Spinal cord stimulation has a place in the treatment of chronic pain conditions. / Ryggmargsstimulering har en plass i behandling av langvarige smertetilstander.

Spinal cord stimulation is an important modality of treatment for some patients with chronic pain. Patient satisfaction following this treatment is comparable to outcomes from spine surgery in Norway.

Associations of long-term clinical recovery and improved quality of life across ICD-11 chronic pain categories in a real-world registry study.

BACKGROUND: There is little knowledge of what factors are needed for successful chronic pain management. We aim to identify psychosocial and treatment predictors of clinical recovery and improved quality of life (QOL) at 12-month follow-up across three chronic pain groups, based on the International Classification of Diseases-11: neuropathic pain, secondary non-neuropathic pain, and primary pain. Furthermore, we investigate baseline differences across diagnostic groups. METHODS: The sample included baseline and 12-month follow-up data from 1056 chronic pain patients from the Oslo University Hospital's Pain Registry. Logistic regression models investigated longitudinal associations between psychosocial and treatment characteristics, and the outcome measures clinical recovery and improved QOL. Characteristics were compared across the diagnostic groups. RESULTS: Increased odds of clinical recovery and improved QOL were seen in patients receiving invasive treatment (OR = 8.04, 95% CI = 3.50-19.40; OR = 5.47, 95% CI = 2.42-12.86), while decreased odds of clinical recovery were seen for secondary non-neuropathic pain patients with pain-related disability (0.05, 95% CI = 0.01-0.29). In comparing baseline characteristics, neuropathic pain patients had lower QOL, and more severe insomnia compared to the other groups. CONCLUSION: Invasive treatment modalities were strongly associated with clinical recovery and improved QOL. Although this could be due to patient selection, it does warrant further examination as an intervention alternative for chronic pain. Intervention efficacy, risk factors and predictors of clinical recovery across diagnostic groups should be further investigated through longitudinal RCTs. SIGNIFICANCE: This observational study indicates a potential advantage in sustained recovery for pre-selected individuals with chronic pain who undergo invasive treatments. The relationship between sustained recovery and psychosocial factors differs across neuropathic, secondary non-neuropathic, and primary pain patients. This suggests that employing ICD-11 for classifying patients into mechanistically distinct pain groups could inform the evaluation and management of chronic pain. Furthermore, factors previously identified as negative indicators for long-term outcomes in chronic pain cohorts were not clinically significant in this study.

Digital Outpatient Services for Adults: Development of an Intervention and Protocol for a Multicenter Non-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health care services are being challenged by an increasing number of patients and limited resources. Hence, research investigating options to reduce costs and increase effectiveness is warranted. Digital outpatient services can provide flexible and tailored follow-up, improve patients' health literacy, and facilitate the identification of adverse courses of disease. However, previous research largely focused on disease-specific contexts and outcomes. Therefore, research on digital services investigating generic outcomes such as health literacy is warranted. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to describe the "digital outpatient service" intervention and present the protocol for an ongoing multicenter, nonrandomized trial evaluating this intervention. METHODS: Based on previous experiences and evidence-based knowledge, we developed this intervention through patient-journey maps in collaboration with each clinical specialty. The patients gain access to a mobile app for self-monitoring and patient-reported outcomes and a chat for contact between the patients and health care workers. The health care workers' dashboard includes a traffic light system to draw attention to the most urgent patient reports. In this multicenter, non-randomized controlled trial, patients are allocated to the control group receiving standard care or the 6-month intervention. Eligible patients are aged 18 years or older who receive outpatient care at the neurology, lung, pain, or cancer departments at 2 university hospitals in Norway. Our evaluation will include patient-reported outcomes, qualitative interviews, and clinical measures. The primary outcome will be health literacy using the Health Literacy Questionnaire. A sample size of 165 participants is split into a 1:2 ratio in favor of the intervention. We will analyze quantitative data in SPSS (IBM Corp) using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, and qualitative data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: This trial started in September 2021, and the intervention started in January 2022. Recruitment has ended, with 55 patients in the control group and 107 patients in the intervention group. Follow-up is expected to end in July 2023, with results expected to be obtained in December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate an intervention facilitated by an already certified digital multicomponent solution, with intervention content based on patient-reported outcomes, health literacy, and self-monitoring. The intervention is specifically tailored to each participating center and the needs of their patients using patient journey maps. The comprehensive and generic evaluation of this digital outpatient service intervention is a strength as it targets a heterogeneous sample of patients. Thus, this study will provide important knowledge about the applicability and effects of digital health care services. As a result, patients and health care workers will gain a new, evidence-based understanding of whether and how digital tools may be used in clinical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05068869; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05068869. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46649.

Perceived Injustice in Patients With Chronic Pain: Prevalence, Relevance, and Associations With Long-Term Recovery and Deterioration.

The Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ) assesses the degree to which chronic pain sufferers perceive injustice in relation to their pain. The aim of the current study was to assess the prevalence and relevance of the IEQ and its association to perceived recovery and deterioration in a naturalistic pain clinic population. Data was obtained from the Oslo University Hospital's Pain Registry. Among 2,950 patients, the prevalence of low (<19), medium (19-29) and high (30+) IEQ was 39%, 32% and 29% respectively. High levels of injustice were positively associated with a wide range of adverse health outcomes. Differences between those with high vs low levels of IEQ were clinically significant for most health outcomes. A Venn diagram analysis showed considerable, but not complete, overlap between IEQ, pain catastrophizing, psychological distress and severe pain intensity. High IEQ was associated with reduced clinical recovery (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9) and deterioration (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.1-6.2) at 12-months follow-up, however, not when controlling for pain-related disability and pain intensity. We conclude that perceived injustice is a prevalent and clinically relevant phenomenon in a chronic pain clinic population, and that more knowledge is needed regarding its role as indicator of poor prognosis and target for tailored treatment. PERSPECTIVE: This article shows that pain-related injustice is both prevalent and relevant in a large naturalistic pain clinic population. Higher levels of injustice were consistently associated with adverse pain outcomes. Injustice could as such be a viable target for treatment of chronic pain, with potential indirect effects on pain and disability.

Translation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Injustice Experience Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: Perceived injustice is a theoretical construct comprising elements of loss, attribution of blame, and sense of unfairness. Patients with chronic pain often report high levels of perceived injustice, which can have negative impact on physiological and psychosocial aspects and treatment outcome. The Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ) is a self-report 12-item questionnaire that shows good reliability and validity in patients with chronic pain. This study aimed to translate, validate, and expand the use of the Norwegian Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ-N) to a chronic pain population. METHODS: A mixed-method approach was used to translate and validate the IEQ-N. It was forward-back translated, linguistically validated, and culturally adapted. Individual cognitive debriefing interviews (n=7) and a focus group interview (n=9) was used to explore the patients' experience with- and understanding of the questionnaire. Statistical descriptive, correlational, factor- and regression analyses were used to investigate the IEQ-N validity, reliability, and factorial structure in a large registry sample (n=3,068) of patients with chronic pain. RESULTS: Patients with chronic pain found the IEQ-N relevant. Registry analyses supported that the IEQ-N had a one-factor structure. The internal consistency was high (Chronbach's alpha=0.92). The construct validity was good, with moderate to strong significant univariate correlation (r=0.29-0.71) (p<0.05) between perceived injustice and related constructs of pain catastrophizing, pain severity, disability, psychological distress, and quality of life. Perceived injustice contributed with significant but small unique variance to pain-related factors (i.e., pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress), but the additional contribution beyond pain catastrophizing was small (0.2-6.7%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the study found the questionnaire relevant for their situation, and easy to understand. This study provides a reliable and valid Norwegian tool to assess perceived injustice in patients with chronic pain. ETHICAL COMMITTEE NUMBER: REK sør-øst, 2016/1942.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Prevalence of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms and Associated Characteristics Among Patients With Chronic Pain Conditions in a Norwegian University Hospital Outpatient Pain Clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in patients with chronic pain may have a negative effect on the course and outcome of both disorders. Nevertheless, the co-occurrence of the two conditions is often overlooked in clinical settings. Further, little is known about how PTSD is associated with biopsychosocial characteristics in this patient group. The first objective was to assess the prevalence of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) in patients with chronic pain in a Norwegian university hospital outpatient pain clinic. The second objective was to investigate possible associations between PTSS and adverse outcomes such as pain intensity, disability, and distress. The third objective was to compare the PTSS prevalence rates between primary versus secondary pain conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred and ninety-two patients meeting for pain assessment completed self-report questionnaires about PTSS and possibly associated factors. The Life Events Checklist and the Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire were used to screen for potentially traumatic life events. The Impact of Events Scale - Revised and the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 were used to assess PTSS. Differences between patients with and without severe PTSS on the possibly associated variables were analyzed by chi-squared-, and t-tests. RESULTS: 20.7% of the participants reported a level of PTSS qualifying for a PTSD diagnosis. These patients reported higher levels of pain intensity, pain bothersomeness, disability, and psychological distress, as well as lower levels of self-efficacy. They also reported higher levels of pain catastrophizing, perceived injustice, fatigue, and sleep difficulties. Finally, there was not a significant difference in prevalence rates between primary and secondary pain conditions. DISCUSSION: PTSS are frequent in patients with chronic pain, and a range of psychological characteristics is associated with a high level of such symptoms in this patient group. Patients with both conditions report a significantly higher symptom load, and the potential impact on the individual's life is major. In terms of pain condition, there were no differences in PTSS between primary pain conditions and secondary pain conditions in this pain population. This study emphasizes the importance of increased attention on PTSS when seeing patients with chronic pain conditions in clinical practice.

Pain revised - learning from anomalies.

As professional health care personnel we are well educated in anatomy, physiology, clinical medicine and so forth. Our patients present with various symptoms and signs that we use this knowledge to diagnose and treat. But sometimes the patient case contradicts our knowledge. Since the patient is the terrain and our knowledge is the map, these patient cases are anomalies that give us the opportunity to update our maps. One such anomaly is how time restricted amnesia can improve or even eradicate an underlying chronic pain condition and eliminate the patient's dependence on daily opioid consumption. In this short communication I will use amnesia as a starting point to briefly review chronic pain from a learning and memory perspective. I will introduce, for many readers, new concepts like degeneracy and criticality, and together with more familiar concepts like habits and brain network activity, we will end with overarching principles for how chronic pain treatment in general can be crafted and individualized almost independently of the chronic pain condition at hand. This introductory article is followed by a review series that elaborates on the fundamental biological principles for chronic pain, treatment options, and testing the theory with real world data.

Recurrent lateral patella dislocation affects knee function as much as ACL deficiency - however patients wait five times longer for treatment.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of young patients with recurrent lateral patella dislocation (RLDP) is often recommended because of loss of knee function that compromises their level of activity or even their daily life functioning. This situation is comparable to young patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. The purpose of this study was therefore to explore the time from injury to surgery and the pre-operative symptoms and knee function of young RLPD patients scheduled for stabilizing surgery and compare this group to age and sex-matched ACL-deficient patients. METHOD: Forty-seven patients with unilateral RLPD listed for isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction were included in the study (RLPD-group). This group was compared to an age, sex and BMI matched ACL patient group obtained from the Norwegian knee ligament registry (ACL-group) for the following outcome measures: the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) assessed on the day of surgery and time from injury to surgery. RESULTS: The RLPD-group scored significantly lower than the ACL-group for the three KOOS subscales "Pain" (73.6 vs. 79.8, p < 0.05), "Symptoms" (71.7 vs. 79.3, p < 0.05) and "ADL" (84.7 vs 89.5, p < 0.05). The lowest KOOS values were found for Sports/Recreation (53.5 vs. 51.3, p = 0.65) and Quality of life (37.6 vs. 36.7, p = 0.81). The average time from primary injury to surgery was 6 months for the ACL group and 31 months for the RLPD group. CONCLUSION: RLPD affected knee function as much as ACL deficiency, and was associated with more pain. Still the RLDP patients waited on average 5 times longer for surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The patients with RLPD consisted of patients who were examined for possible recruitment for a concurrent prospective randomized controlled trial comparing conservative treatment and isolated surgical medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction (Clinical trials no: NCT02263807 , October 2014).

The Oslo University Hospital Pain Registry: development of a digital chronic pain registry and baseline data from 1,712 patients.

Background and aims Chronic pain is a leading cause to years lived with disability worldwide. However, few of the interventions used in pain medicine have proven efficacy, and evidence from the existing studies may not be valid for the general pain population. Therefore, it is of utmost need that we describe chronic pain conditions in their most relevant aspects, their various guises, as well as the real world outcomes of our clinical interventions. The most obvious and crude way to make these assessments are through large registries where patient characteristics, treatment characteristics (including but not limited to what, when, how often and by whom), treatment outcomes and patient outcomes are scrutinized and recorded. Methods and results This article describes in detail the design and baseline data of the comprehensive Oslo University Hospital Pain Registry (OPR). OPR is the local registry of the largest university and interdisciplinary outpatient pain clinic in Norway. Data registration started in October 2015, and approximately 1,000 patients are assessed and treated at the clinic each year. During the first 2 years of running the OPR (through September 2017), a total of 1,712 patient baseline reports were recorded from 2,001 patients. Clinicians enter data about relevant treatments and interventions, while patients provide self-reported data on aspects related to pain and pain management. The patients complete an electronic registration immediately before their first consultation at the outpatient pain clinic. The baseline questions of the OPR cover: Basic demographics; The Modified Oswestry Disability Index to assess general function; A pain drawing to assess pain location; Questions regarding the temporal aspects of pain; Six 0-10 Numeric Rating Scales to assess pain intensity and bothersomeness; The EQ-5D-5L to measure health-related quality of life; The Hopkins Symptom Check List-25 to assess psychological distress; A single question about self-rated health; The general self-efficacy scale to assess the patient's perceived self-efficacy; The Bodily Distress Syndrome checklist to assess functional disorders; The Injustice Experience Questionnaire to assess whether the patients experience injustice; Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire to assess fatigue; The Insomnia Severity Index to assesses the levels of insomnia symptoms; The Pain Catastrophizing Scale to measure pain catastrophizing and exaggerated negative orientation toward pain stimuli and pain experience; And the SF36v2 to assess patients' self-report of generic health and wellbeing. The baseline data show that chronic pain patients have a high degree of negative impact in all aspects of their lives. Conclusions and implications The OPR is the most comprehensive pain registry for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary outpatient pain clinics in Norway. Detailed design of the registry and key baseline data are presented. Registries are of great value in that they enable real world effectiveness outcomes for patients with chronic pain conditions. The OPR can thus serve as a model for similar initiatives elsewhere. The OPR cohort may also serve as a historical control in future studies, both with experimental and observational design.

Chronic Widespread Pain in a tertiary pain clinic: classification overlap and use of a patient generated quality of life instrument.

Background and aims This study has two main aims: (1) To explore the overlap between classification criteria in patients with Chronic Widespread Pain (CWP) and (2) To explore the use of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) as a quality of life (QoL) measure in this patient group. Methods Patients with Widespread Pain (ICD-11: pain in four or more out of five bodily regions, i.e. the four quadrants and axially) in a tertiary pain outpatient clinic were assessed according to classification criteria for Fibromyalgia [FM, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 1990, 2010, 2011 and 2016], Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [CFS, Fukuda, Canada and International Consensus Criteria (ICC)] and Bodily Distress Syndrome (BDS). Furthermore, patients completed the PGI to assess QoL, and electronic questionnaires including demographic variables and standardised patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Results All patients (n=33) fulfilled the criteria for musculoskeletal type single-organ BDS, 81.8% met the 2016 modified criteria for FM, 30.3% met the Canada criteria for CFS and 24.2% met the criteria for multi-organ type BDS. There was substantial agreement between the 2016 and the 2011 and 2010 criteria sets for FM compared to the 1990 criteria (κ=0.766 and 0.673 compared to 0.279). Patients generally scored low on the PGI, indicating poor QoL (mean PGI 28.9, SD 19.8, range 0-100). Conclusions Our findings support the use of the term musculoskeletal type single-organ BDS to describe patients with CWP and the 2016 revision of the FM criteria. The PGI provides useful clinical information which is not captured by standardised PROMs. Implications The terminology of CWP has become less ambiguous as the new ICD-11 is closely related to the generalised pain criterion of the modified 2016 FM definition. Studies based on the 1990 classification criteria for FM should not be directly compared to studies based on later criteria set. The PGI may be a supplement to other measurements to portray patients' individual concerns in patients with complex symptom disorders.

Meaningful Change Scores in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful change scores in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have not yet been established. PURPOSE: To define the minimal important change (MIC) for the KOOS after ACL reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: KOOS and anchor questions with 7-point scales ranging from "better, an important improvement" to "worse, an important worsening" were completed postoperatively by randomly chosen participants from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry. Presurgery KOOS scores were retrieved from the registry. The MIC for improvement was calculated with anchor-based approaches using the predictive modeling method adjusted for the proportion of improved patients, the mean change method, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method. RESULTS: Complete data for at least one of the KOOS subscales were obtained from 542 (45.3%) participants. Predictive modeling MIC values were 12.1 for the KOOS subscales of Sport and Recreational Function and 18.3 for Knee-Related Quality of Life. These values aid in interpreting within-group improvement over time and can be used as responder criteria when comparing groups. The corresponding and much lower values for the subscales of Pain (2.5), Symptoms (-1.2), and Activities of Daily Living (2.4) are the results from patients reporting, on average, only mild problems with these domains preoperatively. Although 4% to 10% of patients reported subscale-specific worsening, MIC deterioration calculations were not possible. The ROC MIC values were associated with high degrees of misclassification. Values obtained by the mean change method were considered less reliable because these estimates are derived from subgroups of patients. Average KOOS change scores were approximately similar for patients reporting acceptable symptoms postoperatively and patients reporting important improvements on the anchor items after surgery. CONCLUSION: KOOS users should apply subscale-specific cutoffs for meaningful improvement. Our results confirm using the subscales of Sport and Recreational Function and Knee-Related Quality of Life as primary patient-reported outcomes after ACL reconstruction. The predictive modeling approach gave the most robust estimates of MIC values. Our data suggest that reporting acceptable symptoms postoperatively corresponds to reporting an important improvement after ACL reconstruction.

Risk of Revision Was Not Reduced by a Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction Technique: Results From the Scandinavian Registers.

BACKGROUND: Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has demonstrated improved biomechanical properties and moderately better objective outcomes compared with single-bundle reconstructions. This could make an impact on the rerupture rate and reduce the risk of revisions in patients undergoing double-bundle ACL reconstruction compared with patients reconstructed with a traditional single-bundle technique. The National Knee Ligament Registers in Scandinavia provide information that can be used to evaluate the revision outcome after ACL reconstructions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of the study were (1) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstructions, reconstructed with autologous hamstring tendon grafts; (2) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle hamstring tendon and single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts; and (3) to compare the hazard ratios for the same two research questions after Cox regression analysis was performed. METHODS: Data collection of primary ACL reconstructions from the National Knee Ligament Registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from July 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, was retrospectively analyzed. A total of 60,775 patients were included in the study; 994 patients were reconstructed with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, 51,991 with single-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, and 7790 with single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. The double-bundle ACL-reconstructed patients were compared with the two other groups. The risk of revision for each research question was detected by the risk ratio, hazard ratio, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival at 1, 2, and 5 years for the three different groups. Furthermore, a Cox proportional hazard regression model was applied and the hazard ratios were adjusted for country, age, sex, meniscal or chondral injury, and utilized fixation devices on the femoral and tibial sides. RESULTS: There were no differences in the crude risk of revision between the patients undergoing the double-bundle technique and the two other groups. A total of 3.7% patients were revised in the double-bundle group (37 of 994 patients) versus 3.8% in the single-bundle hamstring tendon group (1952 of 51,991; risk ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-1.39; p = 0.96), and 2.8% of the patients were revised in the bone-patellar tendon-bone group (219 of the 7790 bone-patellar tendon-bone patients; risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06; p = 0.11). Cox regression analysis with adjustment for country, age, sex, menisci or cartilage injury, and utilized fixation device on the femoral and tibial sides, did not reveal any further difference in the risk of revision between the single-bundle hamstring tendon and double-bundle hamstring tendon groups (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.85-1.62; p = 0.33), but the adjusted hazard ratio showed a lower risk of revision in the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group compared with the double-bundle group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; p = 0.01). Comparisons of the graft revision rates reported separately for each country revealed that double-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions in Sweden had a lower hazard ratio compared with the single-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions (hazard ratio, 1.00 versus 1.89; 95% CI, 1.09-3.29; p = 0.02). Survival at 5 years after index surgery was 96.0% for the double-bundle group, 95.4% for the single-bundle hamstring tendon group, and 97.0% for the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data from all three national registers, the risk of revision was not influenced by the reconstruction technique in terms of using single- or double-bundle hamstring tendons, although national differences in survival existed. Using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts lowered the risk of revision compared with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts. These findings should be considered when deciding what reconstruction technique to use in ACL-deficient knees. Future studies identifying the reasons for graft rerupture in single- and double-bundle reconstructions would be of interest to understand the findings of the present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The influence of expectations on improvements in pain and function in patients with neck/back/shoulder complaints: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In musculoskeletal research, patients' expectations have recently received increased attention. However, few prospective studies have investigated these expectations or their prognostic significance and possible clinical value. AIM: To investigate the influence of patients' expectations on improvements in pain and functional status six months after an outpatient physical medicine assessment. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) outpatient clinic. POPULATION: Patients with neck, back, or shoulder complaints. METHODS: Pain, during rest and activity, and functional status (PainFunction) were assessed using numerical rating scales (NRSs; 0 to 11) prior to a PMR consultation and after six months. At baseline, the patients were asked to define their expectations (Exp) regarding pain and functional status at six months using equivalent NRSs. The influence of Exp on PainFunction at six months was assessed through multiple regression analysis, controlling for demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were included between January and June 2013, and 181 were followed up at six months. PainFunction improved statistically significant between baseline and six months (P<0.001). Approximately 40% of the patients expected (Exp) an improvement, while 29% reported an improvement at six months, reflected by a minimum of two points improvement in PainFunction. The regression analysis revealed that sick leave and the number of pain sites, but not expectations (Exp), influenced improvement in PainFunction at six months. CONCLUSIONS: The present study does not support the suggested influence of expectations on pain and functional improvement in patients with neck, back or shoulder complaints. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The patients' expectations were more positive than their actual pain and functional improvements. However, their expectations did not significantly influence the study outcomes.

Expectations of pain and functioning in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Research has suggested that patient expectations are associated with treatment outcome and evolve along with patient communication within the musculoskeletal field. However, few studies have investigated if or how physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) consultations affect the attending patients' expectations regarding pain and functional improvement. Hence, the aims of the present study were to compare patient expectations regarding pain and functional improvement before and after a PMR consultation and to assess patient characteristics, including diagnosis, that could perhaps predict changes in expectations. METHODS: The study design was cross-sectional. Eligible participants were first-time patients with neck/back or shoulder complaints who were referred to a PMR outpatient clinic between January and June 2013. Questionnaires (the Patient Shoulder Outcome Expectancies, or PSOE, questionnaire and a numeric rating scale, or NRS) focused on expectations regarding pain and functioning were completed immediately prior to and after a consultation with a PMR specialist. RESULTS: In total, 257 patients were included. In total, 24% of the subjects expected a more positive outcome after the PMR consultation compared with before the consultation, while 10% of the subjects exhibited a negative change in expectations. Few patient characteristics other than sick leave were associated with changes in expectations; however, patients with shoulder complaints seemed to be more optimistic than patients with neck/back complaints. CONCLUSION: Expectations can be influenced by a single specialist consultation. Among clinical prognostic factors, only sick leave influenced the change expectations. However, patients with shoulder complaints seemed to be more optimistic than patients with neck/back complaints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Data Protection Office at Oslo University Hospital, 2012/2574. ISRCTN registration: 40963362  (registered retrospectively 12.12.2016).

Epidemiology of surgically treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries in Scandinavia.

PURPOSE: The main purpose of the study was to provide an overview of injury mechanisms, concomitant injuries, and other relevant epidemiological data for patients treated in Scandinavia with posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) following a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury. METHODS: A total number of 1287 patients who underwent PCLR from 2004 to 2013 in the Scandinavian counties were included from the national ligament registries. The variables such as age, sex, activity, and graft used for reconstruction were collected. Then, injuries were sorted based on concomitant injuries. Finally, data from the different registries were compared. RESULTS: Average age of the treated patients was 32.7 years. Sex distribution ratio of male to female was 858:429 (66.7 %:33.3 %). Depending on definition, 26-37 % of the injuries treated were isolated PCL injuries. PCL injuries were most commonly encountered in sports with 35.4 % of the total number of PCL injuries in the study population. Soccer was the sport with the highest number of injuries (13.1 %). Cartilage lesions occurred in 26.1 % of PCL injuries and meniscal lesions in 21.0 %. Minimum one other additional ligament was injured in 62.2 %. CONCLUSION: Isolated PCL injuries are common, although the injury is most commonly associated with other ligament injuries. There is a high prevalence of cartilage injuries and meniscal lesions associated with PCL injuries. Sports are the leading cause of PCL injuries treated operatively. Epidemiological data are a necessary part of the basis for injury prevention in the future. The prevalence of concomitant injuries is also relevant and clinically important for the choice of surgical procedure and for the expected outcomes following surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.