The aim of this study was to evaluate whether anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the double bundle technique (DB) improves stability in the knee compared with the single bundle technique (SB) with the femoral tunnel in a more horizontal position (2 or 10 o'clock). We conducted a randomized, prospective study. Forty patients were randomized to the DB group (20 patients) and the SB group (20 patients). Four-stranded semitendinosus and gracilis autologous grafts were used in the SB group and in the DB group the conventional four tunnel technique was carried out using the same tendons. The IKDC complete form was used for the preoperative evaluation, and in the follow-up the IKDC subjective knee evaluation form, IKDC current health assessment form and IKDC knee examination form were used. Anteroposterior (AP) laxity was evaluated by standardised and forced radiology in all patients. No significant preoperative between-group differences were found. During the follow-up, no differences were found between groups, except for significant between-group differences (P < 0.05) between the preoperative and postoperative evaluations. The IKDC index also showed significant differences in the 2-year follow-up. Median scores increased from 48 (range 41-54) to 81 (range 75-87) (P = 0.01) in the SB group and from 52 (range 46-58) to 80 (range 72-88) (P = 0.02) in the DB group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of functional scores. In conclusion, the 2 and 10 o'clock placements showed no significant differences between SB and DB techniques in the pivot-shift test, manual and radiological anterior posterior laxity and IKDC scores. However, significant between-group differences were found between the preoperative and postoperative evaluations.

No abstract

The function dimension measured by WOMAC of patients who received both pharmacological treatment and TERF improved with respect to the control group receiving only pharmacological treatment. This suggests that a program of TEFR during the period on the waiting list for TKR may reduce the negative impact of this situation.

In patients with severe OA, HRQL significantly improved at 36 months after TKR, especially in the pain dimension. Lower preoperative WOMAC scores, chronic pain unrelated to knee OA, and severe obesity negatively influenced postoperative WOMAC scores. This disease-specific questionnaire may help to identify patients at increased risk of negative outcomes after surgery.

BackgroundThe NDI, COM and NPQ are evaluation instruments for disability due to NP. There was no Spanish version of NDI or COM for which psychometric characteristics were known. The objectives of this study were to translate and culturally adapt the Spanish version of the Neck Disability Index Questionnaire (NDI), and the Core Outcome Measure (COM), to validate its use in Spanish speaking patients with non-specific neck pain (NP), and to compare their psychometric characteristics with those of the Spanish version of the Northwick Pain Questionnaire (NPQ).MethodsTranslation/re-translation of the English versions of the NDI and the COM was done blindly and independently by a multidisciplinary team. The study was done in 9 primary care Centers and 12 specialty services from 9 regions in Spain, with 221 acute, subacute and chronic patients who visited their physician for NP: 54 in the pilot phase and 167 in the validation phase. Neck pain (VAS), referred pain (VAS), disability (NDI, COM and NPQ), catastrophizing (CSQ) and quality of life (SF-12) were measured on their first visit and 14 days later. Patients' self-assessment was used as the external criterion for pain and disability. In the pilot phase, patients' understanding of each item in the NDI and COM was assessed, and on day 1 test-retest reliability was estimated by giving a second NDI and COM in which the name of the questionnaires and the order of the items had been changed.ResultsComprehensibility of NDI and COM were good. Minutes needed to fill out the questionnaires [median, (P25, P75)]: NDI. 4 (2.2, 10.0), COM: 2.1 (1.0, 4.9). Reliability: [ICC, (95%CI)]: NDI: 0.88 (0.80, 0.93). COM: 0.85 (0.75,0.91). Sensitivity to change: Effect size for patients having worsened, not changed and improved between days 1 and 15, according to the external criterion for disability: NDI: -0.24, 0.15, 0.66; NPQ: -0.14, 0.06, 0.67; COM: 0.05, 0.19, 0.92. Validity: Results of NDI, NPQ and COM were consistent with the external criterion for disability, whereas only those from NDI were consistent with the one for pain. Correlations with VAS, CSQ and SF-12 were similar for NDI and NPQ (absolute values between 0.36 and 0.50 on day 1, between 0.38 and 0.70 on day 15), and slightly lower for COM (between 0.36 and 0.48 on day 1, and between 0.33 and 0.61 on day 15). Correlation between NDI and NPQ: r = 0.84 on day 1, r = 0.91 on day 15. Correlation between COM and NPQ: r = 0.63 on day 1, r = 0.71 on day 15.ConclusionAlthough most psychometric characteristics of NDI, NPQ and COM are similar, those from the latter one are worse and its use may lead to patients' evolution seeming more positive than it actually is. NDI seems to be the best instrument for measuring NP-related disability, since its results are the most consistent with patient's assessment of their own clinical status and evolution. It takes two more minutes to answer the NDI than to answer the COM, but it can be reliably filled out by the patient without assistance.Trial RegistrationClinical Trials Register NCT00349544.