Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Department of Epidemiology, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Department of Electrical Engineering, Kazeroun Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kazeroun, Iran
Corresponding author: Mohsen Razeghi, Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Chamran Blvd., Abivardi St. 1, Postal Code: 71947 33669, Shiraz, Iran. Tel.: +98 71 36271551 2; Fax: +98 71 36272495; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture are functionally categorized as copers and non-copers. This differentiation is a determinant factor for designing treatment plan and interpretation of scientific data when ACL deficient subjects are scrutinized. Different procedures have been introduced to differentiate copers from non-copers. However, the majority utilize hop test which can be detrimental to the injured knee. Moreover, hop test may be strongly influenced by confidence and current pain. Therefore, some patients may deny or do not do their best during hop test in order not to further damage their affected knee. Introducing alternative criteria would be helpful in safe and efficient discrimination between copers and non-copers. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine whether various subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) could be considered as possible predictive values in order to differentiate copers from non-copers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four subjects with ACL rupture participated in this study. The patients subdivided into copers and non-copers based on the number of giving way episodes, global rating of function and six meter timed hop test. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis were constructed on the subscales of the KOOS to verify whether these subscales could be considered as potential predictive values to differentiate copers from non-copers. RESULTS: Five subjects (14.7%) were categorized as copers and 29 (85.3%) as non-copers. The area under the curve (AUC) of the KOOS subscales, namely, symptom, pain, daily activity, sport/recreation and quality of life demonstrated 0.83, 0.87, 0.81, 0.91 and 0.92, respectively. CONCLUSION: All subscales of the KOOS questionnaire can be used as good predictive values along with any other criteria to differentiate copers from non-copers.