Eivind Inderhaug1,2, Jon Olav Drogset3, Stein Håkon Låstad Lygre4, Tone Gifstad3. 1. Surgical Department, Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital, Pb 6165, 5152, Bergen, Norway. eivind.inderhaug@gmail.com. 2. University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. eivind.inderhaug@gmail.com. 3. Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 4. Helse Bergen HF, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The current study investigated the distribution of hamstrings graft size and body mass index and any potential effect on the risk of revision surgery in a large prospective cohort of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. More specifically, the aim of the study was to investigate whether larger graft size or smaller BMI would decrease the risk of revision after ACL reconstruction. METHODS: A total of 4029 patients, prospectively registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry, were included in the study. Univariate Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (with log-rank tests) and the Cox proportional hazard (PH) regression model were applied to compare risk of revision between groups of patients. Mutual adjustment for gender, age, activity at the time of injury and fixation method of the graft was performed. RESULTS: Graft sizes spanned from 5.5 to 11.0 mm and the median of 8.0 mm was reported in 42% of patients in the cohort. BMI was reported from 15 to 57 with a median of 25. 46% of patients were classified as overweight (WHO standards), while 23% of patients were obese. At a median of 2.5 years after surgery, 150 patients had undergone revision surgery. Although certain effects were seen in the unadjusted analyses, neither graft size (diameter) nor patient BMI did affect the risk of undergoing revision surgery in the adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Graft size and BMI was not found to be independent risk factors for undergoing ACL revision surgery. In contrast to other studies, graft size of 8 mm or larger did not have a better outcome than smaller graft sizes. A relatively large group of overweight patients undergoing ACL surgery reflects the general increase in weight seen in Western societies. Although the current study differs from previous findings, it might indicate that graft diameter is less important than previously stated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cohort study, II.
PURPOSE: The current study investigated the distribution of hamstrings graft size and body mass index and any potential effect on the risk of revision surgery in a large prospective cohort of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. More specifically, the aim of the study was to investigate whether larger graft size or smaller BMI would decrease the risk of revision after ACL reconstruction. METHODS: A total of 4029 patients, prospectively registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry, were included in the study. Univariate Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (with log-rank tests) and the Cox proportional hazard (PH) regression model were applied to compare risk of revision between groups of patients. Mutual adjustment for gender, age, activity at the time of injury and fixation method of the graft was performed. RESULTS: Graft sizes spanned from 5.5 to 11.0 mm and the median of 8.0 mm was reported in 42% of patients in the cohort. BMI was reported from 15 to 57 with a median of 25. 46% of patients were classified as overweight (WHO standards), while 23% of patients were obese. At a median of 2.5 years after surgery, 150 patients had undergone revision surgery. Although certain effects were seen in the unadjusted analyses, neither graft size (diameter) nor patient BMI did affect the risk of undergoing revision surgery in the adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Graft size and BMI was not found to be independent risk factors for undergoing ACL revision surgery. In contrast to other studies, graft size of 8 mm or larger did not have a better outcome than smaller graft sizes. A relatively large group of overweight patients undergoing ACL surgery reflects the general increase in weight seen in Western societies. Although the current study differs from previous findings, it might indicate that graft diameter is less important than previously stated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cohort study, II.