Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Unrealistic patient expectations have been shown to negatively influence patient-reported outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. Knowledge about patient expectations is important to associate preoperative expectations with the reasonable outcome of a specific procedure. The purpose of this study was to prospectively analyse and to compare patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to assess the factors associated with patient expectations.

Methods

Preoperative expectations of 181 consecutive patients undergoing ACLR were assessed prospectively using a 5-item questionnaire. Primary ACLR (P-ACLR) was performed in 133 patients (73 %), whereas 48 patients (27 %) underwent revision ACLR (R-ACLR). The questionnaire assessed the expectation of the overall condition of the knee joint, return to sports, instability, pain, and risk of osteoarthritis.

Results

All patients expected a normal (38 %) or nearly normal (62 %) condition of the knee joint. Return to sports at the same level was expected by 91 %. With regard to instability (pain), no instability (pain) independent of the activity level was expected by 77 % (58 %). No or only a slightly increased risk of the development of osteoarthritis was expected by 98 %. The R-ACLR group showed a significantly lower expectation of the overall condition (p = 0.001), return to sports (p < 0.001), and pain (p = 0.002). No statistically significant difference was found between female and male patients (n.s.). In the P-ACLR group, patients with a history of previous knee surgery showed inferior expectations of return to sports (p = 0.015) and risk of osteoarthritis (p = 0.011). Age, number of previous knee surgeries, and pre-injury sports level significantly influenced patient expectations.

Conclusions

Overall, patient expectations of ACL reconstruction are high. Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction have lower but still demanding expectations. Younger patients, patients without a history of knee surgery, and highly active patients have higher expectations. Explicit patient information about realistic goals of ACL reconstruction seems to be necessary in order to prevent postoperative dissatisfaction despite a successful operation in the surgeons’ point of view.

Level of evidence

Prospective case series, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ajuied A, Wong F, Smith C, Norris M, Earnshaw P, Back D, Davies A (2014) Anterior cruciate ligament injury and radiologic progression of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 42(9):2242–2252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ardern CL, Webster KE, Taylor NF, Feller JA (2011) Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play. Br J Sports Med 45(7):596–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown CA, McAdams TR, Harris AH, Maffulli N, Safran MR (2013) ACL reconstruction in patients aged 40 years and older: a systematic review and introduction of a new methodology score for ACL studies. Am J Sports Med 41(9):2181–2190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cailliez J, Reina N, Molinier F, Chaminade B, Chiron P, Laffosse JM (2012) Patient information ahead of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: experience in a university hospital center. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(5):491–498

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng T, Zhang GY, Zhang XL (2012) Does computer navigation system really improve early clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Knee 19(2):73–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coulter A, Ellins J (2007) Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ 335(7609):24–27

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Culliton SE, Bryant DM, Overend TJ, MacDonald SJ, Chesworth BM (2012) The relationship between expectations and satisfaction in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(3):490–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gifstad T, Drogset JO, Viset A, Grontvedt T, Hortemo GS (2013) Inferior results after revision ACL reconstructions: a comparison with primary ACL reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(9):2011–2018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Henn RF 3rd, Kang L, Tashjian RZ, Green A (2007) Patients’ preoperative expectations predict the outcome of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(9):1913–1919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hu J, Qu J, Xu D, Zhou J, Lu H (2013) Allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int Orthop 37(2):311–320

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Iles RA, Davidson M, Taylor NF, O’Halloran P (2009) Systematic review of the ability of recovery expectations to predict outcomes in non-chronic non-specific low back pain. J Occup Rehabil 19(1):25–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Iversen MD, Daltroy LH, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1998) The prognostic importance of patient pre-operative expectations of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient Educ Couns 34(2):169–178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kievit AJ, Jonkers FJ, Barentsz JH, Blankevoort L (2013) A cross-sectional study comparing the rates of osteoarthritis, laxity, and quality of life in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 29(5):898–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs K, Zurakowski D, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ (2002) Determinants of patient satisfaction with outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84(9):1560–1572

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kraeutler MJ, Bravman JT, McCarty EC (2013) Bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus allograft in outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of 5182 patients. Am J Sports Med 41(10):2439–2448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kvist J (2004) Rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament injury: current recommendations for sports participation. Sports Med 34(4):269–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lamblin CJ, Waterman BR, Lubowitz JH (2013) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autografts compared with non-irradiated, non-chemically treated allografts. Arthroscopy 29(6):1113–1122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lavoie P, Fletcher J, Duval N (2001) Correlation between patients’ satisfaction and objective measurement of knee stability after ACL reconstruction using a patellar tendon autograft. Knee 8(1):19–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Li S, Chen Y, Lin Z, Cui W, Zhao J, Su W (2012) A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials comparing hamstring autografts versus bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(9):1287–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Li S, Su W, Zhao J, Xu Y, Bo Z, Ding X, Wei Q (2011) A meta-analysis of hamstring autografts versus bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee 18(5):287–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Li X, Xu CP, Song JQ, Jiang N, Yu B (2013) Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis. Int Orthop 37(2):213–226

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P, Schumacher L, Thomas BJ, Kilgus DJ, Finerman GA (1996) Differences between patients’ and physicians’ evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(6):835–838

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(7):1551–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2001) Shared decision-making and the orthopaedic workforce. Clin Orthop Relat Res 385:68–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Magnussen RA, Carey JL, Spindler KP (2011) Does autograft choice determine intermediate-term outcome of ACL reconstruction? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(3):462–472

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, Katz JN (2002) The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 29(6):1273–1279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mancuso CA, Graziano S, Briskie LM, Peterson MG, Pellicci PM, Salvati EA, Sculco TP (2008) Randomized trials to modify patients’ preoperative expectations of hip and knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(2):424–431

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Mariscalco MW, Magnussen RA, Mehta D, Hewett TE, Flanigan DC, Kaeding CC (2013) Autograft versus nonirradiated allograft tissue for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 29(12):1948–1953

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, Whelan DB (2011) Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD005960

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mulford JS, Hutchinson SE, Hang JR (2013) Outcomes for primary anterior cruciate reconstruction with the quadriceps autograft: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(8):1882–1888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Muneta T, Hara K, Ju YJ, Mochizuki T, Morito T, Yagishita K, Sekiya I (2010) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by double-bundle technique using multi-strand semitendinosus tendon. Arthroscopy 26(6):769–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Niemeyer P, Porichis S, Salzmann G, Südkamp NP (2012) What patients expect about autologues chondrocyte implantation for treatment of cartilage defects at the knee joint. Cartilage 3(1):13–19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB (2006) The John Insall award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Novak EJ, Vail TP, Bozic KJ (2008) Advances in orthopaedic outcomes research. J Surg Orthop Adv 17(3):200–203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosenberger PH, Jokl P, Cameron A, Ickovics JR (2005) Shared decision making, preoperative expectations, and postoperative reality: differences in physician and patient predictions and ratings of knee surgery outcomes. Arthroscopy 21(5):562–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC (2010) Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(9):1253–1258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Shen C, Jiang SD, Jiang LS, Dai LY (2010) Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 26(5):705–713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tiamklang T, Sumanont S, Foocharoen T, Laopaiboon M (2012) Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:8413

    Google Scholar 

  39. Warth RJ, Briggs KK, Dornan GJ, Horan MP, Millett PJ (2013) Patient expectations before arthroscopic shoulder surgery: correlation with patients’ reasons for seeking treatment. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22(12):1676–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wright RW, Gill CS, Chen L, Brophy RH, Matava MJ, Smith MV, Mall NA (2012) Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(6):531–536

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhu Y, Tang RK, Zhao P, Zhu SS, Li YG, Li JB (2013) Double-bundle reconstruction results in superior clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(5):1085–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zywiel MG, Mahomed A, Gandhi R, Perruccio AV, Mahomed NN (2013) Measuring expectations in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(11):3446–3456

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Technical University Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany

    Matthias J. Feucht, Matthias Cotic, Tim Saier, Philipp Minzlaff, Johannes E. Plath, Andreas B. Imhoff & Stefan Hinterwimmer

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Freiburg University Hospital, Hugstetter Straße 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Matthias J. Feucht

  3. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Trauma Center Murnau, Murnau, Germany

    Tim Saier

  4. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Zentralklinikum Augsburg, 86156, Augsburg, Germany

    Johannes E. Plath

  5. Sportsclinic Germany, 81737, Munich, Germany

    Stefan Hinterwimmer

Authors
  1. Matthias J. Feucht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Cotic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Saier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philipp Minzlaff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Johannes E. Plath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andreas B. Imhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stefan Hinterwimmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias J. Feucht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feucht, M.J., Cotic, M., Saier, T. et al. Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 201–207 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3364-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3364-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation