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. Bach; Champ 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

doi:10.1177/0363546517707207

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

Orthopedic Surgery

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

25 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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	2068-2076
Number of pages	9
Journal	American Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume	45
Issue number	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517707207
State	Published - Jul 1 2017

Keywords

outcomes
reoperation
revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
risk factors
subsequent surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Access to Document

10.1177/0363546517707207

Cite this

Ding, D. Y., Zhang, A. L., Allen, C. R., Anderson, A. F., Cooper, D. E., Deberardino, T. M., Dunn, W. R., Haas, A. K., Huston, L. J., Lantz, A., Mann, B., Spindler, K. P., Stuart, M. J., Wright, R. W., Albright, J. P., Amendola, A., Andrish, J. T., Annunziata, C. C., Arciero, R. A., ... York, J. J. (2017). Subsequent Surgery after Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors from a Multicenter Cohort. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(9), 2068-2076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517707207

Ding, DY, Zhang, AL, Allen, CR, Anderson, AF, Cooper, DE, Deberardino, TM, Dunn, WR, Haas, AK, Huston, LJ, Lantz, A, Mann, B, Spindler, KP, Stuart, MJ, Wright, RW, Albright, JP, Amendola, A, Andrish, JT, Annunziata, CC, Arciero, RA, Bach, BR, Baker, CL, Bartolozzi, AR, Baumgarten, KM, Bechler, JR, Berg, JH, Bernas, GA, Brockmeier, SF, Brophy, RH, Bush-Joseph, CA, Butler, JB, Campbell, JD, Carey, JL, Carpenter, JE, Cole, BJ, Cooper, JM, Cox, CL, Creighton, RA, Dahm, DL, David, TS, Flanigan, DC, Frederick, RW, Ganley, TJ, Garofoli, EA, Gatt, CJ, Gecha, SR, Giffin, JR, Hame, SL, Hannafin, JA, Harner, CD, Harris, NL, Hechtman, KS, Hershman, EB, Hoellrich, RG, Hosea, TM, Johnson, DC, Johnson, TS, Jones, MH, Kaeding, CC, Kamath, GV, Klootwyk, TE, Levy, BA, Ma, CB, Maiers, GP, Marx, RG, Matava, MJ, Mathien, GM, McAllister, DR, McCarty, EC, McCormack, RG, Miller, BS, Nissen, CW, O'Neill, DF, Owens, BD, Parker, RD, Purnell, ML, Ramappa, AJ, Rauh, MA, Rettig, AC, Sekiya, JK, Shea, KG, Sherman, OH, Slauterbeck, JR, Smith, MV, Spang, JT, Svoboda, SJ, Taft, TN, Tenuta, JJ, Tingstad, EM, Vidal, AF, Viskontas, DG, White, RA, Williams, JS, Wolcott, ML, Wolf, BR & York, JJ 2017, 'Subsequent Surgery after Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors from a Multicenter Cohort', American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 2068-2076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517707207

@article{f018039c492d430aaad2a9736ed923e9,

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

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.",

keywords = "outcomes, reoperation, revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, risk factors, subsequent surgery",

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

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine.",

year = "2017",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1177/0363546517707207",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "45",

pages = "2068--2076",

journal = "American Journal of Sports Medicine",

issn = "0363-5465",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Subsequent Surgery after Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

T2 - Rates and Risk Factors from a Multicenter Cohort

AU - Ding, David Y.

AU - Zhang, Alan L.

AU - Allen, Christina R.

AU - Anderson, Allen F.

AU - Cooper, Daniel E.

AU - Deberardino, Thomas M.

AU - Dunn, Warren R.

AU - Haas, Amanda K.

AU - Huston, Laura J.

AU - Lantz, A.

AU - Mann, Barton

AU - Spindler, Kurt P.

AU - Stuart, Michael J.

AU - Wright, Rick W.

AU - Albright, John P.

AU - Amendola, Annunziato

AU - Andrish, Jack T.

AU - Annunziata, Christopher C.

AU - Arciero, Robert A.

AU - Bach, Bernard R.

AU - Baker, Champ L.

AU - Bartolozzi, Arthur R.

AU - Baumgarten, Keith M.

AU - Bechler, Jeffery R.

AU - Berg, Jeffrey H.

AU - Bernas, Geoffrey A.

AU - Brockmeier, Stephen F.

AU - Brophy, Robert H.

AU - Bush-Joseph, Charles A.

AU - Butler, J. Brad

AU - Campbell, John D.

AU - Carey, James L.

AU - Carpenter, James E.

AU - Cole, Brian J.

AU - Cooper, Jonathan M.

AU - Cox, Charles L.

AU - Creighton, R. Alexander

AU - Dahm, Diane L.

AU - David, Tal S.

AU - Flanigan, David C.

AU - Frederick, Robert W.

AU - Ganley, Theodore J.

AU - Garofoli, Elizabeth A.

AU - Gatt, Charles J.

AU - Gecha, Steven R.

AU - Giffin, James Robert

AU - Hame, Sharon L.

AU - Hannafin, Jo A.

AU - Harner, Christopher D.

AU - Harris, Norman Lindsay

AU - Hechtman, Keith S.

AU - Hershman, Elliott B.

AU - Hoellrich, Rudolf G.

AU - Hosea, Timothy M.

AU - Johnson, David C.

AU - Johnson, Timothy S.

AU - Jones, Morgan H.

AU - Kaeding, Christopher C.

AU - Kamath, Ganesh V.

AU - Klootwyk, Thomas E.

AU - Levy, Bruce A.

AU - Ma, C. Benjamin

AU - Maiers, G. Peter

AU - Marx, Robert G.

AU - Matava, Matthew J.

AU - Mathien, Gregory M.

AU - McAllister, David R.

AU - McCarty, Eric C.

AU - McCormack, Robert G.

AU - Miller, Bruce S.

AU - Nissen, Carl W.

AU - O'Neill, Daniel F.

AU - Owens, Brett D.

AU - Parker, Richard D.

AU - Purnell, Mark L.

AU - Ramappa, Arun J.

AU - Rauh, Michael A.

AU - Rettig, Arthur C.

AU - Sekiya, Jon K.

AU - Shea, Kevin G.

AU - Sherman, Orrin H.

AU - Slauterbeck, James R.

AU - Smith, Matthew V.

AU - Spang, Jeffrey T.

AU - Svoboda, Steven J.

AU - Taft, Timothy N.

AU - Tenuta, Joachim J.

AU - Tingstad, Edwin M.

AU - Vidal, Armando F.

AU - Viskontas, Darius G.

AU - White, Richard A.

AU - Williams, James S.

AU - Wolcott, Michelle L.

AU - Wolf, Brian R.

AU - York, James J.

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - outcomes

KW - reoperation

KW - revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

KW - risk factors

KW - subsequent surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85025071049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85025071049&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0363546517707207

DO - 10.1177/0363546517707207

M3 - Article

C2 - 28557557

AN - SCOPUS:85025071049

SN - 0363-5465

VL - 45

SP - 2068

EP - 2076

JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine

IS - 9

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this