Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 2339–2348 | Cite as

Patient demographics and surgical characteristics in ACL revision: a comparison of French, Norwegian, and North American cohorts

  • Robert A. Magnussen
  • Christophe Trojani
  • Lars-Petter Granan
  • Philippe Neyret
  • Philippe Colombet
  • Lars Engebretsen
  • Rick W. Wright
  • Christopher C. Kaeding
  • MARS Group
  • SFA Revision ACL Group
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament Reconstruction Revision Cohort International 

References

  1. 1.
    Borchers JR, Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Wright RW (2011) Intra-articular findings in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a comparison of the MOON and MARS study groups. Am J Sports Med 39:1889–1893PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowers AL, Spindler KP, McCarty EC, Arrigain S (2005) Height, weight, and BMI predict intra-articular injuries observed during ACL reconstruction: evaluation of 456 cases from a prospective ACL database. Clin J Sport Med 15:9–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Carson EW, Anisko EM, Restrepo C, Panariello RA, O’Brien SJ, Warren RF (2004) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: etiology of failures and clinical results. J Knee Surg 17:127–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Granan LP, Bahr R, Steindal K, Furnes O, Engebretsen L (2008) Development of a national cruciate ligament surgery registry: the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med 36:308–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hefti F, Muller W, Jakob RP, Staubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelborne KD (2001) Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29:600–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelbourne KD (2006) Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med 34:1567–1573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, Fu FH (1998) Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6:107–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson DL, Fu FH (1995) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: why do failures occur? Instr Course Lect 44:391–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Johnson DL, Swenson TM, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD (1996) Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: experience from Pittsburgh. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:100–109 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jost PW, Dy CJ, Robertson CM, Kelly AM (2011) Allograft use in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. HSS J 7:251–256PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB (2012) Incidence and outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish registry for knee ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 40:1551–1557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 16.
    Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF (2001) Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med 29:213–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menetrey J, Duthon VB, Laumonier T, Fritschy D (2008) “Biological failure” of the anterior cruciate ligament graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:224–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgan JA, Dahm D, Levy B, Stuart MJ (2012) Femoral tunnel malposition in ACL revision reconstruction. J Knee Surg 25:361–368PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spindler KP (2007) The Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS): a prospective longitudinal cohort to define outcomes and independent predictors of outcomes for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 20:303–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Uribe JW, Hechtman KS, Zvijac JE, Tjin ATEW (1996) Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: experience from Miami. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:91–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wright RW (2009) Knee injury outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:31–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Dunn WR, Haas AK, Allen CR, Cooper DE, DeBerardino TM, Lantz BB, Mann BJ, Stuart MJ (2010) Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med 38:1979–1986CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Magnussen
    • 1
  • Christophe Trojani
    • 2
  • Lars-Petter Granan
    • 3
  • Philippe Neyret
    • 4
  • Philippe Colombet
    • 5
  • Lars Engebretsen
    • 6
  • Rick W. Wright
    • 7
  • Christopher C. Kaeding
    • 1
  • MARS Group
  • SFA Revision ACL Group
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics, Sports Health and Performance InstituteThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Hôpital de L’ArchetUniversity of Nice-Sophia AntipolisNiceFrance
  3. 3.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHôpital de la Croix-RouseLyonFrance
  5. 5.MerignacFrance
  6. 6.Department of OrthopaedicsOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  7. 7.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryWashington UniversityChesterfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations