Advertisement

Revision ACL reconstruction with autograft: long-term functional outcomes and influencing factors

  • Connor BoyleEmail author
  • Ravikanth Pagoti
  • Khemerin Hun Eng
  • Samuel E. McMahon
  • Richard Nicholas
Original Article • KNEE - SPORT

Abstract

Purpose

To present the long-term functional outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with autograft and factors that influence the outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective study of 51 consecutive revision ACL reconstructions performed using autograft under the care of a single surgeon with interference screw fixation. Bone-patellar tendon-bone graft was used in 35 (69%) and hamstring tendons in 16 (31%). The subjective IKDC activity level and Lysholm Knee functional scores were collected at mean follow-up of 9.0 years (range 5.17–14.75 years).

Results

Five (9.8%) had re-ruptured and one patient had a total knee replacement. Functional scores were available for 43 patients (84.3%). Twenty-eight had IKDC activity level I or II (65%), level III in 12 (28%) and level IV in 3 (7%). The average Lysholm score was 86.2 ± 12.88, and there is a statistically significant relationship with age (95% CI: − 0.88, − 0.60) (P < 0.05). For each additional 10 years of age, there is a reduction of 5.18 points. No statistically significant effect of sex has been detected. The mean Lysholm score was lower in patients who had partial medial meniscectomy (77.33), although this was not statistically significant (P = 0.06). Regression analysis of the Lysholm score means by chondral damage category adjusted for age, showed that the Grade 3 or 4 group shows a reduction of about 25 points for every 10 years increase in age (95% CI; P = 0.05).

Conclusion

Revision ACL reconstruction with autograft affords satisfactory long-term outcomes. Expectations should be carefully managed in patients with increasing age associated with severe chondral damage and previous medial meniscectomy.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament Revision surgery Functional outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the secretarial team for help in collecting the data used in the paper and Michael Parker for his statistical advice.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Lyman S, Koulouvaris P, Sherman S et al (2009) Epidemiology of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91(10):2321–2328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB (2009) The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5818 knee ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A et al (2007) Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: two-year results from the MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 20:308–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD (2001) Revision anterior cruciate surgery with use of bone-patellar tendon-bone autogenous grafts. J Bone Jt Surg Am 83:1131–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wright R, Spindler K, Huston L et al (2011) Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes: MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 24(04):289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale—Orthopaedic Scores (2016). http://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/tegner_lysholm_knee.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  7. 7.
    IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Score—Orthopaedic Scores (2017). http://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/international_knee_documentation_comitee.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
  8. 8.
    Cameron ML, Briggs KK, Steadman JR (2003) Reproducibility and reliability of the outerbridge classification for grading chondral lesions of the knee arthroscopically. Am J Sports Med 31(1):83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y et al (2009) The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med 37(5):890–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Southam BR, Colosimo AJ, Grawe B (2018) Underappreciated factors to consider in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—a current concepts review. Orthop J Sports Med 6(1):2325967117751689Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andriolo L, Filardo G, Kon E et al (2015) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(10):2825–2845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright RW, Gill CS, Chen L et al (2012) Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94(6):531–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang C, Chen G, Chen P et al (2018) Double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective in rescuing failed primary reconstruction and re-introduction patients to physical exercise. Exp Ther Med 15(2):2074–2080Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MARS Group (2016) Meniscal and articular cartilage predictors of clinical outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 44(7):1671–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Webster KE, Feller JA, Kimp A et al (2018) Medial meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in inferior mid-term patient-reported outcomes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(4):1059–1064Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MOON Knee Group (2018) Ten-year outcomes and risk factors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a MOON longitudinal prospective cohort study. Am J Sports Med 46(4):815–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anand BS, Feller JA, Richmond AK et al (2015) Return-to-sport outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 44(3):580–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blyth MJG, Gosal HS, Peake WM et al (2003) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients over the age of 50 years: 2- to 8-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 11(4):204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borchers JR, Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD et al (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(9):1889–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brophy RH, Wright RW, David TS et al (2012) Association between previous meniscal surgery and the incidence of chondral lesions at revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 40(4):808–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Emrani PS, Katz JN, Kessler CL, Reichmann WM et al (2008) Joint space narrowing and Kellgren–Lawrence progression in knee osteoarthritis: an analytic literature synthesis. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(8):873–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ajuied A, Wong F, Smith C et al (2013) Anterior cruciate ligament injury and radiologic progression of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 42(9):2242–2252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson MJ, Browning WM, Urband CE et al (2016) A systematic summary of systematic reviews on the topic of the anterior cruciate ligament. Orthop J Sports Med 4(3):2325967116634074Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grassi A, Nitri M, Moulton SG et al (2017) Does the type of graft affect the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A meta-analysis of 32 studies. Bone Jt J 99-B:714–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NHS LothianEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Musgrave Park HospitalBelfastUK
  3. 3.Queen’s University BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations