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
. 2024 Nov;52(13):3286-3294.
doi: 10.1177/03635465241288227.

Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcome 6 Years After Revision ACL Reconstruction

MARS Group  1 Rick W Wright  2   1 Laura J Huston  2   1 Amanda K Haas  3   1 Jacquelyn S Pennings  2   1 Christina R Allen  4   1 Daniel E Cooper  5   1 Thomas M DeBerardino  6   1 Warren R Dunn  7   1 Brett Brick A Lantz  8   1 Kurt P Spindler  9   1 Michael J Stuart  10   1 Annunziato Ned Amendola  11   1 Christopher C Annunziata  12   1 Robert A Arciero  13   1 Bernard R Bach Jr  14   1 Champ L Baker 3rd  15   1 Arthur R Bartolozzi  16   1 Keith M Baumgarten  17   1 Jeffrey H Berg  18   1 Geoffrey A Bernas  19   1 Stephen F Brockmeier  20   1 Robert H Brophy  3   1 Charles A Bush-Joseph  14   1 J Brad Butler 5th  21   1 James L Carey  22   1 James E Carpenter  23   1 Brian J Cole  14   1 Jonathan M Cooper  24   1 Charles L Cox  2   1 R Alexander Creighton  25   1 Tal S David  26   1 David C Flanigan  27   1 Robert W Frederick  28   1 Theodore J Ganley  29   1 Charles J Gatt Jr  30   1 Steven R Gecha  31   1 James Robert Giffin  32   1 Sharon L Hame  33   1 Jo A Hannafin  34   1 Christopher D Harner  35   1 Norman Lindsay Harris Jr  36   1 Keith S Hechtman  37   1 Elliott B Hershman  38   1 Rudolf G Hoellrich  8   1 David C Johnson  39   1 Timothy S Johnson  39   1 Morgan H Jones  40   1 Christopher C Kaeding  27   1 Ganesh V Kamath  25   1 Thomas E Klootwyk  41   1 Bruce A Levy  42   1 C Benjamin Ma  43   1 G Peter Maiers 2nd  41   1 Robert G Marx  34   1 Matthew J Matava  3   1 Gregory M Mathien  44   1 David R McAllister  33   1 Eric C McCarty  45   1 Robert G McCormack  46   1 Bruce S Miller  23   1 Carl W Nissen  47   1 Daniel F O'Neill  48   1 Brett D Owens  49   1 Richard D Parker  9   1 Mark L Purnell  50   1 Arun J Ramappa  51   1 Michael A Rauh  19   1 Arthur C Rettig  41   1 Jon K Sekiya  23   1 Kevin G Shea  52   1 Orrin H Sherman  53   1 James R Slauterbeck  54   1 Matthew V Smith  3   1 Jeffrey T Spang  25   1 Steven J Svoboda  55   1 Timothy N Taft  25   1 Joachim J Tenuta  56   1 Edwin M Tingstad  57   1 Armando F Vidal  58   1 Darius G Viskontas  59   1 Richard A White  60   1 James S Williams Jr  61   1 Michelle L Wolcott  62   1 Brian R Wolf  63   1 James J York  64   1
Affiliations

Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcome 6 Years After Revision ACL Reconstruction

MARS Group et al. Am J Sports Med. 2024 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have inferior outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons why remain unknown.

Purpose: To determine whether surgical factors performed at the time of revision ACL reconstruction can influence a patient's outcome at 6-year follow-up.

Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods: Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity rating score. Patients were followed up for 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for baseline patient characteristics and surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after surgery.

Results: A total of 1234 patients were enrolled (716 men, 58%; median age, 26 years), and 6-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of patients (980/1234). Using an interference screw for femoral fixation compared with a cross-pin resulted in significantly better outcomes in 6-year IKDC scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .008) and KOOS sports/recreation and quality of life subscale scores (OR range, 2.2-2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < .01). Use of an interference screw compared with a cross-pin resulted in a 2.6 times less likely chance of having a subsequent surgery within 6 years. Use of an interference screw for tibial fixation compared with any combination of tibial fixation techniques resulted in significantly improved scores for IKDC (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .001); KOOS pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P < .05); and WOMAC pain and activities of daily living subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7; P < .05). Use of a transtibial surgical approach compared with an anteromedial portal approach resulted in significantly improved KOOS pain and quality of life subscale scores at 6 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.2; P≤ .04).

Conclusion: There are surgical variables at the time of ACL revision that can modify clinical outcomes at 6 years. Opting for a transtibial surgical approach and choosing an interference screw for femoral and tibial fixation improved patients' odds of having a significantly better 6-year clinical outcome in this cohort.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; outcomes; revision; surgical predictors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This project was funded by grant No. 5R01-AR060846 from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. All author disclosures are listed in the Appendix (available in the online version of this article). AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient enrollment flow diagram. IRB, institutional review board; MTF, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation.

References

    1. Boyle C, Pagoti R, Eng KH, McMahon SE, Nicholas R. Revision ACL reconstruction with autograft: long-term functional outcomes and influencing factors. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(1):157-161. - PubMed
    1. DeFroda SF, Owens BD, Wright RW, et al.. Descriptive characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without tunnel bone grafting. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(9):2397-2409. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Franceschi F, Papalia R, Del Buono A, et al.. Two-stage procedure in anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery: a five-year follow-up prospective study. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1369-1374. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hu B, Shen W, Zhou C, et al.. Cross pin versus interference screw for femoral graft fixation in hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(2):615-623. - PubMed
    1. Hurley ET, Gianakos AL, Anil U, Strauss EJ, Gonzalez-Lomas G. No difference in outcomes between femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction—a network meta-analysis. Knee. 2019;26(2):292-301. - PubMed