Returning to Activity After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Surgery: An Analysis of the Multicenter Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Study (MARS) Cohort at 2 Years Postoperative

BACKGROUND

Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires postoperatively compared to cohorts with primary ACL reconstruction. In a previously active population, it is unclear if patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with a return to activity (RTA) or vary by sports participation level (higher level vs. recreational athletes).

HYPOTHESES

Individual RTA would be associated with improved outcomes (ie, decreased knee symptoms, pain, function) as measured using validated PROs. Recreational participants would report lower PROs compared with higher level athletes and be less likely to RTA.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

There were 862 patients who underwent a revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) and self-reported physical activity at any level preoperatively. Those who did not RTA reported no activity 2 years after revision. Baseline data included patient characteristics, surgical history and characteristics, and PROs: International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A binary indicator was used to identify patients with same/better PROs versus worse outcomes compared with baseline, quantifying the magnitude of change in each direction, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate risk factors for not returning to activity, the association of 2-year PROs after rACLR surgery by RTA status, and whether each PRO and RTA status differed by participation level.

RESULTS

At 2 years postoperatively, approximately 15% did not RTA, with current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.3; P = .001), female patients (aOR = 2.9; P < .001), recreational participants (aOR = 2.0; P = .016), and those with a previous medial meniscal excision (aOR = 1.9; P = .013) having higher odds of not returning. In multivariate models, not returning to activity was significantly associated with having worse PROs at 2 years; however, no clinically meaningful differences in PROs at 2 years were seen between participation levels.

CONCLUSION

Recreational-level participants were twice as likely to not RTA compared with those participating at higher levels. Within a previously active cohort, no RTA was a significant predictor of lower PROs after rACLR. However, among patients who did RTA after rACLR, approximately 20% reported lower outcome scores. Most patients with rACLR who were active at baseline improved over time; however, patients who reported worse outcomes at 2 years had a clinically meaningful decline across all PROs.

Relationship Between Sports Participation After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision cohorts continually report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires than primary ACL cohorts at similar time points after surgery. It is unclear how these outcomes are associated with physical activity after physician clearance for return to recreational or competitive sports after ACL revision surgery.

HYPOTHESES

Participants who return to either multiple sports or a singular sport after revision ACL surgery will report decreased knee symptoms, increased activity level, and improved knee function as measured by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and compared with no sports participation. Multisport participation as compared with singular sport participation will result in similar increased PROMs and activity level.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 clinical sites. At the time of revision, baseline data collected included the following: demographics, surgical characteristics, previous knee treatment and PROMs, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, Marx activity score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). A series of multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale scores at 2 years after revision surgery by sports participation category, controlling for known significant covariates.

RESULTS

Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (986 of 1205) of the original cohort. Patients who reported not participating in sports after revision surgery had lower median PROMs both at baseline and at 2 years as compared with patients who participated in either a single sport or multiple sports. Significant differences were found in the change of scores among groups on the IKDC (P < .0001), KOOS-Symptoms (P = .01), KOOS-Sports and Recreation (P = .04), and KOOS-Quality of Life (P < .0001). Patients with no sports participation were 2.0 to 5.7 times more likely than multiple-sport participants to report significantly lower PROMs, depending on the specific outcome measure assessed, and 1.8 to 3.8 times more likely than single-sport participants (except for WOMAC-Stiffness, P = .18), after controlling for known covariates.

CONCLUSION

Participation in either a single sport or multiple sports in the 2 years after ACL revision surgery was found to be significantly associated with higher PROMs across multiple validated self-reported assessment tools. During follow-up appointments, surgeons should continue to expect that patients who report returning to physical activity after surgery will self-report better functional outcomes, regardless of baseline activity levels.

Physiologic Preoperative Knee Hyperextension Is a Predictor of Failure in an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Cohort: A Report From the MARS Group

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of physiologic knee hyperextension (HE) in the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) population and its effect on outcomes have yet to be reported. Hypothesis/Purpose: The prevalence of knee HE in revision ACLR and its effect on 2-year outcome were studied with the hypothesis that preoperative physiologic knee HE ≥5° is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACLR were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing single-bundle graft reconstructions. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale) as well as provide information regarding revision ACL graft failure. A regression model with graft failure as the dependent variable included age, sex, graft type at the time of the revision ACL surgery, and physiologic preoperative passive HE ≥5° (yes/no) to assess these as potential risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACLR.

RESULTS

Analyses included 1145 patients, for whom 2-year follow-up was attained for 91%. The median age was 26 years, with age being a continuous variable. Those below the median were grouped as "younger" and those above as "older" (age: interquartile range = 20, 35 years), and 42% of patients were female. There were 50% autografts, 48% allografts, and 2% that had a combination of autograft plus allograft. Passive knee HE ≥5° was present in 374 (33%) patients in the revision cohort, with 52% being female. Graft rupture at 2-year follow-up occurred in 34 cases in the entire cohort, of which 12 were in the HE ≥5° group (3.2% failure rate) and 22 in the non-HE group (2.9% failure rate). The median age of patients who failed was 19 years, as opposed to 26 years for those with intact grafts. Three variables in the regression model were significant predictors of graft failure: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .002), use of allograft (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P = .003), and HE ≥5° (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.1-4.7; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that preoperative physiologic passive knee HE ≥5° is present in one-third of patients who undergo revision ACLR. HE ≥5° was an independent significant predictor of graft failure after revision ACLR with a >2-fold OR of subsequent graft rupture in revision ACL surgery. Registration: NCT00625885 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

Certain factors under the control of the surgeon at the time of revision surgery can both negatively and positively affect outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline demographics, intraoperative surgical technique and joint disorders, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating scale) completed before surgery. Patients were followed up for 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, and a variety of previous and current surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 1205 patients (697 male [58%]) met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled. The median age was 26 years, and the median time since their last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (989/1205). Both previous and current surgical factors were found to be significant contributors toward poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years. Having undergone previous arthrotomy (nonarthroscopic open approach) for ACL reconstruction compared with the 1-incision technique resulted in significantly poorer outcomes for the 2-year IKDC ( P = .037; odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.05-5.88) and KOOS pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life (QOL) subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 2.38-4.35; 95% CI, 1.03-10.00). The use of a metal interference screw for current femoral fixation resulted in significantly better outcomes for the 2-year KOOS symptoms, pain, and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 1.70-1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.33) as well as WOMAC stiffness subscale ( P = .041; OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.02-3.03). Not performing notchplasty at revision significantly improved 2-year outcomes for the IKDC ( P = .013; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.40-1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93), and WOMAC stiffness and ADL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.41-1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05). Factors before revision ACL reconstruction that increased the risk of poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years included lower baseline outcome scores, a lower Marx activity score at the time of revision, a higher BMI, female sex, and a shorter time since the patient's last ACL reconstruction. Prior femoral fixation, prior femoral tunnel aperture position, and knee flexion angle at the time of revision graft fixation were not found to affect 2-year outcomes in this revision cohort.

CONCLUSION

There are certain surgical variables that the physician can control at the time of revision ACL reconstruction that can modify clinical outcomes at 2 years. Whenever possible, opting for an anteromedial portal or transtibial surgical exposure, choosing a metal interference screw for femoral fixation, and not performing notchplasty are associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes.

Effect of graft choice on the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort

BACKGROUND

Most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome; however, graft choice for revision may be limited due to previously used grafts.

HYPOTHESES

Autograft use would result in increased sports function, increased activity level, and decreased osteoarthritis symptoms (as measured by validated patient-reported outcome instruments). Autograft use would result in decreased graft failure and reoperation rate 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 sites. Data collected included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathologic abnormalities, and the results of a series of validated, patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating score). Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Incidences of additional surgery and reoperation due to graft failure were also recorded. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, Marx scores, graft rerupture, and reoperation rate at 2 years after revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1205 patients (697 [58%] males) were enrolled. The median age was 26 years. In 88% of patients, this was their first revision, and 341 patients (28%) were undergoing revision by the surgeon who had performed the previous reconstruction. The median time since last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Revision using an autograft was performed in 583 patients (48%), allograft was used in 590 (49%), and both types were used in 32 (3%). Questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 subjects (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 (92%). The IKDC, KOOS, and WOMAC scores (with the exception of the WOMAC stiffness subscale) all significantly improved at 2-year follow-up (P < .001). In contrast, the 2-year Marx activity score demonstrated a significant decrease from the initial score at enrollment (P < .001). Graft choice proved to be a significant predictor of 2-year IKDC scores (P = .017). Specifically, the use of an autograft for revision reconstruction predicted improved score on the IKDC (P = .045; odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). The use of an autograft predicted an improved score on the KOOS sports and recreation subscale (P = .037; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73). Use of an autograft also predicted improved scores on the KOOS quality of life subscale (P = .031; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). For the KOOS symptoms and KOOS activities of daily living subscales, graft choice did not predict outcome score. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 2-year Marx activity level scores (P = .012). Graft rerupture was reported in 37 of 1112 patients (3.3%) by their 2-year follow-up: 24 allografts, 12 autografts, and 1 allograft and autograft. Use of an autograft for revision resulted in patients being 2.78 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture compared with allograft (P = .047; 95% CI, 1.01-7.69).

CONCLUSION

Improved sports function and patient-reported outcome measures are obtained when an autograft is used. Additionally, use of an autograft shows a decreased risk in graft rerupture at 2-year follow-up. No differences were noted in rerupture or patient-reported outcomes between soft tissue and bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. Surgeon education regarding the findings of this study has the potential to improve the results of revision ACL reconstruction.