Cargando…

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great

PURPOSE: To evaluate the patient-reported and objective functional outcomes of patients undergoing multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine failure rates and factors associated with failure, with a focus on posterior tibial slo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Engler, Ian D., Salzler, Matthew J., Wall, Andrew J., Johnson, William R., Makani, Amun, Shields, Margaret V., Gill, Thomas J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33134992
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.06.013
_version_ 1783600403830538240
author Engler, Ian D.
Salzler, Matthew J.
Wall, Andrew J.
Johnson, William R.
Makani, Amun
Shields, Margaret V.
Gill, Thomas J.
author_facet Engler, Ian D.
Salzler, Matthew J.
Wall, Andrew J.
Johnson, William R.
Makani, Amun
Shields, Margaret V.
Gill, Thomas J.
author_sort Engler, Ian D.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the patient-reported and objective functional outcomes of patients undergoing multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine failure rates and factors associated with failure, with a focus on posterior tibial slope. METHODS: All patients who underwent a repeat revision ACL reconstruction with a single surgeon over a 13-year period were identified. Chart data were obtained, including radiographic findings, operative details and findings, and postoperative examination findings. Failure was defined as subjective instability with evidence of graft incompetence on physical examination and MRI. Patients completed the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC-SKF) and Tegner Activity Level Scale. Patients who had outcomes scores completed a minimum of 2 years postoperatively were included. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were available for follow-up; 12 underwent secondary revision procedures, and 2 underwent tertiary revisions. Three patients (21%) had subsequent failure of the revision graft with mean time to failure of 27 months. Posterior tibial slope was significantly higher in the failures than in the nonfailures (13.3˚; 95% CI 10.1-16.6 versus 10.1˚; 95% CI 6.7-11.4; P = 0.049). Eleven patients completed outcomes measures at a mean of 42 months postoperatively (range 24-79 months). The mean Tegner activity score was 6.3 at follow-up, compared with 8.3 prior to the original ACL injury. The mean IKDC-SKF score was 70 at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Multiple revision ACL reconstruction surgery appears to have reasonable functional outcomes but is associated with a relatively high failure rate. Activity level following repeat revision surgery is diminished compared to the preinjury state, but most patients are able to return to recreational sports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, Level IV.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7588625
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75886252020-10-30 Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great Engler, Ian D. Salzler, Matthew J. Wall, Andrew J. Johnson, William R. Makani, Amun Shields, Margaret V. Gill, Thomas J. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Original Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the patient-reported and objective functional outcomes of patients undergoing multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine failure rates and factors associated with failure, with a focus on posterior tibial slope. METHODS: All patients who underwent a repeat revision ACL reconstruction with a single surgeon over a 13-year period were identified. Chart data were obtained, including radiographic findings, operative details and findings, and postoperative examination findings. Failure was defined as subjective instability with evidence of graft incompetence on physical examination and MRI. Patients completed the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC-SKF) and Tegner Activity Level Scale. Patients who had outcomes scores completed a minimum of 2 years postoperatively were included. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were available for follow-up; 12 underwent secondary revision procedures, and 2 underwent tertiary revisions. Three patients (21%) had subsequent failure of the revision graft with mean time to failure of 27 months. Posterior tibial slope was significantly higher in the failures than in the nonfailures (13.3˚; 95% CI 10.1-16.6 versus 10.1˚; 95% CI 6.7-11.4; P = 0.049). Eleven patients completed outcomes measures at a mean of 42 months postoperatively (range 24-79 months). The mean Tegner activity score was 6.3 at follow-up, compared with 8.3 prior to the original ACL injury. The mean IKDC-SKF score was 70 at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Multiple revision ACL reconstruction surgery appears to have reasonable functional outcomes but is associated with a relatively high failure rate. Activity level following repeat revision surgery is diminished compared to the preinjury state, but most patients are able to return to recreational sports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, Level IV. Elsevier 2020-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7588625/ /pubmed/33134992 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.06.013 Text en © 2020 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Engler, Ian D.
Salzler, Matthew J.
Wall, Andrew J.
Johnson, William R.
Makani, Amun
Shields, Margaret V.
Gill, Thomas J.
Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great
title Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great
title_full Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great
title_fullStr Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great
title_full_unstemmed Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great
title_short Patient-Reported Outcomes After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Good but Not Great
title_sort patient-reported outcomes after multiple-revision acl reconstruction: good but not great
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7588625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33134992
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.06.013
work_keys_str_mv AT engleriand patientreportedoutcomesaftermultiplerevisionaclreconstructiongoodbutnotgreat
AT salzlermatthewj patientreportedoutcomesaftermultiplerevisionaclreconstructiongoodbutnotgreat
AT wallandrewj patientreportedoutcomesaftermultiplerevisionaclreconstructiongoodbutnotgreat
AT johnsonwilliamr patientreportedoutcomesaftermultiplerevisionaclreconstructiongoodbutnotgreat
AT makaniamun patientreportedoutcomesaftermultiplerevisionaclreconstructiongoodbutnotgreat
AT shieldsmargaretv patientreportedoutcomesaftermultiplerevisionaclreconstructiongoodbutnotgreat
AT gillthomasj patientreportedoutcomesaftermultiplerevisionaclreconstructiongoodbutnotgreat