Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Mar;49(3):798-804.
doi: 10.1177/0363546520923090. Epub 2020 Jul 16.

Outcomes of 1- Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of 1- Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Matthew Colatruglio et al. Am J Sports Med. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common orthopaedic sports medicine procedure, but graft failure is not uncommon and often leads to revision ACLR. Revision surgery can be performed in a 1- or 2-stage fashion.

Hypothesis: Graft failure risk, patient-reported outcomes, and anterior knee laxity are similar after 1- and 2-stage revision ACLR.

Study design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to evaluate patient outcomes after 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR. A search was performed with the phrase "revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" across Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus from the beginning of their archives through July 12, 2019.

Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and included 524 patients: 319 patients who underwent 1-stage revision ACLR and 205 patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR. Two studies compared outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR; 4 studies reported outcomes after 2-stage revision ACLR; and the remaining 7 studies documented outcomes after 1-stage ACLR. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years. The 2 studies that compared 1- versus 2-stage ACLR reported no differences in functional, radiologic, or patient-reported outcomes or failure risk. Overall, 9 studies reported subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores; 4 studies, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score values; 8 studies, Lysholm scores; and 7 studies, Tegner scores; 8 studies measured anterior laxity with a KT-1000 arthrometer. The mean weighted subjective IKDC score for all studies including this outcome at final follow-up was 66.6 for 1-stage revisions and 65.9 for 2-stage revisions.

Conclusion: The available evidence comparing 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR is retrospective and limited. The results of each approach are similar in appropriately selected patients.

Keywords: 1-stage; 2-stage; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; outcomes; revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources