Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The Long-Term Outcome After Early and Late Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Arthroscopy 2018 June
PURPOSE: To compare long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing either early (group A) or late (group B) surgery after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.

METHODS: ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts was performed in 30 patients in group A (median age, 23 years; range, 17-49 years) and 31 patients in group B (median age, 27 years; range, 17-38 years). The patients in group A were operated on within 5 months (median, 3 months; range, 2-5 months) of injury, whereas those in group B were operated on more than 24 months (median, 30 months; range, 24-48 months) after injury. The follow-up period was 10 years (median, 117 months [range, 77-222 months] in group A and 129 months [range, 77-206 months] in group B; P = .44). Multiple objective clinical evaluation tests and patient-reported outcome measures were obtained preoperatively and at follow-up. At follow-up, radiographic assessments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) bilaterally were performed.

RESULTS: The frequency of meniscectomy at the index operation was significantly lower in group A (20%) than in group B (52%) (P = .01). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of Tegner and Lysholm scores and laxity tests both preoperatively and at follow-up. Both groups improved over time in terms of Tegner and Lysholm scores (P < .05). At follow-up, significantly more medial-compartment OA in the index knee was found in group B than in group A (P = .037) according to the Ahlbäck classification system. The index knee showed significantly more OA than the contralateral knee in both groups (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent early ACL reconstruction required significantly fewer meniscectomies at the index operation than patients who underwent late reconstruction and showed significantly less OA on the medial side of the knee 10 years after reconstruction. However, no significant differences were found between the groups in terms of clinical assessments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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