Aseptic Revision and Reoperation Risks After Meniscectomy at the Time of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 1296-1304
Author(s):  
Edmond P. Young ◽  
Priscilla H. Chan ◽  
Heather A. Prentice ◽  
Karun Amar ◽  
Andrew P. Hurvitz ◽  
...  

Background: An intact meniscus is considered a secondary stabilizer of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While loss of the meniscus can increase forces on the anterior cruciate ligament graft after reconstruction, it is unclear whether this increased loading affects the success of the graft after ACLR. Purpose: To identify the risk of subsequent knee surgery when meniscectomy, either partial or total, is performed at the time of index ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We conducted a matched cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Registry. Patients were identified who had a primary ACLR performed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016, with up to 12 years of follow-up. The study sample comprised patients with ACLR who had a lateral meniscectomy (n = 2581), medial meniscectomy (n = 1802), or lateral and medial meniscectomies (n = 666). For each meniscectomy subgroup, patients with ACLR alone were matched to patients with a meniscectomy on a number of patient and procedure characteristics. After the application of matching, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, while competing risks regression was used to evaluate the risk of cause-specific ipsilateral reoperation between meniscectomy and ACLR alone. Analysis was performed for each meniscectomy subgroup. Results: After the application of matching, we failed to observe a difference in aseptic revision risk for patients with ACLR and a meniscectomy—lateral (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02), medial (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.70-1.29), or both (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-2.04)—as compared with ACLR alone. When compared with patients who had ACLR alone, patients with a lateral meniscectomy had a higher risk for subsequent lateral meniscectomy (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.18-3.02; P = .008), and those with a medial meniscectomy had a lower risk for manipulation under anesthesia (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .041). Conclusion: No difference in aseptic revision risk was observed for patients undergoing primary ACLR between groups with and without meniscectomy at the time of index surgery. Partial lateral meniscectomy at the time of index ACLR did associate with a higher risk of subsequent lateral meniscectomy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1333-1340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory B. Maletis ◽  
Jason Chen ◽  
Maria C.S. Inacio ◽  
Rebecca M. Love ◽  
Tadashi T. Funahashi

Background: The use of allograft tissue for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains controversial. Purpose: To compare the risk of aseptic revision between bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autografts and BPTB allografts. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. A cohort of patients who underwent primary unilateral ACLR with BPTB autografts and BPTB allografts was identified. Aseptic revision was the endpoint. The type of graft and allograft processing method (nonprocessed, <1.8-Mrad, and ≥1.8-Mrad irradiation) were the exposures of interest evaluated. Age (≤21 and ≥22 years) was evaluated as an effect modifier. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and race. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were employed. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs are provided. Results: The BPTB cohort consisted of 5586 patients: 3783 (67.7%) were male, 2359 (42.2%) were white, 1029 (18.4%) had allografts (nonprocessed: 155; <1.8 Mrad: 525; ≥1.8 Mrad: 288), and 4557 (81.6%) had autografts. The median age was 34.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 25.4-44.0) for allograft cases and 22.0 years (IQR, 17.6-30.0) for autograft cases. The estimated cumulative revision rate at 2 years was 4.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.9%) for allografts and 1.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-2.2%) for autografts. BPTB allografts had a significantly higher adjusted risk of revision than BPTB autografts (HR, 4.54; 95% CI, 3.03-6.79; P < .001). This higher risk of revision was consistent with all allograft processing methods when compared with autografts and was also consistently higher in patients with allografts regardless of age. Conclusion: When BPTB allograft tissue was used for ACLR, an overall 4.54 times adjusted higher risk of revision was observed compared with surgery performed with a BPTB autograft. Whether the tissue was irradiated with either high- or low-dose radiation, chemically processed, or not processed at all made little difference in the risk of revision. The differences in the revision risk were also consistent in younger and older patients. Surgeons and patients should be aware of the increased risk of revision when a BPTB allograft is used for ACLR.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 2696-2705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir G. Tejwani ◽  
Jason Chen ◽  
Tadashi T. Funahashi ◽  
Rebecca Love ◽  
Gregory B. Maletis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document