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

Alberto Grassi, Clare L. Ardern, Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli, Maria Pia Neri, Maurilio Marcacci, Stefano Zaffagnini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - Jan 25 2016

    Fingerprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this