Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of revision and rerupture rates of ACL reconstruction between autografts and allografts in the skeletally immature

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

Abstract

Purpose

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs) in skeletally immature patients are increasing. The purpose of this study is to describe the demographics, graft usage, revision, and re-operation rates in skeletally immature ACLRs in the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system.

Methods

Skeletally immature patients (<17.0 years old with open physes) were identified using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR registry. Multi-ligament reconstructions and physeal-sparing ACLRs were excluded. Aseptic revision and same-knee re-operation were the outcomes of interest. Exposure of interest was graft type; bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft, hamstring autograft, and any type of allograft. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and race were evaluated as confounders. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by surgeon were used to analyse the risk of revision and re-operation.

Results

A total of 534 primary ACLR cases were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 2.9 years. The majority were hamstring autografts (n = 388, 72.7 %), male (n = 339, 63.9 %), and White (n = 232, 43.4 %). Median age was 14.9 years, and median BMI was 21.9 kg/m2. There were 44 (8.2 %) aseptic revisions and 48 (9.0 %) same-knee re-operations. The incidence rate for revision was BPTB autograft 5.5 %, hamstring autograft 7.5 %, and allograft 13.2 %. After adjusting for confounders and surgeon clustering effect, the risk of aseptic revision and revision between allograft and hamstring autograft did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

Graft selection differs in skeletally immature patients with a preponderance of surgeries being performed with hamstring tendon autografts. High revision rates were identified for all graft types used, though differences in revision rates across different graft types did not reach statistical significance. Surgeons should be aware of high rates of revision in this skeletally immature young population, although type of graft used did not appear to make a difference.

Level of evidence

III.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Hadithy N, Dodds AL, Akhtar KS, Gupte CM (2013) Current concepts of the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in children. Bone Joint J 95-B:1562–1569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Calvo R, Figueroa D, Gili F, Vaisman A, Mocoçain P, Espinosa M, León A, Arellano S (2015) Transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with open physes: 10-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 43:289–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Csintalan RP, Inacio MCS, Desmond JL, Funahashi TT (2013) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with open physes: early outcomes. J Knee Surg 26:225–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Engelman GH, Carry PM, Hitt KG, Polousky JD, Vidal AF (2014) Comparison of allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft survival in an active adolescent cohort. Am J Sports Med 42:2311–2318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frosch KH, Stenge LD, Brodhun T, Stietencron I, Holsten D, Jung C, Reister D, Voigt C, Niemeyer P, Maier M et al (2010) Outcomes and risks of operative treatment of rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament in children and adolescents. Arthroscopy 26:1539–1550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fuchs R, Wheatley W, Uribe JW, Hechtman KS, Zvijac JE, Schurhoff MR (2002) Intra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon allograft in the skeletally immature patient. Arthroscopy 18:824–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Funahashi KM, Moksnes H, Maletis GB, Csintalan RP, Inacio MC, Funahashi TT (2014) Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in adolescents with open physis: effect of recurrent injury and surgical delay on meniscal and cartilage injuries. Am J Sports Med 42:1068–1073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, Lind M, Forssblad M, Albrektsen G, Drogset JO (2014) Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med 42:2319–2328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hui C, Roe J, Ferguson D, Waller A, Salmon L, Pinczewski L (2012) Outcome of anatomic transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in Tanner stage 1 and 2 patients with open physes. Am J Sports Med 40:1093–1098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kercher J, Xerogeanes J, Tannenbaum A, Al-Hakim R, Black JC, Zhao J (2009) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the skeletally immature: an anatomical study utilizing 3-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging reconstructions. J Pediatr Orthop 29:124–129

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SJ, Shim DW, Park KW (2012) Functional outcome of transphyseal reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in skeletally immature patients. Knee Surg Relat Res 24:173–179

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kohl S, Stutz C, Decker S, Ziebarth K, Slongo T, Ahmad SS, Kohlhof H, Eggli S, Zumstein M, Evangelopoulos DS (2014) Mid-term results of transphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in children and adolescents. Knee 21:80–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lo IK, Kirkley A, Fowler PJ, Miniaci A (1997) The outcome of operatively treated anterior cruciate ligament disruptions in the skeletally immature child. Arthroscopy 13:627–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maletis GB, Chen J, Inacio MCS, Funahashi TT (2015) Age-related risk factors for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 21,304 patients from the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.1177/0363546515614813

    Google Scholar 

  15. Maletis GB, Granan L-P, Inacio MCS, Funahashi TT, Engebretsen L (2011) Comparison of community-based ACL reconstruction registries in the U.S. and Norway. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 3):31–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maletis GB, Inacio MCS, Desmond JL, Funahashi TT (2013) Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: association of graft choice with increased risk of early revision. Bone Joint J 95:623–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paxton EW, Namba RS, Maletis GB, Khatod M, Yue EJ, Davies M, Low RB, Wyatt RW, Inacio MC, Funahashi TT (2010) A prospective study of 80,000 total joint and 5000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in a community-based registry in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(Suppl 2):117–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Spindler KP, Kuhn JE, Freedman KB, Matthews CE, Dittus RS, Harrell FEJ (2004) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: bone-tendon-bone versus hamstring: does it really matter? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med 32:1986–1995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Werner BC, Yang S, Looney AM, Gwathmey FW (2015) Trends in pediatric and adolescent anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction. J Pediatr Orthop. doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000482

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kaiser Permanente, 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 406, San Diego, CA, 92108, USA

    Ian R. Nelson, Jason Chen & Rebecca Love

  2. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Irvine, CA, 92617, USA

    Brent R. Davis & Tadashi T. Funahashi

  3. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Baldwin Park, CA, 91706, USA

    Gregory B. Maletis

Authors
  1. Ian R. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Love
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brent R. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory B. Maletis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tadashi T. Funahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Love.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nelson, I.R., Chen, J., Love, R. et al. A comparison of revision and rerupture rates of ACL reconstruction between autografts and allografts in the skeletally immature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 773–779 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4020-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4020-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation