Secondary Meniscal Tears in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Relationship Among Operative Management, Osteoarthritis, and Arthroplasty at 18-Year Mean Follow-up

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 1583-1590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michella H. Hagmeijer ◽  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Vishal S. Desai ◽  
Thomas L. Sanders ◽  
Christopher L. Camp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is one of the most frequent orthopaedic injuries and reasons for time loss in sports and carries significant implications, including posttraumatic osteoarthritis (OA). Instability associated with ACL injury has been linked to the development of secondary meniscal tears (defined as tears that develop after the initial ACL injury). To date, no study has examined secondary meniscal tears after ACL injury and their effect on OA and arthroplasty risk. Purpose: To describe the rates and natural history of secondary meniscal tears after ACL injury and to determine the effect of meniscal tear treatment on the development of OA and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A geographic database of >500,000 patients was reviewed to identify patients with primary ACL injuries between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2005. Information was collected with regard to ACL injury treatment, rates/characteristics of the secondary meniscal tears, and outcomes, including development of OA and conversion to TKA. Kaplan-Meier and adjusted multivariate survival analyses were performed to test for the effect of meniscal treatment on survivorship free of OA and TKA. Results: Of 1398 primary ACL injuries, the overall rate of secondary meniscal tears was 16%. Significantly lower rates of secondary meniscal tears were noted among patients undergoing acute ACL reconstruction within 6 months (7%) as compared with patients with delayed ACL reconstruction (33%, P < .01) and nonoperative ACL management (19%, P < .01). Of the 235 secondary meniscal tears identified (196 patients), 11.5% underwent repair, 73% partial meniscectomy, and 16% were treated nonoperatively. Tears were most often medial in location (77%) and complex in morphology (56% of medial tears, 54% of lateral tears). At the time of final follow-up, no patient undergoing repair of a secondary meniscal tear (0%) underwent TKA, as opposed to 10.9% undergoing meniscectomy and 6.1% receiving nonoperative treatment ( P = .28). Conclusion: Secondary meniscal tears after ACL injury are most common among patients undergoing delayed surgical or nonoperative treatment of their primary ACL injuries. Secondary tears often present as complex tears of the medial meniscus and result in high rates of partial meniscectomy.

scholarly journals Treatment After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712093109
Author(s):  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
Benjamin B. Rothrauff ◽  
Lars Engebretsen ◽  
Andrew D. Lynch ◽  
Olufemi R. Ayeni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Anatomic Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best-practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus nonoperative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. There were 66 international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, who were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the scientific organizing committee and session chairs for the 3 working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements before the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Ultimately, 80% agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Overall, 9 statements achieved unanimous support, 2 reached strong consensus, 1 did not achieve consensus, and 1 was removed because of redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended because of the high risk of secondary meniscal and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight-plane activities, nonoperative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and nonoperative treatment with patients after an ACL injury.

Early Operative Versus Delayed Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Pediatric and Adolescent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652199081
Author(s):  
Evan W. James ◽  
Brody J. Dawkins ◽  
Jonathan M. Schachne ◽  
Theodore J. Ganley ◽  
Mininder S. Kocher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Nonoperative Management ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Meniscal Tear ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Knee Stability ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Treatment options for pediatric and adolescent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries include early operative, delayed operative, and nonoperative management. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal treatment for these injuries. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to determine the optimal treatment strategy for ACL injuries in pediatric and adolescent patients. We hypothesized that (1) early ACL reconstruction results in fewer meniscal tears than delayed reconstruction but yields no difference in knee stability and (2) when compared with nonoperative management, any operative management results in fewer meniscal tears and cartilage injuries, greater knee stability, and higher return-to-sport rates. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic search of databases was performed including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were a pediatric and adolescent patient population (≤19 years old at surgery), the reporting of clinical outcomes after treatment of primary ACL injury, and original scientific research article. Exclusion criteria were revision ACL reconstruction, tibial spine avulsion fracture, case report or small case series (<5 patients), non–English language manuscripts, multiligamentous injuries, and nonclinical studies. Results: A total of 30 studies containing 50 cohorts and representing 1176 patients met our criteria. With respect to nonoperative treatment, knee instability was observed in 20% to 100%, and return to preinjury level of sports ranged from 6% to 50% at final follow-up. Regarding operative treatment, meta-analysis results favored early ACL reconstruction over delayed reconstruction (>12 weeks) for the presence of any meniscal tear (odds ratio, 0.23; P = .006) and irreparable meniscal tear (odds ratio, 0.31; P = .001). Comparison of any side-to-side differences in KT-1000 arthrometer testing did not favor early or delayed ACL reconstruction in either continuous mean differences ( P = .413) or proportion with difference ≥3 mm ( P = .181). Return to preinjury level of competition rates for early and delayed ACL reconstruction ranged from 57% to 100%. Conclusion: Delaying ACL reconstruction in pediatric or adolescent patients for >12 weeks significantly increased the risk of meniscal injuries and irreparable meniscal tears; however, early and delayed operative treatment achieved satisfactory knee stability. Nonoperative management resulted in high rates of residual knee instability, increased risk of meniscal tears, and comparatively low rates of return to sports.

scholarly journals The Landing Error Scoring System as a Screening Tool for an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury–Prevention Program in Elite-Youth Soccer Athletes

2015 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 589-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darin A. Padua ◽  
Lindsay J. DiStefano ◽  
Anthony I. Beutler ◽  
Sarah J. de la Motte ◽  
Michael J. DiStefano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Receiver Operator Characteristic ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Youth Soccer ◽  
Jump Landing ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Context Identifying neuromuscular screening factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is a critical step toward large-scale deployment of effective ACL injury-prevention programs. The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a valid and reliable clinical assessment of jump-landing biomechanics. Objective To investigate the ability of the LESS to identify individuals at risk for ACL injury in an elite-youth soccer population. Design Cohort study. Setting Field-based functional movement screening performed at soccer practice facilities. Patients or Other Participants A total of 829 elite-youth soccer athletes (348 boys, 481 girls; age = 13.9 ± 1.8 years, age range = 11 to 18 years), of whom 25% (n = 207) were less than 13 years of age. Intervention(s) Baseline preseason testing for all participants consisted of a jump-landing task (3 trials). Participants were followed prospectively throughout their soccer seasons for diagnosis of ACL injuries (1217 athlete-seasons of follow-up). Main Outcome Measure(s) Landings were scored for “errors” in technique using the LESS. We used receiver operator characteristic curves to determine a cutpoint on the LESS. Sensitivity and specificity of the LESS in predicting ACL injury were assessed. Results Seven participants sustained ACL injuries during the follow-up period; the mechanism of injury was noncontact or indirect contact for all injuries. Uninjured participants had lower LESS scores (4.43 ± 1.71) than injured participants (6.24 ± 1.75; t1215 = −2.784, P = .005). The receiver operator characteristic curve analyses suggested that 5 was the optimal cutpoint for the LESS, generating a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 64%. Conclusions Despite sample-size limitations, the LESS showed potential as a screening tool to determine ACL injury risk in elite-youth soccer athletes.

The Role of Patient Characteristics in the Success of Nonoperative Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 1657-1664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Frans J.A. Hagemans ◽  
Dirk Jan Hofstee ◽  
Freerk J. Jonkers
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears can either be treated nonoperatively with physical therapy and then treated operatively if persistent instability is present, or be directly treated operatively. Advantages of early ACL reconstruction surgery include shorter time from injury to surgery and potentially fewer meniscal injuries, but performing early ACL reconstruction in all patients results in surgery in patients who might not need ACL reconstruction. It is important to assess in which patients nonoperative treatment is successful and which patients will require ACL reconstruction and thus might be better treated surgically in an earlier phase. Purpose: To identify patient characteristics that predict the success of nonoperative treatment. Study Design: Cohort study (Prognosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All patients with complete ACL injuries who were evaluated between 2014 and 2017 at our clinic were included. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. The initial treatment and ultimate ACL reconstruction were reviewed. Univariate analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square tests and multivariate analysis using binary logistic regression. Results: A total of 448 patients were included with a median age of 26 years and median Tegner level of 7 and mean Tegner level of 6.4. At initial consultation, 210 patients (47%) were treated nonoperatively with physical therapy and 126 of these patients (60%) ultimately required ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative treatment failed in 88.9% of patients <25 years of age, 56.0% of patients 25 to 40 years, and 32.9% of patients >40 years ( P < .001); and 41.9% of patients with Tegner level 3 to 6, and 82.8% of patients with Tegner level 7 to 10. Age <25 years (odds ratio [OR], 7.4; P < .001) and higher Tegner levels (OR, 4.2; P < .001) were predictive of failing nonoperative treatment in multivariate analysis. Patients in the failed nonoperative group had longer time from diagnosis to surgery than the direct reconstruction group (6.2 vs 2.2 months; P < .001), and more frequently had new meniscal injuries (17.4% vs 3.1%; P < .001) at surgery. Conclusion: Nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries failed in 60% of patients and was highly correlated with age and activity level. In patients aged 25 years or younger or participating in higher-impact sports, early ACL reconstruction should be considered to prevent longer delay between injury and surgery, as well as new meniscal injuries.

scholarly journals Results of meniscectomy and meniscal repair in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Joints ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 03 (03) ◽  
pp. 151-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Deledda ◽  
Federica Rosso ◽  
Umberto Cottino ◽  
Davide Bonasia ◽  
Roberto Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Meniscal tears are commonly associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. A deficient medial meniscus results in knee instability and could lead to higher stress forces on the ACL reconstruction.Comparison of results in meniscectomy and meniscal repairs revealed worse clinical outcomes in meniscectomy, but higher re-operation rates in meniscal repairs. Our aim was to review the results of ACL reconstruction associated with meniscectomy or meniscal repair.

scholarly journals Evidence too weak to guide surgical treatment decisions for anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review of the risk of new meniscal tears after anterior cruciate ligament injury

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (9) ◽  
pp. 520-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guri Ranum Ekås ◽  
Clare L Ardern ◽  
Hege Grindem ◽  
Lars Engebretsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Ligament Injury ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

ObjectiveTo investigate the risk of new meniscal tears after treatment for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, in children and adults with and without ACL reconstruction.DesignPrognosis systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42016036788).MethodsWe searched Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and Google Scholar from inception to 3rd May 2018. Eligible articles included patients with ACL injury (diagnosis confirmed by MRI and/or diagnostic arthroscopy), reported the number of meniscal tears at the time of ACL injury diagnosis/start of treatment and reported the number of new meniscal tears that subsequently occurred. Articles with fewer than 20 patients at follow-up, and articles limited to ACL revision surgery or multi-ligament knee injuries were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened articles, assessed eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We judged the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology.ResultsOf 75 studies included in the systematic review, 54 studies with 9624 patients and 501 new meniscal tears were appropriate for quantitative analysis. Heterogeneity precluded data pooling. The risk of new meniscal tears was 0%–21% when follow-up was <2 years, 0%–29% when follow-up was 2 to 5 years, 5%–52% when follow-up was 5 to 10 years and 4%–31% when follow-up was longer than 10 years. The proportion of studies with high risk of selection, misclassification and detection bias was 84%, 69% and 68%, respectively. Certainty of evidence was very low.ConclusionNew meniscal tears occurred in 0%–52% of patients between 4 months and 20 years (mean 4.9±4.4 years) following treatment for ACL injury. The certainty of evidence was too low to guide surgical treatment decisions. This review cannot conclude that the incidence of new meniscal tears is lower if ACL injury is treated with surgery compared with treatment with rehabilitation only.

scholarly journals Failure and Reoperation Rates Following Arthroscopic Primary Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0029
Author(s):  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Anne Jonkergouw ◽  
Gregory S. DiFelice
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Treatment Algorithm ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Graft Rupture ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Reoperation Rates

Objectives: To compare the failure and reoperation rates of arthroscopic primary repair versus reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed all patients with ACL injury operatively treated between April 2008 and May 2016 by one surgeon. All patients with proximal tears were treated with primary repair using suture anchors, or otherwise underwent standard reconstruction. Patients were included if minimum two-year follow-up was present, and were excluded for multiligamentous injuries. Charts were reviewed and patients were contacted to assess failure (instability, graft rupture or revision), reoperation (other than revision), complications and contralateral failure. Results: 154 patients were included of which 56 underwent primary repair (36.4%). Mean age was 30 years (range 14-57), 70% was male and mean follow-up was 3 years (range 2-9). Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were younger (28 vs. 33, p=0.002) and were more often male (77% vs. 59%, p=0.02). Failure rates were lower following primary repair (10.7%) than ACL reconstruction (12.2%) but this was not statistically significant (p=0.776). Also, no clinical relevant or statistical significant differences were found between repair and reconstruction in reoperations (7.1% each group), complications (1.8% vs. 3.1%, respectively) and contralateral failures (3.6% vs. 4.1%, respectively) (all p>0.99). With revision surgery, no complications were noted following primary repair revision (primary reconstruction; 0%) but 25% of revision reconstructions failed and 1 needed reoperation (8%). Conclusion: This study is the first study to compare the failure and reoperation rates following arthroscopic primary repair versus reconstruction in a large cohort of patients. With the treatment algorithm of primary repair for proximal avulsion tears and reconstruction of midsubstance tears, equivalent outcomes were noted between both treatments. Arthroscopic primary repair is a safe and good treatment for ACL injuries and has similar failure and reoperation rates when compared to the gold standard of ACL reconstruction.

scholarly journals An Anterior Cruciate Ligament In Vitro Rupture Model Based on Clinical Imaging

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110171
Author(s):  
Lukas Willinger ◽  
Kiron K. Athwal ◽  
Andy Williams ◽  
Andrew A. Amis
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Bone Bruise ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Acl Transection

Background: Biomechanical studies on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and reconstructions are based on ACL transection instead of realistic injury trauma. Purpose: To replicate an ACL injury in vitro and compare the laxity that occurs with that after an isolated ACL transection injury before and after ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Nine paired knees were ACL injured or ACL transected. For ACL injury, knees were mounted in a rig that imposed tibial anterior translation at 1000 mm/min to rupture the ACL at 22.5° of flexion, 5° of internal rotation, and 710 N of joint compressive force, replicating data published on clinical bone bruise locations. In contralateral knees, the ACL was transected arthroscopically at midsubstance. Both groups had ACL reconstruction with bone–patellar tendon–bone graft. Native, ACL-deficient, and reconstructed knee laxities were measured in a kinematics rig from 0° to 100° of flexion with optical tracking: anterior tibial translation (ATT), internal rotation (IR), anterolateral (ATT + IR), and pivot shift (IR + valgus). Results: The ACL ruptured at 26 ± 5 mm of ATT and 1550 ± 620 N of force (mean ± SD) with an audible spring-back tibiofemoral impact with 5o of valgus. ACL injury and transection increased ATT ( P < .001). ACL injury caused greater ATT than ACL transection by 1.4 mm (range, 0.4-2.2 mm; P = .033). IR increased significantly in ACL-injured knees between 0° and 30° of flexion and in ACL transection knees from 0° to 20° of flexion. ATT during the ATT + IR maneuver was increased by ACL injury between 0° and 80° and after ACL transection between 0° and 60°. Residual laxity persisted after ACL reconstruction from 0° to 40° after ACL injury and from 0° to 20° in the ACL transection knees. ACL deficiency increased ATT and IR in the pivot-shift test ( P < .001). The ATT in the pivot-shift increased significantly at 0° to 20° after ACL transection and 0° to 50° after ACL injury, and this persisted across 0° to 20° and 0° to 40° after ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: This study developed an ACL injury model in vitro that replicated clinical ACL injury as evidenced by bone bruise patterns. ACL injury caused larger increases of laxity than ACL transection, likely because of damage to adjacent tissues; these differences often persisted after ACL reconstruction. Clinical Relevance: This in vitro model created more realistic ACL injuries than surgical transection, facilitating future evaluation of ACL reconstruction techniques.

scholarly journals Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 2390-2402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
◽  
Benjamin B. Rothrauff ◽  
Lars Engebretsen ◽  
Andrew D. Lynch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Operative Treatment ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Anatomic Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Consensus Group ◽  
Consensus Statements ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative vs. non-operative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study is to report the consensus statements on operative vs. non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organizing Committee and Session Chairs for the three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to the meeting and provided the initial agreement and comments on the statement via an online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Eighty percent agreement was defined a-priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative v. non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached the consensus during the Symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support, two reached strong consensus, one did not achieve consensus, and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight plane activities, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatments with patients after an ACL injury. Level of evidence V.

scholarly journals Return to sport outcomes in the younger patient with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (5_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0017
Author(s):  
TS Whitehead ◽  
JA Feller ◽  
KE Webster
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Reconstruction Surgery ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Work Commitments

Objective: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is generally regarded as a successful procedure, however only 65% of patients return to their pre-injury sport. While return to sport rates are likely higher in younger patients, there is a paucity of data on this topic. The purpose of this study was to investigate a range of return to sport outcomes in younger athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction surgery. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study design. A group of 140 young patients (<20 years at surgery) who had one ACL reconstruction and no subsequent ACL injuries were surveyed regarding details of their sport participation at an average follow up of 5 years (range 3-7). Results: Overall, 76% of the young patient group returned to the same pre-injury sport. Return rates were higher for males than females (81% vs. 71% respectively, p>0.05). Of those who returned to their sport, 65% reported that they could perform as well as before the ACL injury and 66% were still currently playing in their respective sport. Young athletes who never returned to sport cited fear of a new injury (37%) or study/work commitments (30%) as the primary reasons. For those who had successfully returned to their pre-injury sport but subsequently stopped playing, the most common reason was study/work commitments (53%). At follow-up 48% of female patients were still participating in Level I sports as were 54% of males. Conclusions: A high percentage of younger patients return to their pre-injury sport following ACL reconstruction surgery. For this group who have not sustained a second ACL injury, the majority continue to play and are satisfied with their performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document