Revision Soft-Tissue Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Associated With Lower Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Aged 40 and Older

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and graft failure rates in revision allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients aged 40 and older and compare them with primary ACLRs.

Methods: Patients aged 40 and older who underwent arthroscopic soft-tissue allograft ACLR between 2005 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped based on revision versus primary ACLR. The rate of achieving an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) score was recorded. Patient satisfaction, PROs, and graft failure were compared between groups using the χ² test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: We identified 32 patients who underwent revision ACLR and 201 patients who underwent primary ACLR aged 40 and older who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 6.2 and 6.9 years, respectively (P = .042). There was a lower rate of concomitant meniscal repair in the primary ACLR group (6% vs 21.9%, P = .007) There were no other differences in chondral injuries, mechanism of injury, or meniscal injuries between groups. The median IKDC score was greater in the primary ACLR group as compared with the revision ACLR group (83.9 vs 70.6, P < .001). Patients who underwent revision ACLR were less likely to achieve the IKDC PASS threshold (82.5% vs 56.3%, P = .001) and were less likely to report satisfaction as compared with patients who underwent primary ACLR (90.5% vs 78.1%, P =.038). No difference in graft failure rates was identified between groups (8% vs 15.6%, P = .180).

Conclusions: Revision allograft ACLR in patients aged 40 and older was associated with lower PROs compared with primary ACLR. Patients who underwent revision ACLR failed to meet the IKDC PASS threshold more often and were dissatisfied with procedure results more than twice as often as patients that underwent primary ACLR.

Level of evidence: III, retrospective cohort study.