liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Does revision ACL reconstruction measure up to primary surgery? A meta-analysis comparing patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes, and radiographic results
Ist Ortoped Rizzoli, Italy.
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy. Linköping University, Faculty of Health Sciences. Aspetar Orthopaed and Sports Medical Hospital, Qatar; La Trobe University, Australia.
Ist Ortoped Rizzoli, Italy.
Ist Ortoped Rizzoli, Italy.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: British Journal of Sports Medicine, ISSN 0306-3674, E-ISSN 1473-0480, Vol. 50, no 12, 716-724 p.Article, review/survey (Refereed) PublishedText
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP , 2016. Vol. 50, no 12, 716-724 p.
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-129478DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094948ISI: 000376762000006PubMedID: 26809259OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-129478DiVA: diva2:940646
Available from: 2016-06-21 Created: 2016-06-20 Last updated: 2016-06-21

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ardern, Clare
By organisation
Division of PhysiotherapyFaculty of Health Sciences
In the same journal
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 14 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link