TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes after bone grafting in patients with and without ACL revision surgery
T2 - A retrospective study
AU - Diermeier, Theresa
AU - Herbst, Elmar
AU - Braun, Sepp
AU - Saracuz, Emine
AU - Voss, Andreas
AU - Imhoff, Andreas B.
AU - Achtnich, Andrea
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Author(s).
PY - 2018/7/21
Y1 - 2018/7/21
N2 - Background: Current literature is lacking of data regarding functional outcomes in patients following bone tunnel grafting with or without revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome in patients with (RACL) or without revision ACL reconstruction (OBG) following bone grafting. Methods: Fifty-nine patients (18 female, 41 male) who underwent bone grafting due to recurrent, symptomatic ACL deficiency following ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. In 44 patients (mean age: 30,5 ± 8,5 years) a staged revision ACL reconstruction (RACL) was performed after bone grafting. 10 patients (mean age: 33.2 ± 10.3 years) refused to have ACL revision surgery after bone grafting (OBG). Outcome measures included instrumented laxity testing, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale. Results: After mean period of 33,9 ± 17.0 months, 54 patients were available for follow up examination. In the RACL group, the Lysholm score was 77,2 ± 15,5 (range 35-100), the mean IKDC subjective knee score was 69,0 ± 13,4 (range 39,1-97,7) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,1 ± 1,5 (range, 1-9). Similarly, in the OBG group the mean Lysholm score was 72,90 ± 18,7 (range 50-100), the mean IKDC subjective score was 69,3 ± 20,0 (range 44,1-100) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,6 ± 1,2 (range, 3-6). No significant difference was observed between the two groups. Knee laxity measurements were elevated without revision ACL surgery, however the difference was not significant. Conclusion: Bone tunnel grafting with or without second stage ACL revision surgery showed no significant difference in functional outcome score. Thus, in case of revision ACL instability careful patient selection is necessary and expectations should be discussed openly with the patients.
AB - Background: Current literature is lacking of data regarding functional outcomes in patients following bone tunnel grafting with or without revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome in patients with (RACL) or without revision ACL reconstruction (OBG) following bone grafting. Methods: Fifty-nine patients (18 female, 41 male) who underwent bone grafting due to recurrent, symptomatic ACL deficiency following ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. In 44 patients (mean age: 30,5 ± 8,5 years) a staged revision ACL reconstruction (RACL) was performed after bone grafting. 10 patients (mean age: 33.2 ± 10.3 years) refused to have ACL revision surgery after bone grafting (OBG). Outcome measures included instrumented laxity testing, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale. Results: After mean period of 33,9 ± 17.0 months, 54 patients were available for follow up examination. In the RACL group, the Lysholm score was 77,2 ± 15,5 (range 35-100), the mean IKDC subjective knee score was 69,0 ± 13,4 (range 39,1-97,7) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,1 ± 1,5 (range, 1-9). Similarly, in the OBG group the mean Lysholm score was 72,90 ± 18,7 (range 50-100), the mean IKDC subjective score was 69,3 ± 20,0 (range 44,1-100) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,6 ± 1,2 (range, 3-6). No significant difference was observed between the two groups. Knee laxity measurements were elevated without revision ACL surgery, however the difference was not significant. Conclusion: Bone tunnel grafting with or without second stage ACL revision surgery showed no significant difference in functional outcome score. Thus, in case of revision ACL instability careful patient selection is necessary and expectations should be discussed openly with the patients.
KW - ACL reconstruction
KW - Autologous bone grafting
KW - Recurrence
KW - Revision ACL surgery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050373148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12891-018-2174-8
DO - 10.1186/s12891-018-2174-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 30031398
AN - SCOPUS:85050373148
SN - 1471-2474
VL - 19
JO - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
JF - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
IS - 1
M1 - 246
ER -