Subsequent Surgery After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors From a Multicenter Cohort
Authors:   The MARS Group, Ding David Y. , Zhang Alan L. , Allen Christina R. , Anderson Allen F. , Cooper Daniel E. , DeBerardino Thomas M. , Dunn Warren R. , Haas Amanda K. , Huston Laura J. , Lantz Brett (Brick) A. , Mann Barton , Spindler Kurt P. , Stuart Michael J. , Wright Rick W. , Albright John P. , Amendola Annunziato (Ned) , Andrish Jack T. , Annunziata Christopher C. , Arciero Robert A. , Bach Bernard R. , Baker Champ L. , Bartolozzi Arthur R. , Baumgarten Keith M. , Bechler Jeffery R. , Berg Jeffrey H. , Bernas Geoffrey A. , Brockmeier Stephen F. , Brophy Robert H. , Bush-Joseph Charles A. , Butler J. Brad , Campbell John D. , Carey James L. , Carpenter James E. , Cole Brian J. , Cooper Jonathan M. , Cox Charles L. , Creighton R. Alexander , Dahm Diane L. , David Tal S. , Flanigan David C. , Frederick Robert W. , Ganley Theodore J. , Garofoli Elizabeth A. , Gatt Charles J. , Gecha Steven R. , Giffin James Robert , Hame Sharon L. , Hannafin Jo A. , Harner Christopher D. , Harris Norman Lindsay , Hechtman Keith S. , Hershman Elliott B. , Hoellrich Rudolf G. , Hosea Timothy M. , Johnson David C. , Johnson Timothy S. , Jones Morgan H. , Kaeding Christopher C. , Kamath Ganesh V. , Klootwyk Thomas E. , Levy Bruce A. , Ma C. Benjamin , Maiers G. Peter , Marx Robert G. , Matava Matthew J. , Mathien Gregory M. , McAllister David R. , McCarty Eric C. , McCormack Robert G. , Miller Bruce S. , Nissen Carl W. , O’Neill Daniel F. , Owens Brett D. , Parker Richard D. , Purnell Mark L. , Ramappa Arun J. , Rauh Michael A. , Rettig Arthur C. , Sekiya Jon K. , Shea Kevin G. , Sherman Orrin H. , Slauterbeck James R. , Smith Matthew V. , Spang Jeffrey T. , Svoboda Steven J. , Taft Timothy N. , Tenuta Joachim J. , Tingstad Edwin M. , Vidal Armando F. , Viskontas Darius G. , White Richard A. , Williams James S. , Wolcott Michelle L. , Wolf Brian R. , York James J. 
Published: May 2017

Background:

While revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR.

Purpose:

To report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation.

Results:

Of the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged <20 years had twice the odds of patients aged 20 to 29 years to undergo a reoperation. The use of an allograft at the time of revision ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P = .007) was a significant predictor for reoperations at 2 years, while staged revision (bone grafting of tunnels before revision ACLR) (OR, 1.93; P = .052) did not reach significance. Patients with grade 4 cartilage damage seen during revision ACLR were 78% less likely to undergo subsequent operations within 2 years. Sex, body mass index, smoking history, Marx activity score, technique for femoral tunnel placement, and meniscal tearing or meniscal treatment at the time of revision ACLR showed no significant effect on the reoperation rate.

Conclusion:

There was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age <20 years and the use of allograft tissue at the time of revision ACLR.