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: HIP International, SAGE Publications
    Abstract: The aim of the study was to determine the restoration of hip biomechanics through lateral offset, leg length, and acetabular component position when comparing non-arthroplasty surgeons (NAS) to elective arthroplasty surgeons (EAS). Methods: 131 patients, with a femoral neck fracture treated with a THA by 7 EAS and 20 NAS, were retrospectively reviewed. 2 blinded observers measured leg-length discrepancy, femoral offset, and acetabular component position. Multivariate logistic regression models examined the association between the surgeon groups and restoration of lateral femoral, acetabular offset, leg length discrepancy, acetabular anteversion, acetabular position, and component size, while adjusting for surgical approach and spinal pathology. Results: NAS under-restored 4.8 mm of lateral femoral offset (43.9 ± 8.7 mm) after THA when compared to the uninjured side (48.7 ± 7.1 mm, p  = 0.044). NAS were at risk for under-restoring lateral femoral offset when compared to EAS ( p  = 0.040). There was no association between lateral acetabular offset, leg length, acetabular position, or component size and surgeon type. Conclusions: Lateral femoral offset is at risk for under-restoration after THA for femoral neck fractures, when performed by surgeons that do not regularly perform elective THA. This indicates that lateral femoral offset is an under-appreciated contributor to hip instability when performing THA for a femoral neck fracture. Lateral femoral offset deserves as much attention and awareness as acetabular component position since a secondary analysis of our data reveal that preoperative templating and intraoperative imaging did not prevent under-restoration.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1120-7000 , 1724-6067
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1475775-8
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, SAGE Publications, Vol. 3, No. 3 ( 2020-09), p. 309-331
    Abstract: Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p 〈 .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2515-2459 , 2515-2467
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2904847-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Veterinary Pathology, SAGE Publications, Vol. 58, No. 5 ( 2021-09), p. 766-794
    Abstract: Standardization of tumor assessment lays the foundation for validation of grading systems, permits reproducibility of oncologic studies among investigators, and increases confidence in the significance of study results. Currently, there is minimal methodological standardization for assessing tumors in veterinary medicine, with few attempts to validate published protocols and grading schemes. The current article attempts to address these shortcomings by providing standard guidelines for tumor assessment parameters and protocols for evaluating specific tumor types. More detailed information is available in the Supplemental Files, the intention of which is 2-fold: publication as part of this commentary, but more importantly, these will be available as “living documents” on a website ( www.vetcancerprotocols.org ), which will be updated as new information is presented in the peer-reviewed literature. Our hope is that veterinary pathologists will agree that this initiative is needed, and will contribute to and utilize this information for routine diagnostic work and oncologic studies. Journal editors and reviewers can utilize checklists to ensure publications include sufficient detail and standardized methods of tumor assessment. To maintain the relevance of the guidelines and protocols, it is critical that the information is periodically updated and revised as new studies are published and validated with the intent of providing a repository of this information. Our hope is that this initiative (a continuation of efforts published in this journal in 2011) will facilitate collaboration and reproducibility between pathologists and institutions, increase case numbers, and strengthen clinical research findings, thus ensuring continued progress in veterinary oncologic pathology and improving patient care.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0300-9858 , 1544-2217
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2106608-5
    SSG: 22
    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. 42, No. 10 ( 2014-10), p. 2301-2310
    Abstract: Most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome; however, graft choice for revision may be limited due to previously used grafts. Hypotheses: Autograft use would result in increased sports function, increased activity level, and decreased osteoarthritis symptoms (as measured by validated patient-reported outcome instruments). Autograft use would result in decreased graft failure and reoperation rate 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 sites. Data collected included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathologic abnormalities, and the results of a series of 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 score). Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Incidences of additional surgery and reoperation due to graft failure were also recorded. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, Marx scores, graft rerupture, and reoperation rate at 2 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1205 patients (697 [58%] males) were enrolled. The median age was 26 years. In 88% of patients, this was their first revision, and 341 patients (28%) were undergoing revision by the surgeon who had performed the previous reconstruction. The median time since last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Revision using an autograft was performed in 583 patients (48%), allograft was used in 590 (49%), and both types were used in 32 (3%). Questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 subjects (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 (92%). The IKDC, KOOS, and WOMAC scores (with the exception of the WOMAC stiffness subscale) all significantly improved at 2-year follow-up ( P 〈 .001). In contrast, the 2-year Marx activity score demonstrated a significant decrease from the initial score at enrollment ( P 〈 .001). Graft choice proved to be a significant predictor of 2-year IKDC scores ( P = .017). Specifically, the use of an autograft for revision reconstruction predicted improved score on the IKDC ( P = .045; odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). The use of an autograft predicted an improved score on the KOOS sports and recreation subscale ( P = .037; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73). Use of an autograft also predicted improved scores on the KOOS quality of life subscale ( P = .031; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). For the KOOS symptoms and KOOS activities of daily living subscales, graft choice did not predict outcome score. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 2-year Marx activity level scores ( P = .012). Graft rerupture was reported in 37 of 1112 patients (3.3%) by their 2-year follow-up: 24 allografts, 12 autografts, and 1 allograft and autograft. Use of an autograft for revision resulted in patients being 2.78 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture compared with allograft ( P = .047; 95% CI, 1.01-7.69). Conclusion: Improved sports function and patient-reported outcome measures are obtained when an autograft is used. Additionally, use of an autograft shows a decreased risk in graft rerupture at 2-year follow-up. No differences were noted in rerupture or patient-reported outcomes between soft tissue and bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts. Surgeon education regarding the findings of this study has the potential to improve the results of revision ACL reconstruction.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2014
    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...