Only then could the outcomes of this group of patients be compared legitimately to a similar group of uninjured patients, identically matched for age, size, predisposing factors, injury history, and activity level. This kind of valid comparison study has not be done, and may never get done due to the cost and complexity of accomplishing it, but a few preliminary studies, without all the controls, seem to point toward more arthritis in reconstructed knees than in the opposite uninjured knees. On the one hand this is disappointing news for anyone who has an injured ACL, but on the other hand, there are other things that may matter more to the person with a tom ACL than the likelihood of getting some degree of arthritis in their knee many years later. The ultimate deciding factor for most patients with tom ACL's is what reconstruction can do for their ability to function, particularly in an athletic environment. What ACL reconstruction does well, and very reliably, is to restore stability to the knee.
Reconstructed knees are reliable and stable.
They don't give out unexpectedly, and they allow their owners to return to vigorous athletic activities usually without any compromises. For the competitive athlete, this can be extremely important. In some cases it is even a matter of earning a living or funding a college education. During the same time period, these advancements have also made the results more predictable and the complications less common and less severe. For the competitive athlete, or the recreational one, a tom ACL is a significant threat to continuing those activities.