Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Concomitant Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparative Matched-Group Analysis of Return to Sport and Satisfaction
Authors: Garcia Grant Hoerig , Redondo Michael L. , Liu Joseph , Christian David R. , Yanke Adam Blair , Cole Brian J. 
Published: July 2019

Objectives: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is commonly associated with articular cartilage injury. Few studies have evaluated the influence of cartilage repair on the outcome of ACL reconstruction. Currently, no known study has examined the return to sport rates of concomitant ACL reconstruction and OCA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate rate and level of return to sports, as well as long-term outcomes, between a matched cohort of isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACL reconstruction with concomitant OCA (ACLR/OCA). Methods: A prospectively collected registry was queried retrospectively for consecutive patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with concomitant OCA. Inclusion criteria were preoperative diagnosis of ACL rupture and more than 2 years of follow-up. After meeting the inclusion criteria, all ACL reconstructions with concomitant OCA were matched to two isolated ACL reconstruction patients via +/- 5 years of age at time of surgery, gender, revision status, and ACL reconstruction graft type. At final follow-up, patients were asked to complete a subjective sports questionnaire, the Marx activity scale, a visual analog scale (VAS), and a satisfaction questionnaire. Results: Seventeen ACL/OCA patients met inclusion criteria. Fourteen eligible 2:1 matched pairs (28 ACLR; 14 ACLR/OCA;), were identified for analysis. The average age at the time of surgery was 33.89 +/- 8.64 and 35.92 +/- 6.22 for the ACLR and ACLR/OCA groups, respectively (P = .44). Average follow-up was 4.09 years and 5.14 years for the ACLR and ACLR/OCA groups, respectively (P = .17). At final follow-up, the average Marx activity scalescores were 6.54 for ACRL patients and 1.57 for ACLR/OCA patients; final scores were significantly different between groups (P < 0.01). The average VAS pain scores at final follow-up were 1.96 in the ACLR and 3.64 in ACLR/OCA groups with the ACLR/OCA patients displaying significantly worse final VAS pain scores (P = .03). 89.3% of ACLR patients (25 of 28) returned to at least 1 sport postoperatively compared with 57.1% of ACLR/OCA patients (8 of 14) (P=0.04). At final follow-up, 14.2% (2 of 14) of the ACLR/OCA group and 32.1% (9 of 28) of the ACLR group reported starting a new sport or activity. Average timing for full return to sports was 9.57 +/- 5.53 months and 9.27 +/- 3.25 months for the ACLR/OCA and ACLR groups, respectively (P = .86). At final follow-up, 33.3% and 57.1% of patients returned to better or same level of sport for the ACLR/OCA and ACLR groups, respectively (P = .06). Significantly more ACLR/OCA patients reported their activity level was hindered by their knee (92.8% ACLR/OCA; 60.7% ACLR). Significantly more ACLR patients reported satisfaction with their surgery compared with ACLR/OCA patients (89% vs 57%) (P < 0.01), however no statistical difference was observed in satisfaction with ability to play sports between groups. Conclusion: Significantly less ACLR/OCA patients (57.1%) were able to return to at least 1 sport when compared to a matched ACLR cohort (89.3%). At final follow-up, a higher percentage of ACLR patients were able to return to pretreatment activity intensity level or better (ACLR/OCA, 33.3%; ACLR, 57.1%). ACLR/OCA patients had significantly more pain and lower Marx activity scores. Despite a lower return to sport rate, there was no statistical difference in reported satisfaction with activity level between the groups, however the ACLR/OCA groups reported significantly lower overall surgical satisfaction.