OA, patient-reported pain and knee function and isokinetic knee muscle strength. RESULTS:The adjusted mean difference in change in the OARSI sum score was 0.39 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.97), with more progression in the APM group. The incidence of radiographic knee OA was 23% in the APM group and 20% in the exercise group (adjusted risk difference 3% (95% CI -13% to 19%)). No clinically relevant differences were found in patient-reported outcomes or isokinetic knee muscle strength. CONCLUSION:No differences in radiographic knee OA progression and comparable rates of knee OA development were observed 10 years following APM and exercise therapy for degenerative meniscal tears. Both treatments were associated with improved patient-reported pain and knee function. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01002794.

PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) between the anatomic single-bundle (SB) and anatomic double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique after 5-year follow-up (FU). Secondary objectives were to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinical examination, activity level, functional tests and graft failures between the two groups. METHODS:The study was a secondary analysis after 5-year FU of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Clinical Trials NCT01033188). One hundred and twenty patients between 18 and 40 years were randomized to either anatomic SB or anatomic DB reconstruction. The Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification grade ≥2 and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas criteria score ≥2 were used for defining OA. Additionally, PROMs were obtained and clinical examinations of the knees were performed. Finally, the number of patients experiencing graft failure in each group was recorded. RESULTS:Radiographic imaging was performed in 39 patients in the SB group and in 37 patients in the DB group. Four patients (10%) in the SB group and two (5%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the KL classification (p = 0.28). Five (13%) in the SB group and three (8%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the OARSI atlas criteria (p = 0.59; difference 5.0% [95% confidence interval, CI: -0.10 to 0.20]). There were no significant differences in the PROMs, clinical examinations, activity levels, or functional tests when comparing the two groups. Of initially 62 SB patients, 14 (23%) experienced graft failure compared to 4 (7%) of the 58 DB patients (p = 0.015; difference 0.016 [95% CI: 0.03-0.29]). CONCLUSION:At 5-year FU, there were no significant differences in the incidence of OA, PROMS, or other clinical findings comparing the anatomic DB to anatomic SB ACL reconstructed patients. There were fewer graft failures among patients treated with anatomic DB ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level II.