Purpose
To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and graft failure rates in revision allograft
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients aged 40 and older and
compare them with primary ACLRs.
Methods
Patients aged 40 and older who underwent arthroscopic soft-tissue allograft ACLR between
2005 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients
were grouped based on revision versus primary ACLR. The rate of achieving an International
Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) score
was recorded. Patient satisfaction, PROs, and graft failure were compared between
groups using the χ2 test, Fisher exact test, and Mann–Whitney U test.
Results
We identified 32 patients who underwent revision ACLR and 201 patients who underwent
primary ACLR aged 40 and older who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of
6.2 and 6.9 years, respectively (P = .042). There was a lower rate of concomitant meniscal repair in the primary ACLR
group (6% vs 21.9%, P = .007) There were no other differences in chondral injuries, mechanism of injury,
or meniscal injuries between groups. The median IKDC score was greater in the primary
ACLR group as compared with the revision ACLR group (83.9 vs 70.6, P < .001). Patients who underwent revision ACLR were less likely to achieve the IKDC
PASS threshold (82.5% vs 56.3%, P = .001) and were less likely to report satisfaction as compared with patients who
underwent primary ACLR (90.5% vs 78.1%, P =.038). No difference in graft failure rates was identified between groups (8% vs
15.6%, P = .180).
Conclusions
Revision allograft ACLR in patients aged 40 and older was associated with lower PROs
compared with primary ACLR. Patients who underwent revision ACLR failed to meet the
IKDC PASS threshold more often and were dissatisfied with procedure results more than
twice as often as patients that underwent primary ACLR.
Level of Evidence
III, retrospective cohort study.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients older than forty years: Comparison between different age groups.Int Orthop. 2013; 37: 2265-2269
- Is there any benefit in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients older than 60 years?.Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 832-837
- Trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States.Orthop J Sports Med. 2015; 32325967114563664
- Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States.Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 2363-2370
- Comparable clinical and functional outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction over and under 40 years of age.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 28: 1932-1945
- Ten-year outcomes and risk factors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A MOON longitudinal prospective cohort study.Am J Sports Med. 2018; 46: 815-825
- Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves activity-induced pain in comparison with pain at rest in middle-aged patients with significant cartilage degeneration.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 1343-1348
- 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. 2016; 44: 331-336
- Prevalence of associated lesions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Correlation with surgical timing and with patient age, sex, and body mass index.Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 2966-2973
- Delayed ACL reconstruction in patients ≥40 years of age is associated with increased risk of medial meniscal injury at 1 year.Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47: 584-589
- Meniscal and chondral injuries associated with pediatric anterior cruciate ligament tears: Relationship of treatment time and patient-specific factors.Am J Sports Med. 2012; 40: 2128-2133
- Degeneration of the knee joint in skeletally immature patients with a diagnosis of an anterior cruciate ligament tear: Is there harm in delay of treatment?.Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 2582-2587
- Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showed more laxity than revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum 2-year follow-up.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 28: 1909-1918
- Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores knee laxity but shows inferior functional knee outcome compared with primary reconstruction.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019; 27: 137-145
- Primary versus revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Patient demographics, radiographic findings, and associated lesions.Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 695-703
- Return to sport after primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective comparative study of 552 patients from the FAST Cohort.Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 34-41
- Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24: 201-207
- Clinical outcomes in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis.Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 289-300
- Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort.Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 1979-1986
- Revision ACL reconstruction in children and adolescents.J Pediatr Orthop. 2020; 40: 129-134
- Correlation of meniscal and articular cartilage injuries in children and adolescents with timing of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 275-281
- Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the skeletally immature athlete: diagnosis and management.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013; 21: 78-87
- Meniscal injury after adolescent anterior cruciate ligament injury: How long are patients at risk?.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472: 990-997
- Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Sports Health. 2011; 3: 73-81
- Treating anterior cruciate ligament tears in skeletally immature patients.Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 704-716
- Predictors of patient-reported outcomes at 2 years after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2019; 47: 2394-2401
- Surgical predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Results From the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register on 13,102 patients.Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 1574-1582
- Revision surgery in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A cohort study of 17,682 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25: 1542-1554
- The majority of patients aged 40 and older having allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction achieve a patient acceptable symptomatic state.Arthroscopy. 2022; 38: 1537-1543
- Defining thresholds for the patient acceptable symptom state for the IKDC Subjective Knee Form and KOOS for patients who underwent ACL reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44: 2820-2826
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381
- Clinical outcomes and the failure rate of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were comparable between patients younger than 40 years and patients older than 40 years: A minimum 2-year follow-up study.Arthroscopy. 2020; 36: 2513-2522
- Reoperation and failure rate at six years following revision ACL reconstruction: A MARS cohort study.Orthop J Sports Med. 2019; 7 (2325967119S0029 (7 suppl5))
- Allograft use results in higher re-revision rate for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 62325967118775381
- Does the type of graft affect the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?.Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B: 714-723
- Effect of graft choice on the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort.Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 2301-2310
- Analysis of irradiation on the clinical effectiveness of allogenic tissue when used for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 226-235
- Factors influencing graft choice in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the MARS Group.J Knee Surg. 2016; 29: 458-463
- Outcomes and return to sport after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent athletes.Orthop J Sports Med. 2018; 6232596711876488
- Return-to-sport outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.Am J Sports Med. 2016; 44: 580-584
- Surgical predictors of clinical outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 2586-2594
- Subsequent surgery after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: rates and risk factors from a multicenter cohort.Am J Sports Med. 2017; 45: 2068-2076
- Results of revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 2057-2066
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: July 12, 2022
Accepted:
June 26,
2022
Received:
December 3,
2021
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofFootnotes
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: J.C.R. is a paid presenter for Flexion Therapeutics; a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew, Medical Device Business Services, Stryker , and DePuy; and is on the data and safety and monitoring board for Ferring Pharmaceuticals , Anika Therapeutics , and Ankasa Regenerative Therapeutics. M.J.S. has received hospitality payments from Smith & Nephew and education support from Arthrex . ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 by the Arthroscopy Association of North America
