Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
Type of Medium
Person/Organisation
Language
  • 1
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 39, No. 9 ( 2011-09), p. 1889-1893
    Abstract: Background: At the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there are usually concurrent meniscal and articular cartilage injuries. It is unclear if there is a significant difference between intra-articular injuries at the time of a primary ACL reconstruction compared with revision ACL reconstruction. Purpose: To compare the meniscal and articular cartilage injuries found at the time of primary and revision ACL reconstruction surgery and to determine associations between primary and revision surgery and specific intra-articular findings. Study Design: Cohort study (prevalence); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Primary and revision ACL surgeries were identified from the Multicenter Orthopedic Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) study groups, respectively, from January 1, 2007 to November 1, 2008. Demographic data on individual patients were analyzed including age, body mass index (BMI), and gender. Intra-articular findings including the presence of medial or lateral meniscal tears and chondral damage to articular surfaces were analyzed for each patient. Comparisons of intra-articular findings at the time of surgery for the 2 groups were analyzed. Chondral damage in the medial and lateral compartments was analyzed considering previous meniscal tear as a possible confounder. Results: There were 508 patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction and 281 patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction who were identified for inclusion. There were no differences in the mean age, BMI, and gender in the 2 study groups. There was a decreased odds ratio (OR) of new untreated lateral meniscal tears (OR, 0.54; P 〈 .01) but not of medial meniscal tears (OR, 0.86; P = .39) in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction. There was an increased OR of Outerbridge grade 3 and 4 articular cartilage injury in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction in the lateral compartment (OR, 1.73; P = .04) and in the patellar-trochlear compartment (OR, 1.70; P = .04) but not in the medial compartment (OR, 1.33; P = .23). There was an increased OR of Outerbridge grade 3 and 4 articular cartilage injury in patients from both groups having a prior medial meniscectomy on the medial femoral condyle (OR, 1.44; P 〈 .01) and on the medial tibial plateau (OR, 1.63; P 〈 .01). There was an increased OR of Outerbridge grade 3 and 4 articular cartilage injury in patients from both groups having a prior lateral meniscectomy on the lateral femoral condyle (OR, 1.65; P 〈 .01) and on the lateral tibial plateau (OR, 1.56; P 〈 .01). Conclusion: Meniscal tears are a common finding in both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. These results show a decreased OR of new untreated lateral meniscal tears in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction. A previous medial or lateral meniscectomy increases the OR of articular cartilage damage in the medial or lateral compartments, respectively. Even when controlling for meniscus status, there is an increased OR in revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction of significant lateral compartment and patellar-trochlear chondral damage but not medial compartment chondral damage.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2011
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: The Lancet, Elsevier BV, Vol. 398, No. 10303 ( 2021-09), p. 843-855
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0140-6736
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3306-6
    SSG: 5,21
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Implementation Science Communications, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 2, No. 1 ( 2021-12)
    Abstract: Trials show that antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies, including communication skills training, point-of-care C-reactive protein testing (POC-CRPT) and delayed prescriptions, help optimise antibiotic prescribing and use in primary care. However, the use of these strategies in general practice is limited and inconsistent. We aimed to develop an intervention to enhance uptake and implementation of these strategies in primary care. Methods We drew on the Person-Based Approach to develop an implementation intervention in two stages. (1) Planning and design: We defined the problem in behavioural terms drawing on existing literature and conducting primary qualitative research (nine focus groups) in high-prescribing general practices. We identified ‘guiding principles’ with intervention objectives and key features and developed logic models representing intended mechanisms of action. (2) Developing the intervention: We created prototype intervention materials and discussed and refined these with input from 13 health professionals and 14 citizens in two sets of design workshops. We further refined the intervention materials following think-aloud interviews with 22 health professionals. Results Focus groups highlighted uncertainties about how strategies could be used. Health professionals in the workshops suggested having practice champions, brief summaries of each AMS strategy and evidence supporting the AMS strategies, and they and citizens gave examples of helpful communication strategies/phrases. Think-aloud interviews helped clarify and shorten the text and user journey of the intervention materials. The intervention comprised components to support practice-level implementation: antibiotic champions, practice meetings with slides provided, and an ‘implementation support’ website section, and components to support individual-level uptake: website sections on each AMS strategy (with evidence, instructions, links to electronic resources) and material resources (patient leaflets, POC-CRPT equipment, clinician handouts). Conclusions We used a systematic, user-focussed process of developing a behavioural intervention, illustrating how it can be used in an implementation context. This resulted in a multicomponent intervention to facilitate practice-wide implementation of evidence-based strategies which now requires implementing and evaluating. Focusing on supporting the uptake and implementation of evidence-based strategies to optimise antibiotic use in general practice is critical to further support appropriate antibiotic use and mitigate antimicrobial resistance.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2662-2211
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 3038166-6
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 47, No. 9 ( 2019-07), p. 2056-2066
    Abstract: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision cohorts continually report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires than primary ACL cohorts at similar time points after surgery. It is unclear how these outcomes are associated with physical activity after physician clearance for return to recreational or competitive sports after ACL revision surgery. Hypotheses: Participants who return to either multiple sports or a singular sport after revision ACL surgery will report decreased knee symptoms, increased activity level, and improved knee function as measured by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and compared with no sports participation. Multisport participation as compared with singular sport participation will result in similar increased PROMs and activity level. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 clinical sites. At the time of revision, baseline data collected included the following: demographics, surgical characteristics, previous knee treatment and PROMs, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, Marx activity score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). A series of multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale scores at 2 years after revision surgery by sports participation category, controlling for known significant covariates. Results: Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (986 of 1205) of the original cohort. Patients who reported not participating in sports after revision surgery had lower median PROMs both at baseline and at 2 years as compared with patients who participated in either a single sport or multiple sports. Significant differences were found in the change of scores among groups on the IKDC ( P 〈 .0001), KOOS-Symptoms ( P = .01), KOOS–Sports and Recreation ( P = .04), and KOOS–Quality of Life ( P 〈 .0001). Patients with no sports participation were 2.0 to 5.7 times more likely than multiple-sport participants to report significantly lower PROMs, depending on the specific outcome measure assessed, and 1.8 to 3.8 times more likely than single-sport participants (except for WOMAC-Stiffness, P = .18), after controlling for known covariates. Conclusion: Participation in either a single sport or multiple sports in the 2 years after ACL revision surgery was found to be significantly associated with higher PROMs across multiple validated self-reported assessment tools. During follow-up appointments, surgeons should continue to expect that patients who report returning to physical activity after surgery will self-report better functional outcomes, regardless of baseline activity levels.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 43, No. 2 ( 2015-02), p. 310-319
    Abstract: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement. Hypothesis: Experienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Twenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient’s history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon’s training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon’s opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Results: The 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17). Conclusion: This study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 50, No. 7 ( 2022-06), p. 1788-1797
    Abstract: Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires postoperatively compared to cohorts with primary ACL reconstruction. In a previously active population, it is unclear if patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with a return to activity (RTA) or vary by sports participation level (higher level vs. recreational athletes). Hypotheses: Individual RTA would be associated with improved outcomes (ie, decreased knee symptoms, pain, function) as measured using validated PROs. Recreational participants would report lower PROs compared with higher level athletes and be less likely to RTA. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: There were 862 patients who underwent a revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) and self-reported physical activity at any level preoperatively. Those who did not RTA reported no activity 2 years after revision. Baseline data included patient characteristics, surgical history and characteristics, and PROs: International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A binary indicator was used to identify patients with same/better PROs versus worse outcomes compared with baseline, quantifying the magnitude of change in each direction, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate risk factors for not returning to activity, the association of 2-year PROs after rACLR surgery by RTA status, and whether each PRO and RTA status differed by participation level. Results: At 2 years postoperatively, approximately 15% did not RTA, with current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.3; P = .001), female patients (aOR = 2.9; P 〈 .001), recreational participants (aOR = 2.0; P = .016), and those with a previous medial meniscal excision (aOR = 1.9; P = .013) having higher odds of not returning. In multivariate models, not returning to activity was significantly associated with having worse PROs at 2 years; however, no clinically meaningful differences in PROs at 2 years were seen between participation levels. Conclusion: Recreational-level participants were twice as likely to not RTA compared with those participating at higher levels. Within a previously active cohort, no RTA was a significant predictor of lower PROs after rACLR. However, among patients who did RTA after rACLR, approximately 20% reported lower outcome scores. Most patients with rACLR who were active at baseline improved over time; however, patients who reported worse outcomes at 2 years had a clinically meaningful decline across all PROs.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 44, No. 7 ( 2016-07), p. 1671-1679
    Abstract: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstructions. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine if the prevalence, location, and/or degree of meniscal and chondral damage noted at the time of revision ACL reconstruction predicts activity level, sports function, and osteoarthritis symptoms at 2-year follow-up. The hypothesis was that meniscal loss and high-grade chondral damage noted at the time of revision ACL reconstruction will result in lower activity levels, decreased sports participation, more pain, more stiffness, and more functional limitation at 2 years after revision surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Between 2006 and 2011, a total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction by 83 surgeons at 52 hospitals were accumulated for study of the relationship of meniscal and articular cartilage damage to outcome. Baseline demographic and intraoperative data, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity score, were collected initially and at 2-year follow-up to test the hypothesis. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, incidence of having a previous ACL reconstruction on the contralateral knee, previous and current meniscal and articular cartilage injury, graft choice, and surgeon years of experience to assess the meniscal and articular cartilage risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: At 2-year follow-up, 82% (989/1205) of the patients returned their questionnaires. It was found that previous meniscal injury and current articular cartilage damage were associated with the poorest outcomes, with prior lateral meniscectomy and current grade 3 to 4 trochlear articular cartilage changes having the worst outcome scores. Activity levels at 2 years were not affected by meniscal or articular cartilage pathologic changes. Conclusion: Prior lateral meniscectomy and current grade 3 to 4 changes of the trochlea were associated with worse outcomes in terms of decreased sports participation, more pain, more stiffness, and more functional limitation at 2 years after revision surgery, but they had no effect on activity levels. Registration: NCT00625885
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 46, No. 12 ( 2018-10), p. 2836-2841
    Abstract: The occurrence of physiologic knee hyperextension (HE) in the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) population and its effect on outcomes have yet to be reported. Hypothesis/Purpose: The prevalence of knee HE in revision ACLR and its effect on 2-year outcome were studied with the hypothesis that preoperative physiologic knee HE ≥5° is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACLR were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing single-bundle graft reconstructions. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale) as well as provide information regarding revision ACL graft failure. A regression model with graft failure as the dependent variable included age, sex, graft type at the time of the revision ACL surgery, and physiologic preoperative passive HE ≥5° (yes/no) to assess these as potential risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACLR. Results: Analyses included 1145 patients, for whom 2-year follow-up was attained for 91%. The median age was 26 years, with age being a continuous variable. Those below the median were grouped as “younger” and those above as “older” (age: interquartile range = 20, 35 years), and 42% of patients were female. There were 50% autografts, 48% allografts, and 2% that had a combination of autograft plus allograft. Passive knee HE ≥5° was present in 374 (33%) patients in the revision cohort, with 52% being female. Graft rupture at 2-year follow-up occurred in 34 cases in the entire cohort, of which 12 were in the HE ≥5° group (3.2% failure rate) and 22 in the non-HE group (2.9% failure rate). The median age of patients who failed was 19 years, as opposed to 26 years for those with intact grafts. Three variables in the regression model were significant predictors of graft failure: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .002), use of allograft (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P = .003), and HE ≥5° (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.1-4.7; P = .03). Conclusion: This study revealed that preoperative physiologic passive knee HE ≥5° is present in one-third of patients who undergo revision ACLR. HE ≥5° was an independent significant predictor of graft failure after revision ACLR with a 〉 2-fold OR of subsequent graft rupture in revision ACL surgery. Registration: NCT00625885 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 42, No. 10 ( 2014-10), p. 2301-2310
    Abstract: Most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome; however, graft choice for revision may be limited due to previously used grafts. Hypotheses: Autograft use would result in increased sports function, increased activity level, and decreased osteoarthritis symptoms (as measured by validated patient-reported outcome instruments). Autograft use would result in decreased graft failure and reoperation rate 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 sites. Data collected included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathologic abnormalities, and the results of a series of validated, patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] , Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] , and Marx activity rating score). Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Incidences of additional surgery and reoperation due to graft failure were also recorded. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, Marx scores, graft rerupture, and reoperation rate at 2 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1205 patients (697 [58%] males) were enrolled. The median age was 26 years. In 88% of patients, this was their first revision, and 341 patients (28%) were undergoing revision by the surgeon who had performed the previous reconstruction. The median time since last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Revision using an autograft was performed in 583 patients (48%), allograft was used in 590 (49%), and both types were used in 32 (3%). Questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 subjects (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 (92%). The IKDC, KOOS, and WOMAC scores (with the exception of the WOMAC stiffness subscale) all significantly improved at 2-year follow-up ( P 〈 .001). In contrast, the 2-year Marx activity score demonstrated a significant decrease from the initial score at enrollment ( P 〈 .001). Graft choice proved to be a significant predictor of 2-year IKDC scores ( P = .017). Specifically, the use of an autograft for revision reconstruction predicted improved score on the IKDC ( P = .045; odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). The use of an autograft predicted an improved score on the KOOS sports and recreation subscale ( P = .037; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73). Use of an autograft also predicted improved scores on the KOOS quality of life subscale ( P = .031; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). For the KOOS symptoms and KOOS activities of daily living subscales, graft choice did not predict outcome score. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 2-year Marx activity level scores ( P = .012). Graft rerupture was reported in 37 of 1112 patients (3.3%) by their 2-year follow-up: 24 allografts, 12 autografts, and 1 allograft and autograft. Use of an autograft for revision resulted in patients being 2.78 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture compared with allograft ( P = .047; 95% CI, 1.01-7.69). Conclusion: Improved sports function and patient-reported outcome measures are obtained when an autograft is used. Additionally, use of an autograft shows a decreased risk in graft rerupture at 2-year follow-up. No differences were noted in rerupture or patient-reported outcomes between soft tissue and bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts. Surgeon education regarding the findings of this study has the potential to improve the results of revision ACL reconstruction.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2014
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: The American Journal of Sports Medicine, SAGE Publications, Vol. 45, No. 9 ( 2017-07), p. 2068-2076
    Abstract: While revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR. Purpose: To report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation. Results: Of the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged 〈 20 years had twice the odds of patients aged 20 to 29 years to undergo a reoperation. The use of an allograft at the time of revision ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P = .007) was a significant predictor for reoperations at 2 years, while staged revision (bone grafting of tunnels before revision ACLR) (OR, 1.93; P = .052) did not reach significance. Patients with grade 4 cartilage damage seen during revision ACLR were 78% less likely to undergo subsequent operations within 2 years. Sex, body mass index, smoking history, Marx activity score, technique for femoral tunnel placement, and meniscal tearing or meniscal treatment at the time of revision ACLR showed no significant effect on the reoperation rate. Conclusion: There was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age 〈 20 years and the use of allograft tissue at the time of revision ACLR.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 197482-8
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages