Search

Background: No consensus is available regarding the optimal choice of bone graft material for bone tunnel augmentation in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of different bone graft materials for staged revision ACL reconstruction. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were queried through use of the terms anterior cruciate ligament and revision to identify all studies reporting outcomes of bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction. Data extracted included indications for 2-stage surgery, surgical technique, graft material, time between surgeries, rehabilitation protocols, physical examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic and histologic findings. Results: The analysis included 7 studies with a total of 234 patients. The primary outcome in 2 studies was graft incorporation (mean follow-up, 8.8 months), whereas the other 5 studies reported clinical outcomes with follow-up mean ± SD of 4.2 ± 2.1 years. The indication for bone grafting and between-stage protocol varied among studies. Autograft was used in 4 studies: iliac crest bone autograft (ICBG, n = 3) and tibial bone autograft (TBA, n = 1). In 2 studies, the authors investigated the outcomes of allograft: allograft bone matrix (ABM) and allograft bone chips (AC). Finally, 1 study compared ICBG to a synthetic bone substitute. Radiographic evaluation of bone graft integration after the first stage was reported in 4 studies, with an average duration of 4.9 months. In 4 studies, the authors reported the time interval between first and second surgeries, with an average of 6.1 months for ICBG compared with 8.7 months for allogenic and synthetic grafts. Revision ACL graft failure rates were reported by 5 studies, including 1 study with ABM (6.1%), 1 study with AC (8.3%), 1 study with TBA (0%), and 2 studies with ICBG (0% and 2%). Conclusion: The indications for staged ACL reconstruction and the rehabilitation protocol between stages need to be clearly established. The available data indicate that autograft for bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage ACL revision may be associated with a lower risk of revision ACL reconstruction graft failure compared with allograft bone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physicians' and patients' decision-making process between bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) and hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) may be influenced by a variety of factors in the young, active athlete. Purpose: To determine the incidence of both ACL graft revisions and contralateral ACL tears resulting in subsequent ACLR in a cohort of high school– and college-aged athletes who initially underwent primary ACLR with either a BTB or a hamstring autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Study inclusion criteria were patients aged 14 to 22 years who were injured in sports, had a contralateral normal knee, and were scheduled to undergo unilateral primary ACLR with either a BTB or a hamstring autograft. All patients were prospectively followed for 6 years to determine whether any subsequent ACLR was performed in either knee after their initial ACLR. Multivariable regression modeling controlled for age, sex, ethnicity/race, body mass index, sport and competition level, baseline activity level, knee laxity, and graft type. The 6-year outcomes were the incidence of subsequent ACLR in either knee. Results: A total of 839 patients were eligible, of which 770 (92%) had 6-year follow-up for the primary outcome measure of the incidence of subsequent ACLR. The median age was 17 years, with 48% female, and the distribution of BTB and hamstring grafts was 492 (64%) and 278 (36%), respectively. The incidence of subsequent ACLR at 6 years was 9.2% in the ipsilateral knee, 11.2% in the contralateral normal knee, and 19.7% for either knee. High-grade preoperative knee laxity (odds ratio [OR], 2.4 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.9]; P =.001), autograft type (OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.5]; P =.004), and age (OR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-1.0]; P =.009) were the 3 most influential predictors of ACL graft revision in the ipsilateral knee. The odds of ACL graft revision were 2.1 times higher for patients receiving a hamstring autograft than patients receiving a BTB autograft (95% CI, 1.3-3.5; P =.004). No significant differences were found between autograft choices when looking at the incidence of subsequent ACLR in the contralateral knee. Conclusion: There was a high incidence of both ACL graft revisions and contralateral normal ACL tears resulting in subsequent ACLR in this young athletic cohort. The incidence of ACL graft revision at 6 years after index surgery was 2.1 times higher with a hamstring autograft compared with a BTB autograft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding the risk factors for loss to follow-up in prospective clinical studies may allow for a targeted approach to minimizing follow-up bias and improving the generalizability of conclusions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and other sports-related interventions. Purpose: To identify independent risk factors associated with failure to complete (ie, loss to follow-up) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 2 years after ACLR within a well-funded prospective longitudinal cohort. Study Design: Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All patients undergoing primary or revision ACLR enrolled in the prospectively collected database of the multicenter consortium between 2002 and 2008 were included. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to determine which baseline risk factors were significantly associated with loss to follow-up at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. Predictors assessed for loss to follow-up were as follows: consortium site, sex, race, marital status, smoking status, phone number provided (home or cell), email address provided (primary or secondary), years of school completed, average hours worked per week, working status (full-time, part-time, homemaker, retired, student, or disabled), number of people living at home, and preoperative PROMs (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Marx Activity Rating Scale, and International Knee Documentation Committee). Results: A total of 3202 patients who underwent ACLR were enrolled. The 2-year PROM follow-up rate for this cohort was 88% (2821 of 3202). Multivariate analyses showed that patient sex (male: odds ratio [OR], 1.80) and race (black: OR, 3.64; other nonwhite: OR, 1.81) were independent predictors of 2-year loss to follow-up of PROMs. Education level was a nonconfounder. Conclusion: While education level did not predict loss to follow-up, patients who are male and nonwhite are at increased risk of loss to follow-up of PROM at 2 years. Capturing patient outcomes with minimal loss depends on equitable, not equal, opportunity to maximize generalizability and mitigate potential population-level health disparities. Registration: NCT00478894 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Knee laxity in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is often assessed through physical examination using the Lachman, pivot shift, and anterior drawer tests. The degree of laxity noted on these examinations may influence treatment decisions and prognosis. Hypothesis: Increased preoperative knee laxity is associated with increased risk of revision ACL reconstruction, increased risk of contralateral ACL reconstruction, and poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years postoperatively. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: 2333 patients who underwent primary isolated ACL reconstruction without additional ligament injury were identified. Patients reported by the operating surgeons to have an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade D Lachman, anterior drawer, or pivot shift examination were classified as having a high-grade laxity. Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate whether having high-grade preoperative laxity was predictive of increased odds of undergoing subsequent revision or contralateral ACL reconstruction within 6 years of the index procedure, controlling for patient age, sex, body mass index, Marx activity level, sport, graft type, medial meniscal treatment, and lateral meniscal treatment. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to evaluate whether having high-grade preoperative laxity was predictive of poorer IKDC or Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Knee-Related Quality of Life (KOOS-QOL) scores at 6 years postoperatively, after controlling for baseline score, patient age, ethnicity, sex, body mass index, marital status, smoking status, sport participation, competition level, Marx activity rating score, graft type, and articular cartilage and meniscal status. Results: In total, 743 of 2325 patients (32.0%) were noted to have high-grade laxity on at least 1 physical examination test. High-grade Lachman was noted in 334 patients (14.4%), high-grade pivot shift was noted in 617 patients (26.5%), and high-grade anterior drawer was noted in 233 patients (10.0%). Six-year revision and contralateral ACL reconstruction data were available for 2129 patients (91.6%). High-grade prereconstruction Lachman was associated with significantly increased odds of ACL graft revision (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.80, P = .02) and contralateral ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.69; P = .019). High-grade prereconstruction pivot shift was associated with significantly increased odds of ACL graft revision (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.19-2.54, P = .002) but not with significantly increased odds of contralateral ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.89-1.87; P = .16). High-grade prereconstruction laxity was associated with statistically significantly lower 6-year IKDC (β = −2.26, P = .003), KOOS-QOL (β = −2.67, P = .015), and Marx activity scores (β = −0.54, P = .020), but these differences did not approach clinically relevant differences in patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion: High-grade preoperative knee laxity is predictive of increased odds of revision ACL reconstruction and contralateral ACL reconstruction 6 years after ACL reconstruction. Poorer patient-reported outcome scores in the high-grade laxity group were also noted, but the difference did not reach a level of clinical relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) has demonstrated inferior psychometric properties when compared with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form when assessing outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The KOOS, Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) is a validated short-form instrument to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after knee arthroplasty, and the purpose of this study was to determine if augmenting the KOOS, JR with additional KOOS items would allow for the creation of a short-form KOOS-based global knee score for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, with psychometric properties similar to those of the IKDC. Hypothesis: An augmented version of the KOOS, JR could be created that would demonstrate convergent validity with the IKDC but avoid the ceiling effects and limitations previously noted with several of the KOOS subscales. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Based on preoperative and 2-year postoperative responses to the KOOS questionnaires from a sample of 1904 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, an aggregate score combining the KOOS, JR and the 4 KOOS Quality of Life subscale questions, termed the KOOSglobal, was developed. Psychometric properties of the KOOSglobal were then compared with those of the IKDC subjective score. Convergent validity between the KOOSglobal and IKDC was assessed with a Spearman correlation (ρ). Responsiveness of the 2 instruments was assessed by calculating the pre- to postoperative effect size and relative efficiency. Finally, the presence of a preoperative floor or postoperative ceiling effect was defined with the threshold of 15% of patients reporting either the worst possible (0 for KOOSglobal and IKDC) or the best possible (100 for KOOSglobal and IKDC) scores, respectively. Results: The newly developed KOOSglobal was responsive after ACL reconstruction and demonstrated convergent validity with the IKDC. The KOOSglobal significantly correlated with the IKDC scores (ρ = 0.91, P < .001), explained 83% of the variability in IKDC scores, and was similarly responsive (relative efficiency = 0.63). While there was a higher rate of perfect postoperative scores with the KOOSglobal (213 of 1904, 11%) than with the IKDC (6%), the KOOSglobal was still below the 15% ceiling effect threshold. Conclusion: The large ceiling effects limit the ability to use several of the KOOS subscales with the younger, more active ACL population. However, by creating an aggregate score from the KOOS, JR and 4 KOOS Quality of Life subscale questions, the 11-item KOOSglobal offers a responsive PRO tool after ACL reconstruction that converges with the information captured with the IKDC. Also, by offering the ability to calculate multiple scores from a single questionnaire, the KOOSglobal may provide the orthopaedic community a single PRO platform to be used across knee-related subspecialties. Registration: NCT00478894 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The time between an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and ACL reconstruction (ACLR) may influence baseline knee-related and general health-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Despite the common use of PROMs as main outcomes in clinical studies, this variable has never been evaluated. Purpose: To compare baseline health-related quality of life measures and the prevalence/pattern of meniscal and articular cartilage lesions between patients who underwent acute and chronic ACLR so as to provide clinicians with benchmark PROMs in 2 different patient populations with ACL injuries. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1192 patients from the MOON (Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network) cohort who underwent primary ACLR were eligible. “Acute” ACLR was defined as <3 months (n = 853; 71.6%) and “chronic” ACLR as >6 months (n = 339; 28.4%) from injury. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics (articular cartilage injury, medial meniscal [MM] and lateral meniscal [LM] tears), and baseline PROM scores (Marx activity rating scale, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective form, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], and Short Form–36 Health Survey [SF-36]) were collected to determine whether the time from injury to ACLR influences (1) baseline PROMs and (2) the pattern and prevalence of concurrent articular cartilage and meniscal injuries. Analysis of covariance models were used to adjust for confounders on baseline outcome scores (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], smoking status, competition level, education). Results: The median patient age was 23 years (interquartile range [IQR], 17-35 years), 530 (44.5%) were female, and the median BMI was 25.0 kg/m2 (IQR, 22.3-27.9 kg/m2); however, the chronic group was older, had a higher BMI, and consisted of fewer collegiate athletes. A significantly greater number of partial LM tears were seen in the acute group versus the chronic group (14.2% vs 6.5%, respectively; P < .001), but there were more meniscal tears overall (73.5% vs 63.2%, respectively; P = .001), complete MM tears (49.0% vs 22.5%, respectively; P < .001), and articular cartilage injuries (54.0% vs 32.8%, respectively; P < .001) in the chronic group versus the acute group. After controlling for confounders, patients in the chronic ACLR group reported a significantly lower baseline Marx score (7.75 vs 12.10, respectively; P < .001) but higher baseline IKDC, SF-36 physical functioning, and all KOOS subscale scores except the KOOS–quality of life subscale score compared to those in the acute ACLR group; however, only the KOOS–sports and recreation subscale exceeded the minimum clinically importance difference of 8 points (62.30 vs 48.26, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion: After controlling for age, sex, competition level, smoking, and BMI, patients in the chronic ACLR group participated in less pivoting and cutting sports but reported better pain/function. Whether decreased activity is deliberate after an ACL injury or patients who undergo chronic ACLR are simply less active and may be treated successfully without surgery warrants further investigation. Nonrandomized studies that utilize PROMs should consider time from injury in study design and data interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increased knee pain at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may potentially predict more difficult rehabilitation, prolonged recovery, and/or be predictive of increased knee pain at 2 years.Hypothesis: A bone bruise and/or other preoperative factors are associated with more knee pain/symptoms at the time of index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and the presence of a bone bruise would be associated with specific demographic and injury-related factors.Study Design: Cohort study (prevalence); Level of evidence, 2.Methods: In 2007, the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) database began to prospectively collect surgeon-reported magnetic resonance imaging bone bruise status. A multivariable analysis was performed to (1) determine if a bone bruise, among other preoperative factors, is associated with more knee symptoms/pain and (2) examine the association of factors related to bone bruise. To evaluate the association of a bone bruise with knee pain/symptoms, linear multiple regression models were fit using the continuous scores of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) symptoms and pain subscales and the Short Form 36 (SF-36) bodily pain subscale as dependent variables. To examine the association between a bone bruise and risk factors, a logistic regression model was used, in which the dependent variable was the presence or absence of a bone bruise.Results: Baseline data for 525 patients were used for analysis, and a bone bruise was present in 419 (80%). The cohort comprises 58% male patients, with a median age of 23 years. The median Marx activity level was 13. Factors associated with more pain were higher body mass index (P < .0001), female sex (P = .001), lateral collateral ligament injury (P = .012), and older age (P = .038). Factors associated with more symptoms were a concomitant lateral collateral ligament injury (P = .014), higher body mass index (P < .0001), and female sex (P < .0001). Bone bruise is not associated with symptoms/pain at the time of index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. None of the factors included in the SF-36 bodily pain model were found to be significant. After controlling for other baseline factors, the following factors were associated with a bone bruise: younger age (P = .034) and not jumping at the time of injury (P = .006).Conclusion: After anterior cruciate ligament injury, risk factors associated with a bone bruise are younger age and not jumping at the time of injury. Bone bruise is not associated with symptoms/pain at the time of index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: 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.

Background: 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.

Background: Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires postoperatively compared to cohorts with primary ACL reconstruction. In a previously active population, it is unclear if patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with a return to activity (RTA) or vary by sports participation level (higher level vs. recreational athletes)., Hypotheses: Individual RTA would be associated with improved outcomes (ie, decreased knee symptoms, pain, function) as measured using validated PROs. Recreational participants would report lower PROs compared with higher level athletes and be less likely to RTA., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2., Methods: There were 862 patients who underwent a revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) and self-reported physical activity at any level preoperatively. Those who did not RTA reported no activity 2 years after revision. Baseline data included patient characteristics, surgical history and characteristics, and PROs: International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A binary indicator was used to identify patients with same/better PROs versus worse outcomes compared with baseline, quantifying the magnitude of change in each direction, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate risk factors for not returning to activity, the association of 2-year PROs after rACLR surgery by RTA status, and whether each PRO and RTA status differed by participation level., Results: At 2 years postoperatively, approximately 15% did not RTA, with current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.3; P = .001), female patients (aOR = 2.9; P < .001), recreational participants (aOR = 2.0; P = .016), and those with a previous medial meniscal excision (aOR = 1.9; P = .013) having higher odds of not returning. In multivariate models, not returning to activity was significantly associated with having worse PROs at 2 years; however, no clinically meaningful differences in PROs at 2 years were seen between participation levels., Conclusion: Recreational-level participants were twice as likely to not RTA compared with those participating at higher levels. Within a previously active cohort, no RTA was a significant predictor of lower PROs after rACLR. However, among patients who did RTA after rACLR, approximately 20% reported lower outcome scores. Most patients with rACLR who were active at baseline improved over time; however, patients who reported worse outcomes at 2 years had a clinically meaningful decline across all PROs.

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome., Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2., Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery., Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87)., Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.

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., (© 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: 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.

Background: 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.

Background: Injuries to the posterolateral corner (PLC) may occur concurrently with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury., Purpose/hypothesis: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients who underwent operative management of PLC injuries concurrently with ACL reconstruction in a prospective multicenter cohort. We hypothesized that there would be no differences in outcomes between patients who were treated with PLC repair and PLC reconstruction., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were enrolled into a prospective longitudinal multicenter cohort between 2002 and 2008. Those with complete 6-year follow-up data (patient-reported outcomes and subsequent surgery information) were identified. Excluded from the study were patients with posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Patients who underwent PLC repair were compared with those who underwent PLC reconstruction with regard to interval from injury to surgery, need for revision surgery, and long-term outcomes at 6 years., Results: During the identified time frame, 3026 identified patients underwent primary ACL reconstruction; 34 (1.1%) also underwent concurrent PLC surgery (15 repairs, 19 reconstructions [18 allografts, 1 autograft]). With the numbers available, we did not detect significant differences between groups regarding the rate of meniscal or chondral injuries. Median time to PLC reconstruction was 121 days as compared with 19 days for concurrent ACL reconstruction and PLC repair ( P = .01). There were no between-group differences in Marx activity scores prior to surgery ( P = .4). At 6-year follow-up, there were no between-group differences in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score ( P = .36-.83) or International Knee Documentation Committee score ( P = .84); however, patients treated with PLC reconstructions had lower Marx activity scores (4.1 vs 9.4; P = .02). There was 1 ACL revision in the PLC reconstruction group, and 1 of the PLC repairs was revised to a reconstruction during the follow-up period., Conclusion: Good outcomes were achieved at 6-year follow-up with both repair and reconstruction of PLC injuries treated concurrently with ACL reconstruction. The PLC reconstruction group had lower activity levels 6 years after surgery. The present data suggest that, for appropriately selected patients undergoing acute surgical treatment of combined ACL and PLC injuries, PCL repair can achieve good long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: Research reported in this publication was partially supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award R01AR053684 (K.P.S.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. R.W.W. has received educational support from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew and hospitality payments from Medical Device Business Systems. R.G.M. has received educational support from Arthrex. K.P.S. has received research support from DonJoy and Smith & Nephew; has received consulting fees from Cytori, Mitek, and the National Football League Flexion Therapeutics, and Samumed; has received hospitality payments from Biosense Webster and DePuy; and receives royalties from commercial product nPhase. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision cohorts continually report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires than primary ACL cohorts at similar time points after surgery. It is unclear how these outcomes are associated with physical activity after physician clearance for return to recreational or competitive sports after ACL revision surgery., Hypotheses: Participants who return to either multiple sports or a singular sport after revision ACL surgery will report decreased knee symptoms, increased activity level, and improved knee function as measured by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and compared with no sports participation. Multisport participation as compared with singular sport participation will result in similar increased PROMs and activity level., Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 clinical sites. At the time of revision, baseline data collected included the following: demographics, surgical characteristics, previous knee treatment and PROMs, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, Marx activity score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). A series of multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale scores at 2 years after revision surgery by sports participation category, controlling for known significant covariates., Results: Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (986 of 1205) of the original cohort. Patients who reported not participating in sports after revision surgery had lower median PROMs both at baseline and at 2 years as compared with patients who participated in either a single sport or multiple sports. Significant differences were found in the change of scores among groups on the IKDC ( P < .0001), KOOS-Symptoms ( P = .01), KOOS-Sports and Recreation ( P = .04), and KOOS-Quality of Life ( P < .0001). Patients with no sports participation were 2.0 to 5.7 times more likely than multiple-sport participants to report significantly lower PROMs, depending on the specific outcome measure assessed, and 1.8 to 3.8 times more likely than single-sport participants (except for WOMAC-Stiffness, P = .18), after controlling for known covariates., Conclusion: Participation in either a single sport or multiple sports in the 2 years after ACL revision surgery was found to be significantly associated with higher PROMs across multiple validated self-reported assessment tools. During follow-up appointments, surgeons should continue to expect that patients who report returning to physical activity after surgery will self-report better functional outcomes, regardless of baseline activity levels.

Background: The occurrence of physiologic knee hyperextension (HE) in the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) population and its effect on outcomes have yet to be reported. Hypothesis/Purpose: The prevalence of knee HE in revision ACLR and its effect on 2-year outcome were studied with the hypothesis that preoperative physiologic knee HE ≥5° is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2., Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACLR were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing single-bundle graft reconstructions. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale) as well as provide information regarding revision ACL graft failure. A regression model with graft failure as the dependent variable included age, sex, graft type at the time of the revision ACL surgery, and physiologic preoperative passive HE ≥5° (yes/no) to assess these as potential risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACLR., Results: Analyses included 1145 patients, for whom 2-year follow-up was attained for 91%. The median age was 26 years, with age being a continuous variable. Those below the median were grouped as "younger" and those above as "older" (age: interquartile range = 20, 35 years), and 42% of patients were female. There were 50% autografts, 48% allografts, and 2% that had a combination of autograft plus allograft. Passive knee HE ≥5° was present in 374 (33%) patients in the revision cohort, with 52% being female. Graft rupture at 2-year follow-up occurred in 34 cases in the entire cohort, of which 12 were in the HE ≥5° group (3.2% failure rate) and 22 in the non-HE group (2.9% failure rate). The median age of patients who failed was 19 years, as opposed to 26 years for those with intact grafts. Three variables in the regression model were significant predictors of graft failure: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .002), use of allograft (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P = .003), and HE ≥5° (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.1-4.7; P = .03)., Conclusion: This study revealed that preoperative physiologic passive knee HE ≥5° is present in one-third of patients who undergo revision ACLR. HE ≥5° was an independent significant predictor of graft failure after revision ACLR with a >2-fold OR of subsequent graft rupture in revision ACL surgery. Registration: NCT00625885 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) has demonstrated inferior psychometric properties when compared with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form when assessing outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The KOOS, Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) is a validated short-form instrument to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after knee arthroplasty, and the purpose of this study was to determine if augmenting the KOOS, JR with additional KOOS items would allow for the creation of a short-form KOOS-based global knee score for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, with psychometric properties similar to those of the IKDC., Hypothesis: An augmented version of the KOOS, JR could be created that would demonstrate convergent validity with the IKDC but avoid the ceiling effects and limitations previously noted with several of the KOOS subscales., Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2., Methods: Based on preoperative and 2-year postoperative responses to the KOOS questionnaires from a sample of 1904 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, an aggregate score combining the KOOS, JR and the 4 KOOS Quality of Life subscale questions, termed the KOOS global , was developed. Psychometric properties of the KOOS global were then compared with those of the IKDC subjective score. Convergent validity between the KOOS global and IKDC was assessed with a Spearman correlation (ρ). Responsiveness of the 2 instruments was assessed by calculating the pre- to postoperative effect size and relative efficiency. Finally, the presence of a preoperative floor or postoperative ceiling effect was defined with the threshold of 15% of patients reporting either the worst possible (0 for KOOS global and IKDC) or the best possible (100 for KOOS global and IKDC) scores, respectively., Results: The newly developed KOOS global was responsive after ACL reconstruction and demonstrated convergent validity with the IKDC. The KOOS global significantly correlated with the IKDC scores (ρ = 0.91, P < .001), explained 83% of the variability in IKDC scores, and was similarly responsive (relative efficiency = 0.63). While there was a higher rate of perfect postoperative scores with the KOOS global (213 of 1904, 11%) than with the IKDC (6%), the KOOS global was still below the 15% ceiling effect threshold., Conclusion: The large ceiling effects limit the ability to use several of the KOOS subscales with the younger, more active ACL population. However, by creating an aggregate score from the KOOS, JR and 4 KOOS Quality of Life subscale questions, the 11-item KOOS global offers a responsive PRO tool after ACL reconstruction that converges with the information captured with the IKDC. Also, by offering the ability to calculate multiple scores from a single questionnaire, the KOOS global may provide the orthopaedic community a single PRO platform to be used across knee-related subspecialties. Registration: NCT00478894 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: The long-term prognosis and risk factors for quality of life and disability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remain unknown. Hypothesis/Purpose: Our objective was to identify patient-reported outcomes and patient-specific risk factors from a large prospective cohort at a minimum 10-year follow-up after ACL reconstruction. We hypothesized that meniscus and articular cartilage injuries, revision ACL reconstruction, subsequent knee surgery, and certain demographic characteristics would be significant risk factors for inferior outcomes at 10 years., Study Design: Therapeutic study; Level of evidence, 2., Methods: Unilateral ACL reconstruction procedures were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2002 and 2004 from 7 sites in the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON). Patients preoperatively completed a series of validated outcome instruments, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Marx activity rating scale. At the time of surgery, physicians documented all intra-articular abnormalities, treatment, and surgical techniques utilized. Patients were followed at 2, 6, and 10 years postoperatively and asked to complete the same outcome instruments that they completed at baseline. The incidence and details of any subsequent knee surgeries were also obtained. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of the outcome., Results: A total of 1592 patients were enrolled (57% male; median age, 24 years). Ten-year follow-up was obtained on 83% (n = 1320) of the cohort. Both IKDC and KOOS scores significantly improved at 2 years and were maintained at 6 and 10 years. Conversely, Marx scores dropped markedly over time, from a median score of 12 points at baseline to 9 points at 2 years, 7 points at 6 years, and 6 points at 10 years. The patient-specific risk factors for inferior 10-year outcomes were lower baseline scores; higher body mass index; being a smoker at baseline; having a medial or lateral meniscus procedure performed before index ACL reconstruction; undergoing revision ACL reconstruction; undergoing lateral meniscectomy; grade 3 to 4 articular cartilage lesions in the medial, lateral, or patellofemoral compartments; and undergoing any subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery after index ACL reconstruction., Conclusion: Patients were able to perform sports-related functions and maintain a relatively high knee-related quality of life 10 years after ACL reconstruction, although activity levels significantly declined over time. Multivariable analysis identified several key modifiable risk factors that significantly influence the outcome.

Background: 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.