Cargando…

Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: While patients following primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery show satisfying results, the outcome after revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) seems to be less favourable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients after revision ACLR. We hypothes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alm, Lena, Krause, Matthias, Frosch, Karl-Heinz, Akoto, Ralph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262848/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00305
_version_ 1783540699847720960
author Alm, Lena
Krause, Matthias
Frosch, Karl-Heinz
Akoto, Ralph
author_facet Alm, Lena
Krause, Matthias
Frosch, Karl-Heinz
Akoto, Ralph
author_sort Alm, Lena
collection PubMed
description AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: While patients following primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery show satisfying results, the outcome after revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) seems to be less favourable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients after revision ACLR. We hypothesize that peripheral knee instabilities and further concomitant lesions are risk factors for failure of revision ACLR. Furthermore, we hypothesize that peripheral stabilisation will reduce the risk of failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2013 and 2016, 111 patients with revision ACLR (revision surgery after primary ACL reconstruction) were included in the retrospective study. All patients were clinically examined with a minimum of 2 years after revision surgery (mean 35 months) and identified as “failed revision ACLR” (side-to-side difference greater than 5mm and/or pivot-shift grade 2/3) and “stable revision ACLR”. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate whether certain predisposing factors were associated with increased odds of failure of the revision ACLR. RESULTS: Failure after revision ACLR occurred in 14.5% (n=16) of the cases. Preoperative medial knee instability (n=36) was associated with failure of revision ACLR, thus patients had a 17 times greater risk of failure when medial knee instability was diagnosed preoperatively. Also, the risk of failure was reduced when patients had peripheral medial (n=24) and/ or antero-lateral stabilisation (n=51). Increased posterior tibial slope (PTS, n=11 greater than 12°) and high-grade anterior knee laxity (side-to-side-difference greater than 5 mm and/or pivot-shift grade 3, n=41) were associated with failed revision ACLR. Furthermore, patients had a 9 times greater risk of failure when they were obese (BMI greater than 30 kg/m2, n=30). Also, postoperative functional scores in comparison to preoperative scores were shown to be significantly higher (Lysholm 85±27 vs. 51±31.9, p=0.024; Tegner 6.5± 1.3 vs. 4± 2.6, p=0.015). CONCLUSION: Results following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are less favourable than primary ACLR. Peripheral medial knee instability, high-grade anterior knee laxity, increased PTS and high BMI are risk factors for failure in revision ACLR while additional medial and/or antero-lateral stabilisation reduces the risk of failure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7262848
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72628482020-06-10 Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months Alm, Lena Krause, Matthias Frosch, Karl-Heinz Akoto, Ralph Orthop J Sports Med Article AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: While patients following primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery show satisfying results, the outcome after revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) seems to be less favourable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients after revision ACLR. We hypothesize that peripheral knee instabilities and further concomitant lesions are risk factors for failure of revision ACLR. Furthermore, we hypothesize that peripheral stabilisation will reduce the risk of failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2013 and 2016, 111 patients with revision ACLR (revision surgery after primary ACL reconstruction) were included in the retrospective study. All patients were clinically examined with a minimum of 2 years after revision surgery (mean 35 months) and identified as “failed revision ACLR” (side-to-side difference greater than 5mm and/or pivot-shift grade 2/3) and “stable revision ACLR”. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate whether certain predisposing factors were associated with increased odds of failure of the revision ACLR. RESULTS: Failure after revision ACLR occurred in 14.5% (n=16) of the cases. Preoperative medial knee instability (n=36) was associated with failure of revision ACLR, thus patients had a 17 times greater risk of failure when medial knee instability was diagnosed preoperatively. Also, the risk of failure was reduced when patients had peripheral medial (n=24) and/ or antero-lateral stabilisation (n=51). Increased posterior tibial slope (PTS, n=11 greater than 12°) and high-grade anterior knee laxity (side-to-side-difference greater than 5 mm and/or pivot-shift grade 3, n=41) were associated with failed revision ACLR. Furthermore, patients had a 9 times greater risk of failure when they were obese (BMI greater than 30 kg/m2, n=30). Also, postoperative functional scores in comparison to preoperative scores were shown to be significantly higher (Lysholm 85±27 vs. 51±31.9, p=0.024; Tegner 6.5± 1.3 vs. 4± 2.6, p=0.015). CONCLUSION: Results following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are less favourable than primary ACLR. Peripheral medial knee instability, high-grade anterior knee laxity, increased PTS and high BMI are risk factors for failure in revision ACLR while additional medial and/or antero-lateral stabilisation reduces the risk of failure. SAGE Publications 2020-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7262848/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00305 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions.
spellingShingle Article
Alm, Lena
Krause, Matthias
Frosch, Karl-Heinz
Akoto, Ralph
Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months
title Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months
title_full Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months
title_fullStr Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months
title_full_unstemmed Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months
title_short Revision ACL Reconstruction - A retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months
title_sort revision acl reconstruction - a retrospective failure analysis with a mean follow up of 35 months
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262848/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00305
work_keys_str_mv AT almlena revisionaclreconstructionaretrospectivefailureanalysiswithameanfollowupof35months
AT krausematthias revisionaclreconstructionaretrospectivefailureanalysiswithameanfollowupof35months
AT froschkarlheinz revisionaclreconstructionaretrospectivefailureanalysiswithameanfollowupof35months
AT akotoralph revisionaclreconstructionaretrospectivefailureanalysiswithameanfollowupof35months