PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 25, 2016British Journal of Sports Medicine141 citations

Does revision ACL reconstruction measure up to primary surgery? A meta-analysis comparing patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes, and radiographic results

View Full Paper
AGAlberto GrassiIstituto Ortopedico RizzoliCAClare L. ArdernUniversity of HelsinkiGMGiulio Maria Marcheggiani MuccioliIstituto Ortopedico Rizzoli

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes, and radiographic results between patients who had had revision ACL reconstruction and those who had had primary ACL reconstruction. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus electronic databases were searched on 6 August 2015, using 3 main concepts: (1) revision ACL reconstruction, (2) primary ACL reconstruction and (3) treatment outcomes. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Articles that compared patient-reported or clinician-reported outcomes or radiographic results between patients who had had revision ACL reconstruction and those who had had primary surgery with a minimum of 2 years follow-up were included. The outcomes evaluated were the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) classification, Tegner Activity Scale, side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation measured with KT-1000/2000 arthrometer, pivot shift test, tibiofemoral osteoarthritis grading on plain radiographs and subsequent knee surgeries. RESULTS: 8 studies (300 revision ACL reconstructions and 413 primary ACL reconstructions) were included in the meta-analysis. Patients who had had revision surgery reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores (mean difference: 7.8 points), had inferior clinician-reported knee function as assessed with the objective IKDC classification (IKDC category A: 27% vs 57%; IKDC category C or D: 22% vs 8%) and pivot shift test (grade II or III: 7% vs 2%), and more radiographic evidence of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (50% vs 25%) compared with patients who had had primary surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Revision ACL reconstruction restored similar anterior-posterior knee laxity compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Patients who had had revision surgery reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores, had inferior clinician-reported knee function and more radiographic signs of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis compared with patients with primary ACL reconstruction.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Grassi et al. (2016) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ff3fe364548b97a42d62e6https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094948
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a 2-Stage Technique with Bone Grafting of the Tibial Tunnel2005 · 181 citations
  2. 2Development and Validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form2001 · 2,186 citations
  3. 3Winner of the 2008 Systematic Review Competition: Knee Osteoarthritis after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury2009 · 803 citations
  4. 4The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.1998 · 8,375 citations
  5. 5Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses2003 · 64,049 citations