Revision ACL reconstruction with autograft: long-term functional outcomes and influencing factors
To present the long-term functional outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with autograft and factors that influence the outcomes.
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).
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).
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.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament Revision surgery Functional outcomes
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.
- 6.Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale—Orthopaedic Scores (2016). http://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/tegner_lysholm_knee.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
- 7.IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Score—Orthopaedic Scores (2017). http://www.orthopaedicscore.com/scorepages/international_knee_documentation_comitee.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2017
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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