Association Between Graft Choice and 6-Year Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the MARS Cohort

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores (P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized (P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts (P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts (P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft (P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.

[1]  Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score , 2020, Definitions.

[2]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Young age and high BMI are predictors of early revision surgery after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study from the Swedish and Norwegian knee ligament registries based on 30,747 patients , 2019, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[3]  G. Edman,et al.  Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores knee laxity but shows inferior functional knee outcome compared with primary reconstruction , 2018, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[4]  R. Wright,et al.  Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes at a Minimum of 5-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review , 2018, The Journal of Knee Surgery.

[5]  Alan L. Zhang,et al.  Subsequent Surgery After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors From a Multicenter Cohort , 2016, The American journal of sports medicine.

[6]  M. Hägglund,et al.  Predictors for additional anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: data from the Swedish national ACL register , 2016, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[7]  Mars Group Factors Influencing Graft Choice in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the MARS Group , 2015, Journal of Knee Surgery.

[8]  M. Marcacci,et al.  Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport , 2015, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[9]  C. Kaeding,et al.  Risk Factors and Predictors of Subsequent ACL Injury in Either Knee After ACL Reconstruction , 2015, The American journal of sports medicine.

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

[11]  D. E. Cooper,et al.  Effect of Graft Choice on the Outcome of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[12]  R. Herzlinger,et al.  Hospital for Special Surgery (A) , 2014 .

[13]  F. Harrell,et al.  Are Articular Cartilage Lesions and Meniscus Tears Predictive of IKDC, KOOS, and Marx Activity Level Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[14]  W. Dunn,et al.  The Rate of Subsequent Surgery and Predictors After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[15]  V. Denaro,et al.  Two-stage procedure in anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery: a five-year follow-up prospective study , 2013, International Orthopaedics.

[16]  M. Lind,et al.  Incidence and Outcome After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2012, The American journal of sports medicine.

[17]  Ling Chen,et al.  Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  R. Hube,et al.  Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon allograft and autograft: 2- and 5-year results , 2012, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[19]  D. E. Cooper,et al.  Descriptive Epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort , 2010, The American journal of sports medicine.

[20]  Yong Seuk Lee,et al.  Comparison of Revision Surgery with Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Outcome of Revision Surgery between Different Graft Materials , 2008, The American journal of sports medicine.

[21]  K. Refshauge,et al.  Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hamstring Tendon Autograft , 2006, The American journal of sports medicine.

[22]  J. Karlsson,et al.  The course of the patellar tendon after reharvesting its central third for ACL revision surgery: a long-term clinical and radiographic study , 2006, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[23]  A. Anderson,et al.  Development and validation of health-related quality of life measures for the knee. , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[24]  Albert,et al.  THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA , 1955 .

[25]  T. Hewett,et al.  Long-term rate of graft failure after ACL reconstruction: a geographic population cohort analysis , 2016, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[26]  김종헌,et al.  한글 International Knee Documentation Committee 주관적 평가표의 정상 기준 수치에 대한 연구 , 2010 .

[27]  E. Roos,et al.  WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of rheumatology.