Background:

ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) reconstruction is one of the most commonly performed and studied procedures in modern sports medicine. A multitude of objective and subjective patient outcome measures exists; however, nonstandardized reporting patterns of these metrics may create challenges in objectively analyzing pooled results from different studies. The goal of this study was to document the variability in outcome reporting patterns in high-impact orthopaedic studies of ACL reconstruction.

Methods:

All clinical studies pertaining to ACL reconstruction in four high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals over a five-year period were reviewed. Biomechanical, basic science, and imaging studies were excluded, as were studies with fewer than fifty patients, yielding 119 studies for review. Incorporation of various objective and subjective outcomes was noted for each study.

Results:

Substantial variability in reporting of both objective and subjective measures was noted in the study cohort. Although a majority of studies reported instrumented laxity findings, there was substantial variability in the type and method of laxity reporting. Most other objective outcomes, including range of motion, strength, and complications, were reported in <50% of all studies. Return to pre-injury level of activity was infrequently reported (24% of studies), as were patient satisfaction and pain assessment following surgery (8% and 13%, respectively). Of the patient-reported outcomes, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scores were most often reported (71%, 63%, and 42%, respectively).

Conclusions:

Substantial variability in outcome reporting patterns exists among high-impact studies of ACL reconstruction. Such variability may create challenges in interpreting results and pooling them across different studies.