Patient demographics and surgical characteristics in ACL revision: a comparison of French, Norwegian, and North American cohorts
- 794 Downloads
The goal of this paper is to compare patient factors, intra-operative findings, and surgical techniques between patients followed in large cohorts in France, Norway, and North America.
Data collected on 2,286 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) were obtained. These data included 1,216 patients enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) in North America, 793 patients undergoing revision ACLR and recorded in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR), and 277 patients recorded in the revision ACL database of the Société Française d’Arthroscopie (SFA) in France. Data collected from each database included patient demographics (age, sex, height, and weight), graft choice and reason for failure of the primary ACLR, time from primary to revision ACLR, pre-revision patient-reported outcome scores (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee), associated intra-articular findings and treatments at revision, and graft choice for revision reconstruction.
Patient demographics in the three databases were relatively similar. Graft choice for primary and revision ACLR varied significantly, with more allografts used in the MARS cohort. Hamstring autograft was favoured in the NKRL, while bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft was most common in the SFA cohort. Reasons for failure of the primary ACLR were comparable, with recurrent trauma noted in 46–56 % of patients in each of the three cohorts. Technical error was cited in 44–51 % of patients in the MARS and SFA cohorts, but was not clearly elucidated in the NKLR cohort. Biologic failure of the primary graft was more common in the MARS cohort. Differences in associated intra-articular findings were noted at the time of revision ACLR, with significantly more high-grade cartilage lesions noted in the MARS group.
Significant differences exist between patient populations followed in revision ACL cohorts throughout the world that should be considered when applying findings from such cohorts to different patient populations.
Level of evidence
Retrospective comparative study, Level III.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament Reconstruction Revision Cohort International
- 3.Brophy RH, Wright RW, David TS, McCormack RG, Sekiya JK, Svoboda SJ, Huston LJ, Haas AK, Steger-May K (2012) Association between previous meniscal surgery and the incidence of chondral lesions at revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 40:808–814PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Johnson DL, Harner CD, Maday MG, Fu FH (1994) Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. In: Fu FH, Harner CD, Vince KG (eds) Knee surgery, vol 1. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 977–995Google Scholar
- 15.Magnussen RA, Granan LP, Dunn WR, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Brophy R, Carey JL, Flanigan D, Huston LJ, Jones M, Kaeding CC, McCarty EC, Marx RG, Matava MJ, Parker RD, Vidal A, Wolcott M, Wolf BR, Wright RW, Spindler KP, Engebretsen L (2010) Cross-cultural comparison of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction in the United States and Norway. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:98–105PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Trojani C, Beaufils P, Burdin G, Bussiere C, Chassaing V, Djian P, Dubrana F, Ehkirch FP, Franceschi JP, Hulet C, Jouve F, Potel JF, Sbihi A, Neyret P, Colombet P (2012) Revision ACL reconstruction: influence of a lateral tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1565–1570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar