Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes at a Minimum of 5-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

Rick W. Wright; Lea Johnson; Robert H. Brophy; Ljiljana Bogunovic; Matthew J. Matava; Matthew V. Smith

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1641137

The Journal of Knee Surgery, Table of Contents

J Knee Surg 2019; 32(03): 218-221
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641137

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes at a Minimum of 5-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

Authors

Rick W. Wright

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Lea Johnson

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Robert H. Brophy

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Ljiljana Bogunovic

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Matthew J. Matava

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Matthew V. Smith

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

Abstract

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction typically has worse outcomes than primary reconstructions. Minimal long-term data exist regarding 5-year results. We chose to perform a systematic review to evaluate midterm (5-year) revision ACL reconstruction outcomes (patient-reported outcomes, reoperation, stability, arthritis) in comparison to primary ACL reconstructions at similar time points. Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases were queried, and four studies met the inclusion criteria. Two authors reviewed and performed data extraction. All were level 4 studies. Review of the studies demonstrated that results at 5 years are consistently worse than those noted in primary reconstructions for objective and patient-reported outcomes. Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes remain worse than primary reconstructions at midterm 5-year follow-up. The level of evidence is 4.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - revision ACL reconstruction - outcomes

Full Text

References

References
1 Kamath GV, Redfern JC, Greis PE, Burks RT. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (01) 199-217
2 Wright R, Spindler K, Huston L. , et al. Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes: MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 2011; 24 (04) 289-294
3 Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A. , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: two-year results from the MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 2007; 20 (04) 308-311
4 Wright RW, Gill CS, Chen L. , et al. Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (06) 531-536
5 Group M, Group M. Effect of graft choice on the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (10) 2301-2310
6 Group M, Wright RW, Huston LJ. , et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (10) 1979-1986
7 Brophy RH, Haas AK, Huston LJ, Nwosu SK, Wright RW. ; MARS Group. Association of meniscal status, lower extremity alignment, and body mass index with chondrosis at revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (07) 1616-1622
8 Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; (455) 23-29
9 Liden M, Ejerhed L, Sernert N, Bovaller A, Karlsson J, Kartus J. The course of the patellar tendon after reharvesting its central third for ACL revision surgery: a long-term clinical and radiographic study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (11) 1130-1138
10 Salmon LJ, Pinczewski LA, Russell VJ, Refshauge K. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: 5- to 9-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (10) 1604-1614
11 Mayr HO, Willkomm D, Stoehr A. , et al. Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon allograft and autograft: 2- and 5-year results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132 (06) 867-874
12 Franceschi F, Papalia R, Del Buono A. , et al. Two-stage procedure in anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery: a five-year follow-up prospective study. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (07) 1369-1374
13 Spindler KP, Kuhn JE, Freedman KB, Matthews CE, Dittus RS, Harrell Jr FE. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: bone-tendon-bone versus hamstring: does it really matter? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (08) 1986-1995
14 Wright RW, Magnussen RA, Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (12) 1159-1165
15 Group M. Radiographic findings in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from the MARS cohort. J Knee Surg 2013; 26 (04) 239-248
16 Group M. Meniscal and articular cartilage predictors of clinical outcome following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (07) 1671-1679