Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores knee laxity but shows inferior functional knee outcome compared with primary reconstruction.
Activities of Daily Living
Adolescent
Adult
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries
/ surgery
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Joint Instability
/ etiology
Male
Postoperative Complications
/ physiopathology
Recovery of Function
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Anterior cruciate ligament
KOOS
Knee laxity
Primary ACL reconstruction
Revision ACL reconstruction
Journal
Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
ISSN: 1433-7347
Titre abrégé: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9314730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Jan 2019
Historique:
received:
12
01
2018
accepted:
11
07
2018
pubmed:
18
7
2018
medline:
23
4
2019
entrez:
18
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate and compare knee laxity and functional knee outcome between primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the same cohort of patients. Patients who underwent primary and revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, from 2000 to 2015, were identified in our local database. Inclusion criteria were: same patients who underwent primary hamstring tendons (HT) and revision bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft ACLR, no associated ligament injuries and no contralateral ACL injuries/reconstructions. The cause of revision ACLR was graft rupture for all patients. The KT-1000 arthrometer, with an anterior tibial load of 134-N, was used to evaluate knee laxity preoperatively and 6-month postoperatively. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up. A total of 118 patients with primary and revision ACLR arthrometric laxity measurements were available (51.0% males; mean age at primary ACLR 21.7 ± 7.1 years and revision ACLR 24.3 ± 7.5 years). The mean preoperative and postoperative anterior side-to-side (STS) difference values were not significantly different between primary and revision ACLR. However, primary ACLR showed a significantly higher frequency of postoperative anterior STS difference > 5 mm compared with revision ACLR (8.4 vs 5.0%; P = 0.02). The KOOS was available for primary and revision ACLR for 73 patients (55.4% males; mean age at primary ACLR 21.6 ± 7 years and revision ACLR 24.7 ± 7.3 years). Preoperatively, revision ACLR showed significantly higher scores in all KOOS subscales, except for the activity of daily living (ADL) subscale. For the primary ACLR, the improvement from preoperatively to the 1-year follow-up was significantly greater in all KOOS subscales and, the postoperative scores were superior for Pain, ADL and Sports subscales compared with revision ACLR. The findings of this study showed that anterior knee laxity is restored with revision BPTB autograft ACLR after failed primary HT autograft ACLR, in the same cohort of patients. However, revision ACLR showed a significantly inferior functional knee outcome compared with primary ACLR. It is important for clinicians to inform and set realistic expectations for patients undergoing revision ACLR. Patients must be aware of the fact that having revision ACLR their knee function will not improve as much as with primary ACLR and the final postoperative functional outcome is inferior. Retrospective cohort study, Level III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30014185
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5059-3
pii: 10.1007/s00167-018-5059-3
pmc: PMC6510814
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
137-145Références
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Jan-Feb;28(1):40-6
pubmed: 10653542
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):2-11
pubmed: 12531750
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):12-8
pubmed: 12531751
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 May 25;1:17
pubmed: 12801417
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003 Nov 03;1:64
pubmed: 14613558
Am J Sports Med. 2004 Apr-May;32(3):629-34
pubmed: 15090377
Arthroscopy. 2005 Apr;21(4):418-23
pubmed: 15800521
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Oct;34(10):1604-14
pubmed: 16685086
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Oct;35(10):1643-52
pubmed: 17575015
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Feb;36(2):308-15
pubmed: 17989167
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Oct;36(10):1889-95
pubmed: 18490470
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Oct;36(10):1896-902
pubmed: 18567717
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Feb;17(2):117-24
pubmed: 18974970
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):455-63
pubmed: 20051501
Arthroscopy. 2010 Jun;26(6):769-81
pubmed: 20511035
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Jul;38(7):1343-8
pubmed: 20522824
Arthroscopy. 2010 Aug;26(8):1058-65
pubmed: 20678703
Knee. 2011 Oct;18(5):287-93
pubmed: 20850327
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 May;20(5):947-56
pubmed: 21953379
J Knee Surg. 2011 Dec;24(4):289-94
pubmed: 22303759
Clin J Sport Med. 2012 Mar;22(2):116-21
pubmed: 22343967
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Jun;132(6):867-74
pubmed: 22350055
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jul;40(7):1551-7
pubmed: 22562791
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Sep;21(9):2011-8
pubmed: 23238924
Arthroscopy. 2013 May;29(5):898-905
pubmed: 23523126
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2319-28
pubmed: 25201444
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Jan;24(1):201-7
pubmed: 25274098
Knee. 2015 Mar;22(2):100-10
pubmed: 25547048
J Knee Surg. 2015 Oct;28(5):390-4
pubmed: 25635874
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;50(12):716-24
pubmed: 26809259
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jan;45(1):34-41
pubmed: 27530413
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 May;25(5):1653-1661
pubmed: 28251262
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jul;45(8):1790-1798
pubmed: 28419808
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Feb;46(2):357-362
pubmed: 29065270
Arthroscopy. 2018 Mar;34(3):695-703
pubmed: 29225019
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Apr;46(5):1120-1128
pubmed: 29517924
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1(3-4):226-34
pubmed: 8536037
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88-96
pubmed: 9699158
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998 Dec;8(6):439-48
pubmed: 9863983