BACKGROUND: Subsequent surgeries have a profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcome after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). There have been no prospective studies to date describing the rate and predictors (surgical and patient variables) of all subsequent knee surgeries at short-term and midterm follow-up along with analyses of surgical and patient variables that are associated with subsequent surgeries. PURPOSE: To report the rate and predictors of all subsequent surgeries at short-term and midterm follow-up along with associated patient variables. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 980 patients (540 male) were prospectively enrolled in a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) cohort from January 2002 to December 2003. The 2- and 6-year follow-up information for subsequent procedures was obtained. Operative reports were obtained, and all procedures were categorized. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-five patients underwent a subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral leg (18.9%) and 100 on the contralateral knee (10.2%) at 6-year follow-up. On the ipsilateral knee, there was a 7.7% rate of ACL revisions, a 13.3% rate of cartilage procedures, a 5.4% rate of arthrofibrosis procedures, and a 2.4% rate of procedures related to hardware. For the contralateral knee, there was a 6.4% rate of primary ACL ruptures. Younger age at the index surgery and the use of allografts were predictors (risk factors) for subsequent surgery. Revision ACLR, female sex, body mass index, and surgical exposure were not significant predictors. CONCLUSION: At 6-year follow-up, 18.9% of patients who had undergone ACLR underwent subsequent surgeries on the ipsilateral knee. The rates between an ipsilateral ACLR graft versus a contralateral normal ACL tear were similar (7.7% vs 6.4%, respectively). Younger age and the use of allografts were risk factors for subsequent surgery.
BACKGROUND: Subsequent surgeries have a profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcome after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). There have been no prospective studies to date describing the rate and predictors (surgical and patient variables) of all subsequent knee surgeries at short-term and midterm follow-up along with analyses of surgical and patient variables that are associated with subsequent surgeries. PURPOSE: To report the rate and predictors of all subsequent surgeries at short-term and midterm follow-up along with associated patient variables. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 980 patients (540 male) were prospectively enrolled in a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) cohort from January 2002 to December 2003. The 2- and 6-year follow-up information for subsequent procedures was obtained. Operative reports were obtained, and all procedures were categorized. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-five patients underwent a subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral leg (18.9%) and 100 on the contralateral knee (10.2%) at 6-year follow-up. On the ipsilateral knee, there was a 7.7% rate of ACL revisions, a 13.3% rate of cartilage procedures, a 5.4% rate of arthrofibrosis procedures, and a 2.4% rate of procedures related to hardware. For the contralateral knee, there was a 6.4% rate of primary ACL ruptures. Younger age at the index surgery and the use of allografts were predictors (risk factors) for subsequent surgery. Revision ACLR, female sex, body mass index, and surgical exposure were not significant predictors. CONCLUSION: At 6-year follow-up, 18.9% of patients who had undergone ACLR underwent subsequent surgeries on the ipsilateral knee. The rates between an ipsilateral ACLR graft versus a contralateral normal ACL tear were similar (7.7% vs 6.4%, respectively). Younger age and the use of allografts were risk factors for subsequent surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; subsequent surgery
Authors: Rick W Wright; Warren R Dunn; Annunziato Amendola; Jack T Andrish; John Bergfeld; Christopher C Kaeding; Robert G Marx; Eric C McCarty; Richard D Parker; Michelle Wolcott; Brian R Wolf; Kurt P Spindler Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-04-23 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Warren R Dunn; Stephen Lyman; Andrew E Lincoln; Paul J Amoroso; Thomas Wickiewicz; Robert G Marx Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stephen Lyman; Panagiotis Koulouvaris; Seth Sherman; Huong Do; Lisa A Mandl; Robert G Marx Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Joseph U Barker; Mark C Drakos; Travis G Maak; Russell F Warren; Riley J Williams; Answorth A Allen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Katharine Hollnagel; Brent M Johnson; Kelley K Whitmer; Andrew Hanna; Thomas K Miller Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: T Sean Lynch; Richard D Parker; Ronak M Patel; Jack T Andrish; Kurt P Spindler; Annunziata Amendola; Robert H Brophy; Warren R Dunn; David C Flanigan; Laura J Huston; Morgan H Jones; Christopher C Kaeding; Robert G Marx; Matthew J Matava; Eric C McCarty; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Brian R Wolf; Rick W Wright Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Robert W Westermann; Rick W Wright; Kurt P Spindler; Laura J Huston; Brian R Wolf Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Michael T Milone; Kartik Shenoy; Hien Pham; Laith M Jazrawi; Eric J Strauss Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Kurt P Spindler; Laura J Huston; Kevin M Chagin; Michael W Kattan; Emily K Reinke; Annunziato Amendola; Jack T Andrish; Robert H Brophy; Charles L Cox; Warren R Dunn; David C Flanigan; Morgan H Jones; Christopher C Kaeding; Robert A Magnussen; Robert G Marx; Matthew J Matava; Eric C McCarty; Richard D Parker; Angela D Pedroza; Armando F Vidal; Michelle L Wolcott; Brian R Wolf; Rick W Wright Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 6.202