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
Language
  • 1
    In: Diabetologia, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 47, No. S1 ( 2004-8), p. A1-A464
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0012-186X , 1432-0428
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2004
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1458993-X
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 166, No. 3 ( 2000-08), p. 151-160
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0041-008X
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2000
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1471923-X
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    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: 2063945-4
    SSG: 31
    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. 46, No. 3 ( 2018-03), p. 557-564
    Abstract: Articular cartilage health is an important issue following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and primary ACL reconstruction. Factors present at the time of primary ACL reconstruction may influence the subsequent progression of articular cartilage damage. Hypothesis: Larger meniscus resection at primary ACL reconstruction, increased patient age, and increased body mass index (BMI) are associated with increased odds of worsened articular cartilage damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Subjects who had primary and revision data in the databases of the Multicenter Orthopaedics Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) were included. Reviewed data included chondral surface status at the time of primary and revision surgery, meniscus status at the time of primary reconstruction, primary reconstruction graft type, time from primary to revision ACL surgery, as well as demographics and Marx activity score at the time of revision. Significant progression of articular cartilage damage was defined in each compartment according to progression on the modified Outerbridge scale (increase ≥1 grade) or 〉 25% enlargement in any area of damage. Logistic regression identified predictors of significant chondral surface change in each compartment from primary to revision surgery. Results: A total of 134 patients were included, with a median age of 19.5 years at revision surgery. Progression of articular cartilage damage was noted in 34 patients (25.4%) in the lateral compartment, 32 (23.9%) in the medial compartment, and 31 (23.1%) in the patellofemoral compartment. For the lateral compartment, patients who had 〉 33% of the lateral meniscus excised at primary reconstruction had 16.9-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact lateral meniscus ( P 〈 .001). For the medial compartment, patients who had 〈 33% of the medial meniscus excised at the time of the primary reconstruction had 4.8-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact medial meniscus ( P = .02). Odds of significant chondral surface change increased by 5% in the lateral compartment and 6% in the medial compartment for each increased year of age ( P ≤ .02). For the patellofemoral compartment, the use of allograft in primary reconstruction was associated with a 15-fold increased odds of progression of articular cartilage damage relative to a patellar tendon autograft ( P 〈 .001). Each 1-unit increase in BMI at the time of revision surgery was associated with a 10% increase in the odds of progression of articular cartilage damage ( P = .046) in the patellofemoral compartment. Conclusion: Excision of the medial and lateral meniscus at primary ACL reconstruction increases the odds of articular cartilage damage in the corresponding compartment at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Increased age is a risk factor for deterioration of articular cartilage in both tibiofemoral compartments, while increased BMI and the use of allograft for primary ACL reconstruction are associated with an increased risk of progression in the patellofemoral compartment.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2018
    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. 41, No. 7 ( 2013-07), p. 1571-1578
    Abstract: The factors that lead to patients failing multiple anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are not well understood. Hypothesis: Multiple-revision ACL reconstruction will have different characteristics than first-time revision in terms of previous and current graft selection, mode of failure, chondral/meniscal injuries, and surgical charactieristics. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A prospective multicenter ACL revision database was utilized for the time period from March 2006 to June 2011. Patients were divided into those who underwent a single-revision ACL reconstruction and those who underwent multiple-revision ACL reconstructions. The primary outcome variable was Marx activity level. Primary data analyses between the groups included a comparison of graft type, perceived mechanism of failure, associated injury (meniscus, ligament, and cartilage), reconstruction type, and tunnel position. Data were compared by analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey test. Results: A total of 1200 patients (58% men; median age, 26 years) were enrolled, with 1049 (87%) patients having a primary revision and 151 (13%) patients having a second or subsequent revision. Marx activity levels were significantly higher (9.77) in the primary-revision group than in those patients with multiple revisions (6.74). The most common cause of reruptures was a traumatic, noncontact ACL graft injury in 55% of primary-revision patients; 25% of patients had a nontraumatic, gradual-onset recurrent injury, and 11% had a traumatic, contact injury. In the multiple-revision group, a nontraumatic, gradual-onset injury was the most common cause of recurrence (47%), followed by traumatic noncontact (35%) and nontraumatic sudden onset (11%) ( P 〈 .01 between groups). Chondral injuries in the medial compartment were significantly more common in the multiple-revision group than in the single-revision group, as were chondral injuries in the patellofemoral compartment. Conclusion: Patients with multiple-revision ACL reconstructions had lower activity levels, were more likely to have chondral injuries in the medial and patellofemoral compartments, and had a high rate of a nontraumatic, recurrent injury of their graft.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2013
    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. 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: 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. 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: 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. 45, No. 11 ( 2017-09), p. 2586-2594
    Abstract: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Hypothesis: Certain factors under the control of the surgeon at the time of revision surgery can both negatively and positively affect outcomes. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline demographics, intraoperative surgical technique and joint disorders, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] , Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating scale) completed before surgery. Patients were followed up for 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, and a variety of previous and current surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: A total of 1205 patients (697 male [58%]) met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled. The median age was 26 years, and the median time since their last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (989/1205). Both previous and current surgical factors were found to be significant contributors toward poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years. Having undergone previous arthrotomy (nonarthroscopic open approach) for ACL reconstruction compared with the 1-incision technique resulted in significantly poorer outcomes for the 2-year IKDC ( P = .037; odds ratio [OR] , 2.43; 95% CI, 1.05-5.88) and KOOS pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life (QOL) subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 2.38-4.35; 95% CI, 1.03-10.00). The use of a metal interference screw for current femoral fixation resulted in significantly better outcomes for the 2-year KOOS symptoms, pain, and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 1.70-1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.33) as well as WOMAC stiffness subscale ( P = .041; OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.02-3.03). Not performing notchplasty at revision significantly improved 2-year outcomes for the IKDC ( P = .013; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.40-1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93), and WOMAC stiffness and ADL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.41-1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05). Factors before revision ACL reconstruction that increased the risk of poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years included lower baseline outcome scores, a lower Marx activity score at the time of revision, a higher BMI, female sex, and a shorter time since the patient’s last ACL reconstruction. Prior femoral fixation, prior femoral tunnel aperture position, and knee flexion angle at the time of revision graft fixation were not found to affect 2-year outcomes in this revision cohort. Conclusion: There are certain surgical variables that the physician can control at the time of revision ACL reconstruction that can modify clinical outcomes at 2 years. Whenever possible, opting for an anteromedial portal or transtibial surgical exposure, choosing a metal interference screw for femoral fixation, and not performing notchplasty are associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2017
    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. 40, No. 4 ( 2012-04), p. 808-814
    Abstract: Background: Knees undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction typically have more intra-articular injuries than do knees undergoing primary reconstruction. Hypothesis: Previous partial meniscectomy (PM) is associated with a higher rate of chondral lesions at revision ACL reconstruction, whereas previous meniscal repair (MR) is not associated with a higher rate of chondral lesions at revision ACL reconstruction, compared with knees undergoing revision ACL with no previous meniscal surgery. Study design: Cohort study (Prevalence); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Data from a multicenter cohort was reviewed to determine the history of prior meniscal surgery (PM/MR) and the presence of grade II/III/IV chondral lesions at revision ACL reconstruction. The association between previous meniscal surgery and the incidence of chondral lesions was examined. Patient age was included as a covariate to determine if surgery type contributes predictive information independent of patient age. Results: The cohort included 725 ACL revision surgeries. Chondrosis was associated with patient age ( P 〈 .0001) and previous meniscal surgery ( P 〈 .0001). After adjusting for patient age, knees with previous PM were more likely to have chondrosis than knees with previous MR ( P = .003) or no previous meniscal surgery ( P 〈 .0001). There was no difference between knees without previous meniscal surgery and knees with previous MR ( P = .7). Previous partial meniscectomy was associated with a higher rate of chondrosis in the same compartment compared with knees without previous meniscal surgery ( P 〈 .0001) and knees with previous MR ( P ≤ .03). Conclusion: The status of articular cartilage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction relates to previous meniscal surgery independent of the effect of patient age. Previous partial meniscectomy is associated with a higher incidence of articular cartilage lesions, whereas previous meniscal repair is not. Although this association may reflect underlying differences in the knee at the time of prior surgery, it does suggest that meniscal repair is preferable when possible at the time of ACL reconstruction.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2012
    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. 49, No. 10 ( 2021-08), p. 2589-2598
    Abstract: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR] , 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0363-5465 , 1552-3365
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2021
    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