We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Outcomes in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis.
Arthroscopy 2018 January
PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine overall objective graft failure rate, failure rate by graft type (allograft vs autograft reconstruction), instrumented laxity, and patient outcome scores following revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were collected for all studies meeting the study inclusion criteria, but lower-level studies (level III/IV) were not pooled for quantitative synthesis due to high levels of heterogeneity in these study populations.
METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. The primary outcome reported was graft failure. A meta-analysis comparing rate of failure by graft type was conducted using a random effects model. Studies also reported patient clinical outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS) and graft laxity.
RESULTS: Eight studies with 3,021 patients (56% male, 44% female) with an average age of 30 ± 4 years and mean follow-up time of 57 months were included. The overall objective failure rate was 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-12.3%). Mean instrumented laxity as side-to-side difference was 2.5 mm (95% CI, 1.9-3.1 mm). Mean IKDC subjective score was 76.99 (95% CI, 76.64-77.34), mean KOOS symptoms score was 76.73 (95% CI, 75.85-77.61), and mean Lysholm score was 86.18 (95% CI, 79.08-93.28). The proportion of patients with IKDC grade A or B was 85% (95% CI, 77%-91%). When the available data for failure rate were analyzed by graft type, autograft reconstruction had a failure rate of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.9%), similar to allograft reconstruction at 3.6% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, revision ACL reconstruction had failure rates similar to autograft or allograft reconstruction. Overall outcome scores for revision reconstruction have improved but appear modest when compared with primary ACL reconstruction surgery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis of Level II studies, Level II.
METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. The primary outcome reported was graft failure. A meta-analysis comparing rate of failure by graft type was conducted using a random effects model. Studies also reported patient clinical outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS) and graft laxity.
RESULTS: Eight studies with 3,021 patients (56% male, 44% female) with an average age of 30 ± 4 years and mean follow-up time of 57 months were included. The overall objective failure rate was 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-12.3%). Mean instrumented laxity as side-to-side difference was 2.5 mm (95% CI, 1.9-3.1 mm). Mean IKDC subjective score was 76.99 (95% CI, 76.64-77.34), mean KOOS symptoms score was 76.73 (95% CI, 75.85-77.61), and mean Lysholm score was 86.18 (95% CI, 79.08-93.28). The proportion of patients with IKDC grade A or B was 85% (95% CI, 77%-91%). When the available data for failure rate were analyzed by graft type, autograft reconstruction had a failure rate of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.9%), similar to allograft reconstruction at 3.6% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, revision ACL reconstruction had failure rates similar to autograft or allograft reconstruction. Overall outcome scores for revision reconstruction have improved but appear modest when compared with primary ACL reconstruction surgery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis of Level II studies, Level II.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app