Download PDF
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

Rick W. Wright
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Lea Johnson
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Robert H. Brophy
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Ljiljana Bogunovic
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Matthew J. Matava
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Matthew V. Smith
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

11 October 2017

25 February 2018

Publication Date:
13 April 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

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
 

  • References

  • 1 Kamath GV, Redfern JC, Greis PE, Burks RT. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (01) 199-217
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Wright R, Spindler K, Huston L. , et al. Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes: MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 2011; 24 (04) 289-294
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; (455) 23-29
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Group M. Radiographic findings in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from the MARS cohort. J Knee Surg 2013; 26 (04) 239-248
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar