Cargando…

Knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare knee laxity and functional knee outcome between primary and contralateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary and subsequent contralateral ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, from 20...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cristiani, Riccardo, Viheriävaara, Sofia, Janarv, Per-Mats, Edman, Gunnar, Forssblad, Magnus, Stålman, Anders
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8514391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33483767
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06417-3
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare knee laxity and functional knee outcome between primary and contralateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary and subsequent contralateral ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, from 2001 to 2017, were identified in our local database. The inclusion criteria were: the same patients who underwent primary and contralateral hamstring tendon or bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft ACLR and no associated ligament injuries. The KT-1000 arthrometer, with an anterior tibial load of 134 N, was used to evaluate knee laxity preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients with isolated primary and contralateral ACLR met the inclusion criteria (47.9% males; mean age at primary ACLR 23.9 ± 9.4 years and contralateral ACLR 27.9 ± 10.1 years). The arthrometric laxity measurements were available for primary and contralateral ACLR for 226 patients. The mean preoperative and postoperative anterior tibial translation (ATT), as well as the mean ATT reduction from preoperatively to postoperatively, did not differ significantly between primary and contralateral ACLR. The KOOS was available for primary and contralateral ACLR for 256 patients. No significant differences were found preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up between primary and contralateral ACLR for any of the five KOOS subscales. CONCLUSION: The findings in this study showed that anterior knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR. It is important for clinicians to counsel patients about their expectations after contralateral ACLR. This study shows that the results after contralateral ACLR in terms of knee laxity and functional knee outcome are predictable and likely to be comparable to those after primary ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.