Nationwide study highlights a second peak in ACL tears for women in their early forties
- 603 Downloads
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture continues to be a focus of research on knee injuries. Despite this, data on the total number of ruptures on a national basis including both reconstructed (ACLR) and non-reconstructed injuries are limited. The purpose of this study was to describe the national incidence of MRI diagnosed ACL ruptures in Iceland and its subsequent rate of operation with regard to sex and age.
All MRI knee reports taken in Iceland between 2006 and 2011 were gathered to identify ACL ruptures. Software was written to search for phrases relating to ACL rupture. Duplicate records were removed and yearly incidence for sex and age groups was determined. Data from the Icelandic Social Insurance Administration were used identify all those who were operated and to determine the yearly incidence of ACLR. General additive models were used assuming either a Poisson or binomial distribution to model ACL rupture incidence and ACLR rate, respectively.
The average age was 33.9 (95% CI 33.1–34.6; Table 1). The average incidence of ACL tears per year was 75.1 (95% CI 71.3–79.1) per 100,000 person-years. For males the peak incidence was in their early twenties. Females showed two peaks, one in their teens and another in their forties resulting in an older average age at rupture compared to males (35 ± 16 vs 33 ± 13, p = 0.06). The main effects of age and sex and their interaction were significant (p < 0.001). The average incidence of ACLR was 39.4 (95% CI 36.7–42.4) per 100,000 person-years. Those operated were significantly younger than those who were not (27 ± 10 vs 42 ± 15 years, p < 0.001). The main effects of age and the interaction between sex and age were significant (p < 0.001).
This nationwide study indicates that ACL rupture incidence may be higher than previously thought, implying an underestimated impact of the burden of this serious knee injury. The incidence of injury peaked twice in the female population, a result not previously reported. Older persons are less likely to undergo ACLR and, therefore, sex-dependent differences in overall mean age at injury are contrary to previous reports. These data suggest that prevention programs focused solely on young girls should be extended to older women who are returning to sports.
Level of evidence
KeywordsACL tear ACL reconstruction ACL Epidemiology Incidence
Anterior cruciate ligament
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Magnetic resonance imaging
Generalized additive model
The authors would like to thank Dr Vishal Kalia and Dr Vibhuti Kalia for their help in this project.
MN, TI and KB conceived and designed the study, collected the data and classified the reports. MN and TA analysed the data. MN wrote the initial manuscript. All authors contributed in revising the manuscript and gave their final approval of the submitted version.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 11.Janssen KW, Orchard JW, Driscoll TR, van Mechelen W (2012) High incidence and costs for anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed in Australia from 2003–2004 to 2007–2008: time for an anterior cruciate ligament register by Scandinavian model? Scand J Med Sci Sports 22:495–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Mather RC, Hettrich CM, Dunn WR, Cole BJ, Bach BR, Huston LJ, Reinke EK, Spindler KP, Koenig L, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Kaeding CK, Marx RG, McCarty EC, Parker RD, Wright RW (2014) Cost-effectiveness analysis of early reconstruction versus rehabilitation and delayed reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament tears. Am J Sports Med 42:1583–1591CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Suter LG, Smith SR, Katz JN, Englund M, Hunter DJ, Frobell R, Losina E (2017) Projecting lifetime risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and total knee replacement in individuals sustaining a complete anterior cruciate ligament tear in early adulthood. Arthr Care Res 69:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar