Literature DB >> 29574451

Patient demographic and surgical characteristics in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a description of registries from six countries.

Heather A Prentice1, Martin Lind2, Caroline Mouton3, Andreas Persson4,5, Henrik Magnusson6, Ayman Gabr7, Romain Seil3, Lars Engebretsen4,5, Kristian Samuelsson8, Jon Karlsson8, Magnus Forssblad9, Fares S Haddad10, Tim Spalding11, Tadashi T Funahashi12, Liz W Paxton1, Gregory B Maletis13.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Findings from individual anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) registry studies are impactful, but how various registries from different countries compare with different patient populations and surgical techniques has not been described. We sought to describe six ACLR registry cohorts to understand variation across countries.
METHODS: Five European registries and one US registry participated. For each registry, all primary ACLR registered between registry establishment through 31December 2014 were identified. Descriptive statistics included frequencies, proportions, medians and IQRs. Revision incidence rates following primary ACLR were computed.
RESULTS: 101 125 ACLR were included: 21 820 in Denmark, 300 in Luxembourg, 17 556 in Norway, 30 422 in Sweden, 2972 in the UK and 28 055 in the US. In all six cohorts, males (range: 56.8%-72.4%) and soccer injuries (range: 14.1%-42.3%) were most common. European countries mostly used autografts (range: 93.7%-99.7%); allograft was most common in the US (39.9%). Interference screw was the most frequent femoral fixation in Luxembourg and the US (84.8% and 42.9%), and suspensory fixation was more frequent in the other countries (range: 43.9%-75.5%). Interference was the most frequent tibial fixation type in all six cohorts (range: 64.8%-98.2%). Three-year cumulative revision probabilities ranged from 2.8% to 3.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in patient demographics and injury activity were observed between all cohorts of ACLR. However, graft and fixation choices differed. Revision rates were low. This work, including >100 000 ACLR, is the most comprehensive international description of contemporary practice to date. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  epidemiology; knee acl

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29574451     DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098674

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Sports Med        ISSN: 0306-3674            Impact factor:   13.800


  22 in total

1.  Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft.

Authors:  Lindsey M Spragg; Heather A Prentice; Andrew Morris; Tadashi T Funahashi; Gregory B Maletis; Rick P Csintalan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Demographic and surgical factors affect quadriceps strength after ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Christopher Kuenze; Brian Pietrosimone; Caroline Lisee; Margaret Rutherford; Tom Birchmeier; Adam Lepley; Joseph Hart
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Surgeon's experience, sports participation and a concomitant MCL injury increase the use of patellar and quadriceps tendon grafts in primary ACL reconstruction: a nationwide registry study of 39,964 surgeries.

Authors:  Dzan Rizvanovic; Markus Waldén; Magnus Forssblad; Anders Stålman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 4.114

4.  Acute and subacute anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions are associated with a higher risk of revision and reoperation.

Authors:  David Y Ding; Richard N Chang; Sachin Allahabadi; Monica J Coughlan; Heather A Prentice; Gregory B Maletis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 4.114

5.  [Mid-term effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament revision].

Authors:  Xing Yun; Yu Wei; Zhongli Li; Yujie Liu; Zhigang Wang; Qiang Zhang; Yang Liu; Min Wei
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-01-15

6.  Return to Play After Patellar Tendon Autograft for Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Rugby Players.

Authors:  Eoghan T Hurley; Dan Withers; Enda King; Andrew Franklyn-Miller; Mark Jackson; Ray Moran
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-05-03

7.  Is all-inside with suspensory cortical button fixation a superior technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chun-Wei Fu; Wei-Cheng Chen; Yung-Chang Lu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Encapsulation of a nanoporous simvastatin-chitosan composite to enhance osteointegration of hydroxyapatite-coated polyethylene terephthalate ligaments.

Authors:  Xiaoquan Ding; Siheng Wang; Wenhe Jin; Xingwang Liu; Jun Chen; Shiyi Chen
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2019-07-04

9.  Does practice of meniscus surgery change over time? A report of the 2021 'THE MENISCUS' Webinar.

Authors:  Christophe Jacquet; Caroline Mouton; Roland Becker; Hideyuki Koga; Matthieu Ollivier; Peter Verdonk; Philippe Beaufils; Romain Seil
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2021-06-26

10.  Low annual hospital volume of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is not associated with higher revision rates.

Authors:  R Kyle Martin; Andreas Persson; Gilbert Moatshe; Anne Marie Fenstad; Lars Engebretsen; Jon Olav Drogset; Håvard Visnes
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 4.114

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.