Methods: Fifty-five primary knee OA (median age 69.0, interquartile range [IQR] 11.0) participated in the cross-sectional study. Three performance-based tests were performed in two sessions with a 1-week interval; 30-s chair stand test, 40-m fast-paced walk test and 9-step stair climb test. Relative reliability included intra-class correlation and Spearman's correlation coefficient (SPC). Absolute reliability included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, coefficient of variance, limit of agreement (LOA) and ratio LOA. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), knee extensor strength and pain scale were analysed for convergent validity using Pearson's correlation coefficient and SPC. Analysis of Covariance was utilised for known-groups validity.
Results: Relative and absolute reliability were all acceptable. LOA showed small systematic bias. Acceptable construct validity was only found with knee extensor strength. All tests demonstrated known-groups validity with medium to large effect size.
Conclusion: The OARSI minimum core set of performance-based tests demonstrated acceptable relative and absolute reliability and good known-groups validity but poor convergent validity.
Results: Based on MRI, Thessaly was the most sensitive for medial meniscus tears (56.2%), while McMurray and joint-line tenderness were more specific (89.1% and 88.0%, respectively). For lateral meniscus tears, McMurray was the most sensitive (56.2%) and all were specific (McMurray 89.6%, Thessaly 88.4%, joint-line tenderness 90.2%). With arthroscopy, Thessaly was the most sensitive for medial meniscus (76.6%), while McMurray and joint-line tenderness were more specific (81.0%, and 81.0%). Agreement with arthroscopy was the highest with McMurray (for medial meniscus kappa=0.40, p<0.001, and for lateral meniscus kappa=0.38, p=0.002).
Conclusion: The Thessaly can be used to screen for medial meniscus tears. McMurray and joint-line tenderness should be used for suspected medial meniscus tears. For lateral meniscus, McMurray is appropriate for screening and all the tests are useful in clinic.
METHODS: This prospective comparative study was conducted from 2009 to 2012. Patients with ACL injuries who underwent knee arthroscopy and MRI were included in the study. Two radiologists who were blinded to the clinical history and arthroscopic findings reviewed the pre-arthroscopic MR images. The presence and type of meniscal tears on MRI and arthroscopy were recorded. Arthroscopic findings were used as the reference standard. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of MRI in the evaluation of meniscal tears were calculated.
RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (66 knees) were included. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV for the MRI diagnosis of lateral meniscal tears in our patients were 83, 97, 92, 96, and 90 %, respectively, whereas those for medial meniscus tears were 82, 92, 88, 82, and 88 %, respectively. There were five false-negative diagnoses of medial meniscus tears and four false-negative diagnoses of lateral meniscus tears. The majority of missed meniscus tears on MRI affected the peripheral posterior horns.
CONCLUSION: The sensitivity for diagnosing a meniscal tear was significantly higher when the tear involved more than one-third of the meniscus or the anterior horn. The sensitivity was significantly lower for tears located in the posterior horn and for vertically oriented tears. Therefore, special attention should be given to the peripheral posterior horns of the meniscus, which are common sites of injury that could be easily missed on MRI. The high NPVs obtained in this study suggest that MRI is a valuable tool prior to arthroscopy.
METHODS: Literature search was performed to identify all level I and II studies reporting the clinical and structural outcome of any ACI generation in human knees using the following medical electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and NICE healthcare database. The level of evidence, sample size calculation and risk of bias were determined for all included studies to enable quality assessment.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the analysis, reporting on a total of 1094 patients. Of the 20 studies, 13 compared ACI with other treatment modalities, seven compared different ACI cell delivery methods, and one compared different cell source for implantation. Studies included were heterogeneous in baseline design, preventing meta-analysis. Data showed a trend towards similar outcomes when comparing ACI generations with other repair techniques and when comparing different cell delivery methods and cell source selection. Majority of the studies (80 %) were level II evidence, and overall the quality of studies can be rated as average to low, with the absence of power analysis in 65 % studies.
CONCLUSION: At present, there are insufficient data to conclude any superiority of ACI techniques. Considering its two-stage operation and cost, it may be appropriate to reserve ACI for patients with larger defects or those who have had inadequate response to other repair procedures until hard evidence enables specific clinical recommendations be made.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.