GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 46, No. 3 ( 2018-03), p. 557-564
    Abstract: Articular cartilage health is an important issue following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and primary ACL reconstruction. Factors present at the time of primary ACL reconstruction may influence the subsequent progression of articular cartilage damage. Hypothesis: Larger meniscus resection at primary ACL reconstruction, increased patient age, and increased body mass index (BMI) are associated with increased odds of worsened articular cartilage damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Subjects who had primary and revision data in the databases of the Multicenter Orthopaedics Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) were included. Reviewed data included chondral surface status at the time of primary and revision surgery, meniscus status at the time of primary reconstruction, primary reconstruction graft type, time from primary to revision ACL surgery, as well as demographics and Marx activity score at the time of revision. Significant progression of articular cartilage damage was defined in each compartment according to progression on the modified Outerbridge scale (increase ≥1 grade) or 〉 25% enlargement in any area of damage. Logistic regression identified predictors of significant chondral surface change in each compartment from primary to revision surgery. Results: A total of 134 patients were included, with a median age of 19.5 years at revision surgery. Progression of articular cartilage damage was noted in 34 patients (25.4%) in the lateral compartment, 32 (23.9%) in the medial compartment, and 31 (23.1%) in the patellofemoral compartment. For the lateral compartment, patients who had 〉 33% of the lateral meniscus excised at primary reconstruction had 16.9-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact lateral meniscus ( P 〈 .001). For the medial compartment, patients who had 〈 33% of the medial meniscus excised at the time of the primary reconstruction had 4.8-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact medial meniscus ( P = .02). Odds of significant chondral surface change increased by 5% in the lateral compartment and 6% in the medial compartment for each increased year of age ( P ≤ .02). For the patellofemoral compartment, the use of allograft in primary reconstruction was associated with a 15-fold increased odds of progression of articular cartilage damage relative to a patellar tendon autograft ( P 〈 .001). Each 1-unit increase in BMI at the time of revision surgery was associated with a 10% increase in the odds of progression of articular cartilage damage ( P = .046) in the patellofemoral compartment. Conclusion: Excision of the medial and lateral meniscus at primary ACL reconstruction increases the odds of articular cartilage damage in the corresponding compartment at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Increased age is a risk factor for deterioration of articular cartilage in both tibiofemoral compartments, while increased BMI and the use of allograft for primary ACL reconstruction are associated with an increased risk of progression in the patellofemoral compartment.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Wiley, Vol. 39, No. 2 ( 2021-02), p. 274-280
    Abstract: Infection is a rare occurrence after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR). Because of the low rates of infection, it has been difficult to identify risk factors for infection in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report the rate of infection following rACLR and assess whether infection is associated with patient‐ and surgeon‐dependent risk factors. We reviewed two large prospective cohorts to identify patients with postoperative infections following rACLR. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, history of diabetes, and graft choice were recorded for each patient. The association of these factors with postoperative infection following rACLR was assessed. There were 1423 rACLR cases in the combined cohort, with 9 (0.6%) reporting postoperative infections. Allografts had a higher risk of infection than autografts (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 0.9–54.5; p  = .045). Diabetes (odds ratio, 28.6; 95% CI, 5.5–149.9; p  = .004) was a risk factor for infection. Patient age, sex, BMI, and smoking status were not associated with risk of infection after rACLR.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0736-0266 , 1554-527X
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2050452-4
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 43, No. 2 ( 2015-02), p. 310-319
    Abstract: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement. Hypothesis: Experienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Twenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient’s history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon’s training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon’s opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Results: The 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17). Conclusion: This study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 47, No. 10 ( 2019-08), p. 2394-2401
    Abstract: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valid measure of results after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Revision ACL reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes when compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Understanding positive and negative predictors of PROs will allow surgeons to modify and potentially improve outcome for patients. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to describe PROs after revision ACL reconstruction and test the hypothesis that patient- and technique-specific variables are associated with these outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data included baseline demographics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Multivariate regression models were used to control for a variety of demographic and surgical factors to determine the positive and negative predictors of PRO scores at 2 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1205 patients met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled: 697 (58%) were male, with a median cohort age of 26 years. The median time since their most recent previous ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained from 989 patients (82%). The most significant positive predictors of 2-year IKDC scores were a high baseline IKDC score, high baseline Marx activity level, male sex, and having a longer time since the most recent previous ACL reconstruction, while negative predictors included having a lateral meniscectomy before the revision ACL reconstruction or having grade 3/4 chondrosis in either the trochlear groove or the medial tibial plateau at the time of the revision surgery. For KOOS, having a high baseline score and having a longer time between the most recent previous ACL reconstruction and revision surgery were significant positive predictors for having a better (ie, higher) 2-year KOOS, while having a lateral meniscectomy before the revision ACL reconstruction was a consistent predictor for having a significantly worse (ie, lower) 2-year KOOS. Statistically significant positive predictors for 2-year Marx activity levels included higher baseline Marx activity levels, younger age, male sex, and being a nonsmoker. Negative 2-year activity level predictors included having an allograft or a biologic enhancement at the time of revision surgery. Conclusion: PROs after revision ACL reconstruction are associated with a variety of patient- and surgeon-related variables. Understanding positive and negative predictors of PROs will allow surgeons to guide patient expectations as well as potentially improve outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 48, No. 12 ( 2020-10), p. 2978-2985
    Abstract: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in patients with isolated tears and tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have not been documented. Purpose: To examine the prevalence and 2-year operative success rate of meniscal repairs in the revision ACL setting. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All cases of revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since the initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify the pathologic condition and subsequent treatment. Results: In total, 218 patients (18%) from 1205 revision ACL reconstructions underwent concurrent meniscal repairs. There were 235 repairs performed: 153 medial, 48 lateral, and 17 medial and lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 178; 76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. Two-year surgical follow-up was obtained on 90% (197/218) of the cohort. Overall, the meniscal repair failure rate was 8.6% (17/197) at 2 years. Of the 17 failures, 15 were medial (13 all-inside, 2 inside-out) and 2 were lateral (both all-inside). Four medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACL reconstruction setting does not have a high failure rate at 2-year follow-up. Failure rates for medial and lateral repairs were both 〈 10% and consistent with success rates of primary ACL reconstruction meniscal repair. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 51, No. 3 ( 2023-03), p. 605-614
    Abstract: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation ( P 〈 .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores ( P 〈 .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. Conclusion: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 41, No. 7 ( 2013-07), p. 1571-1578
    Abstract: The factors that lead to patients failing multiple anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are not well understood. Hypothesis: Multiple-revision ACL reconstruction will have different characteristics than first-time revision in terms of previous and current graft selection, mode of failure, chondral/meniscal injuries, and surgical charactieristics. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A prospective multicenter ACL revision database was utilized for the time period from March 2006 to June 2011. Patients were divided into those who underwent a single-revision ACL reconstruction and those who underwent multiple-revision ACL reconstructions. The primary outcome variable was Marx activity level. Primary data analyses between the groups included a comparison of graft type, perceived mechanism of failure, associated injury (meniscus, ligament, and cartilage), reconstruction type, and tunnel position. Data were compared by analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey test. Results: A total of 1200 patients (58% men; median age, 26 years) were enrolled, with 1049 (87%) patients having a primary revision and 151 (13%) patients having a second or subsequent revision. Marx activity levels were significantly higher (9.77) in the primary-revision group than in those patients with multiple revisions (6.74). The most common cause of reruptures was a traumatic, noncontact ACL graft injury in 55% of primary-revision patients; 25% of patients had a nontraumatic, gradual-onset recurrent injury, and 11% had a traumatic, contact injury. In the multiple-revision group, a nontraumatic, gradual-onset injury was the most common cause of recurrence (47%), followed by traumatic noncontact (35%) and nontraumatic sudden onset (11%) ( P 〈 .01 between groups). Chondral injuries in the medial compartment were significantly more common in the multiple-revision group than in the single-revision group, as were chondral injuries in the patellofemoral compartment. Conclusion: Patients with multiple-revision ACL reconstructions had lower activity levels, were more likely to have chondral injuries in the medial and patellofemoral compartments, and had a high rate of a nontraumatic, recurrent injury of their graft.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2013
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 39, No. 9 ( 2011-09), p. 1889-1893
    Abstract: Background: At the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there are usually concurrent meniscal and articular cartilage injuries. It is unclear if there is a significant difference between intra-articular injuries at the time of a primary ACL reconstruction compared with revision ACL reconstruction. Purpose: To compare the meniscal and articular cartilage injuries found at the time of primary and revision ACL reconstruction surgery and to determine associations between primary and revision surgery and specific intra-articular findings. Study Design: Cohort study (prevalence); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Primary and revision ACL surgeries were identified from the Multicenter Orthopedic Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) study groups, respectively, from January 1, 2007 to November 1, 2008. Demographic data on individual patients were analyzed including age, body mass index (BMI), and gender. Intra-articular findings including the presence of medial or lateral meniscal tears and chondral damage to articular surfaces were analyzed for each patient. Comparisons of intra-articular findings at the time of surgery for the 2 groups were analyzed. Chondral damage in the medial and lateral compartments was analyzed considering previous meniscal tear as a possible confounder. Results: There were 508 patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction and 281 patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction who were identified for inclusion. There were no differences in the mean age, BMI, and gender in the 2 study groups. There was a decreased odds ratio (OR) of new untreated lateral meniscal tears (OR, 0.54; P 〈 .01) but not of medial meniscal tears (OR, 0.86; P = .39) in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction. There was an increased OR of Outerbridge grade 3 and 4 articular cartilage injury in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction in the lateral compartment (OR, 1.73; P = .04) and in the patellar-trochlear compartment (OR, 1.70; P = .04) but not in the medial compartment (OR, 1.33; P = .23). There was an increased OR of Outerbridge grade 3 and 4 articular cartilage injury in patients from both groups having a prior medial meniscectomy on the medial femoral condyle (OR, 1.44; P 〈 .01) and on the medial tibial plateau (OR, 1.63; P 〈 .01). There was an increased OR of Outerbridge grade 3 and 4 articular cartilage injury in patients from both groups having a prior lateral meniscectomy on the lateral femoral condyle (OR, 1.65; P 〈 .01) and on the lateral tibial plateau (OR, 1.56; P 〈 .01). Conclusion: Meniscal tears are a common finding in both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. These results show a decreased OR of new untreated lateral meniscal tears in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction. A previous medial or lateral meniscectomy increases the OR of articular cartilage damage in the medial or lateral compartments, respectively. Even when controlling for meniscus status, there is an increased OR in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction of significant lateral compartment and patellar-trochlear chondral damage but not medial compartment chondral damage.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2011
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 50, No. 9 ( 2022-07), p. 2397-2409
    Abstract: Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described. Purpose: To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] , Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics. Results: A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting—64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group ( P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs ( P 〈 .001) and were less likely to have received a bone–patellar tendon–bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure ( P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone–patellar tendon–bone allograft ( P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft ( P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) ( P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group. Conclusion: Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 45, No. 9 ( 2017-07), p. 2068-2076
    Abstract: While revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR. Purpose: To report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation. Results: Of the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged 〈 20 years had twice the odds of patients aged 20 to 29 years to undergo a reoperation. The use of an allograft at the time of revision ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P = .007) was a significant predictor for reoperations at 2 years, while staged revision (bone grafting of tunnels before revision ACLR) (OR, 1.93; P = .052) did not reach significance. Patients with grade 4 cartilage damage seen during revision ACLR were 78% less likely to undergo subsequent operations within 2 years. Sex, body mass index, smoking history, Marx activity score, technique for femoral tunnel placement, and meniscal tearing or meniscal treatment at the time of revision ACLR showed no significant effect on the reoperation rate. Conclusion: There was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age 〈 20 years and the use of allograft tissue at the time of revision ACLR.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...