Patient demographic and surgical characteristics in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a description of registries from six countries

Objective Findings from individual anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) registry studies are impactful, but how various registries from different countries compare with different patient populations and surgical techniques has not been described. We sought to describe six ACLR registry cohorts to understand variation across countries. Methods Five European registries and one US registry participated. For each registry, all primary ACLR registered between registry establishment through 31December 2014 were identified. Descriptive statistics included frequencies, proportions, medians and IQRs. Revision incidence rates following primary ACLR were computed. Results 101 125 ACLR were included: 21 820 in Denmark, 300 in Luxembourg, 17 556 in Norway, 30 422 in Sweden, 2972 in the UK and 28 055 in the US. In all six cohorts, males (range: 56.8%–72.4%) and soccer injuries (range: 14.1%–42.3%) were most common. European countries mostly used autografts (range: 93.7%–99.7%); allograft was most common in the US (39.9%). Interference screw was the most frequent femoral fixation in Luxembourg and the US (84.8% and 42.9%), and suspensory fixation was more frequent in the other countries (range: 43.9%–75.5%). Interference was the most frequent tibial fixation type in all six cohorts (range: 64.8%–98.2%). Three-year cumulative revision probabilities ranged from 2.8% to 3.7%. Conclusions Similarities in patient demographics and injury activity were observed between all cohorts of ACLR. However, graft and fixation choices differed. Revision rates were low. This work, including >100 000 ACLR, is the most comprehensive international description of contemporary practice to date.

[1]  M. Inacio,et al.  Increased Risk of Revision After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Soft Tissue Allografts Compared With Autografts: Graft Processing and Time Make a Difference , 2017, The American journal of sports medicine.

[2]  M. Inacio,et al.  Increased Risk of Revision After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Allografts Compared With Autografts , 2017, The American journal of sports medicine.

[3]  M. Lind,et al.  The Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry , 2016, Clinical epidemiology.

[4]  R. Mirzayan,et al.  The Effect of Autologous Hamstring Graft Diameter on the Likelihood for Revision of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2016, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  William M. Browning,et al.  A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on the Topic of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament , 2016, Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine.

[6]  Michael J Stuart,et al.  Incidence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears and Reconstruction , 2016, The American journal of sports medicine.

[7]  M. Inacio,et al.  Age-Related Risk Factors for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2016, The American journal of sports medicine.

[8]  D. Theisen,et al.  There is no such thing like a single ACL injury: Profiles of ACL-injured patients. , 2016, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[9]  Danica Marinac-Dabic,et al.  Meta‐analysis of survival curve data using distributed health data networks: application to hip arthroplasty studies of the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[10]  F. Haddad,et al.  The UK National Ligament Registry Report 2015. , 2015, The Knee.

[11]  S. Tejwani,et al.  Revision Risk After Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2015, The American journal of sports medicine.

[12]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Registry Data Highlight Increased Revision Rates for Endobutton/Biosure HA in ACL Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autograft , 2015, The American journal of sports medicine.

[13]  M. Petzold,et al.  No difference in revision rates between single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative study of 16,791 patients from the Swedish national knee ligament register. , 2015, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[14]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Why registries analysing cruciate ligament surgery are important , 2015, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[15]  K. Samuelsson,et al.  Patient Predictors of Early Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2015, The American journal of sports medicine.

[16]  D. Marinac-Dabic,et al.  National and international postmarket research and surveillance implementation: achievements of the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries initiative. , 2014, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  Abby J. Isaacs,et al.  A distributed health data network analysis of survival outcomes: the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries perspective. , 2014, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  P. Ravaud,et al.  Current state of anterior cruciate ligament registers. , 2014, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[19]  K. Webster,et al.  Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors , 2014, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[20]  Brian J. Cole,et al.  Incidence and Trends of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the United States , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[21]  Kristian Samuelsson,et al.  Surgical Predictors of Early Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[22]  J. Karlsson,et al.  Results from the Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register. , 2014, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[23]  M. Inacio,et al.  Risk Factors of Subsequent Operations After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[24]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Increased Risk of Revision With Hamstring Tendon Grafts Compared With Patellar Tendon Grafts After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[25]  T. Thillemann,et al.  Comparison of Hamstring Tendon and Patellar Tendon Grafts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in a Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[26]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Sport-Specific Injury Pattern Recorded During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[27]  M. Inacio,et al.  Analysis of 16,192 Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions From a Community-Based Registry , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[28]  M. Inacio,et al.  Incidence of Postoperative Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Infections , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[29]  M. Inacio,et al.  Kaiser Permanente implant registries benefit patient safety, quality improvement, cost-effectiveness. , 2013, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[30]  M. Inacio,et al.  Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: association of graft choice with increased risk of early revision. , 2013, The bone & joint journal.

[31]  J. Ranstam,et al.  Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial , 2013, BMJ.

[32]  K. Samuelsson,et al.  The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register , 2012, American Journal of Sports Medicine.

[33]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Registration rate in the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register , 2012, Acta orthopaedica.

[34]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Comparison of community-based ACL reconstruction registries in the U.S. and Norway. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[35]  Jonas Ranstam,et al.  A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[36]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  The Scandinavian ACL registries 2004–2007: baseline epidemiology , 2009, Acta orthopaedica.

[37]  Lars Engebretsen,et al.  Cross-cultural comparison of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction in the United States and Norway , 2009, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[38]  M. Lind,et al.  The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5,818 knee ligament reconstructions , 2009, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[39]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Development of a National Cruciate Ligament Surgery Registry , 2008, The American journal of sports medicine.

[40]  Lars Engebretsen,et al.  Patient demographics and surgical characteristics in ACL revision: a comparison of French, Norwegian, and North American cohorts , 2014, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[41]  T. Thillemann,et al.  Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. , 2013, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[42]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Intraoperative findings and procedures in culturally and geo- graphically different patient and surgeon populations An anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction registry comparison between Norway and the USA , 2012 .