Patients older than 50 years had similar results of knee strength and anteroposterior stability after ACL reconstruction compared to younger patients
To evaluate knee strength, ligament stability, and functional outcomes in patients older than 50 years who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, and to compare these results with those obtained from a younger patient group (< 40 years).
Forty patients older than 50 years and 50 patients younger than 40 years who underwent ACL reconstruction were retrospectively studied. Isokinetic extensor and flexor muscle strength were evaluated. The peak torque was determined at speeds of 60°/s and 180°/s. The highest peak torque at each velocity was compared with that on the uninjured side. Patients were also evaluated for knee anteroposterior (AP) laxity and functional outcomes, which were measured by the Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. All tests were evaluated at baseline and 1 year postoperatively.
The groups were comparable at the baseline. Both groups had significant improvements in all parameters, including isokinetic muscle strength, AP laxity, and functional scores, at 1 year postoperatively (all p < 0.05). Compared with younger patients, older patients had similar results for extensor and flexor strength, AP laxity, and Lysholm score (n.s.). However, younger patients had better IKDC scores than did older patients [median 81.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 95% CI 78.9–88.7 vs. median 75.6; 95% CI 70.1–79.3, p = 0.007].
Though with lower IKDC scores, older patients with ACL reconstruction had comparable results of knee strength and ligament laxity to younger patients. ACL reconstruction is recommended for treating patients older than 50 years with ACL insufficiency, especially for those with high functional demand.
Level of evidence
Retrospective cohort study, III.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Muscle strength measurement Knee laxity Older patients
Anterior cruciate ligament
International Knee Documentation Committee
Maximal manual test
DKK and WHP were responsible for the study concept and design. DKK and GP conducted this study and collected data. DKK and L-TK participated in the analysis and interpretation of the data. DKK, GP, and L-TK drafted the manuscript. L-TK and WHP critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 6.Cinque ME, Chahla J, Moatshe G, DePhillipo NN, Kennedy NI, Godin JA et al (2017) Outcomes and complication rates after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are similar in younger and older patients. Orthop J Sports Med 5(10):2325967117729659. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117729659 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lepley LK, Palmieri-Smith RM (2015) Quadriceps strength, muscle activation failure, and patient-reported function at the time of return to activity in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 45(12):1017–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mall NA, Frank RM, Saltzman BM, Cole BJ, Bach BR Jr (2016) Results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients older than 40 years: how do they compare with younger patients? a systematic review and comparison with younger populations. Sports Health 8(2):177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Ministry of Culture, Sport and Tourism (2016) Survey on citizen’s sports participation. Sejong (Korea): Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. https://tinyurl.com/ycwtrkfk. Accessed 21 June 2018
- 25.Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49Google Scholar