Subsequent Surgery after Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors from a Multicenter Cohort

David Y. Ding, Alan L. Zhang, Christina R. Allen, Allen F. Anderson, Daniel E. Cooper, Thomas M. Deberardino, Warren R. Dunn, Amanda K. Haas, Laura J. Huston, A. Lantz, Barton Mann, Kurt P. Spindler, Michael J. Stuart, Rick W. Wright, John P. Albright, Annunziato Amendola, Jack T. Andrish, Christopher C. Annunziata, Robert A. Arciero, Bernard R. BachChamp L. Baker, Arthur R. Bartolozzi, Keith M. Baumgarten, Jeffery R. Bechler, Jeffrey H. Berg, Geoffrey A. Bernas, Stephen F. Brockmeier, Robert H. Brophy, Charles A. Bush-Joseph, J. Brad Butler, John D. Campbell, James L. Carey, James E. Carpenter, Brian J. Cole, Jonathan M. Cooper, Charles L. Cox, R. Alexander Creighton, Diane L. Dahm, Tal S. David, David C. Flanigan, Robert W. Frederick, Theodore J. Ganley, Elizabeth A. Garofoli, Charles J. Gatt, Steven R. Gecha, James Robert Giffin, Sharon L. Hame, Jo A. Hannafin, Christopher D. Harner, Norman Lindsay Harris, Keith S. Hechtman, Elliott B. Hershman, Rudolf G. Hoellrich, Timothy M. Hosea, David C. Johnson, Timothy S. Johnson, Morgan H. Jones, Christopher C. Kaeding, Ganesh V. Kamath, Thomas E. Klootwyk, Bruce A. Levy, C. Benjamin Ma, G. Peter Maiers, Robert G. Marx, Matthew J. Matava, Gregory M. Mathien, David R. McAllister, Eric C. McCarty, Robert G. McCormack, Bruce S. Miller, Carl W. Nissen, Daniel F. O'Neill, Brett D. Owens, Richard D. Parker, Mark L. Purnell, Arun J. Ramappa, Michael A. Rauh, Arthur C. Rettig, Jon K. Sekiya, Kevin G. Shea, Orrin H. Sherman, James R. Slauterbeck, Matthew V. Smith, Jeffrey T. Spang, Steven J. Svoboda, Timothy N. Taft, Joachim J. Tenuta, Edwin M. Tingstad, Armando F. Vidal, Darius G. Viskontas, Richard A. White, James S. Williams, Michelle L. Wolcott, Brian R. Wolf, James J. York

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2068-2076
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume45
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Keywords

  • outcomes
  • reoperation
  • revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
  • risk factors
  • subsequent surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Subsequent Surgery after Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors from a Multicenter Cohort'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this