REVISION ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT (ACL) RECONSTRUCTION OUTCOMES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN PRIMARY ACL RECONSTRUCTION: WHAT SHOULD WE ADVISE OUR PATIENTS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increase in annual rates of ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) includes both primary and revision procedures. Similar to primary ACL-R, Revision ACL (Re-ACL) patients undergo surgery with the intent to improve function with daily activities including returning to sport or recreational activities. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the objective clinical, functional, and quality of life outcomes of patients following Re-ACL with a matched cohort of unilateral primary ACL-R, to facilitate improved counselling of patients regarding expected outcomes following surgery. Prospectively collected patient data from a single center was utilized for this study. Re-ACL and primary ACL-R patients were matched for sex, age at the time of surgery within 12-months, body mass index (BMI) within two kg and Beighton score. Patient demographics, injury, and operative data were collected. All patients completed functional assessment at 24-months post-operative including balance and hop testing. The anterior cruciate ligament quality of life questionnaire (ACL-QOL) was completed pre-operatively and 24-months post-operatively. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA were utilized to assess between group differences. A total of 470 patients were included, 235 each Re-ACL and ACL-R. There were 122 males and 113 females per group, mean age was 30.7 years, mean BMI was 25.3 kg/m2, and the median Beighton score was three. At 24-months post-operative graft failure occurred in 24/235 (10.2%), of the Re-ACL compared to 2/235 (0.9%) of the ACL-R cohort (p<.05). Laxity as assessed by positive Lachman and Pivot-shit tests was 66/235 (28.1%) and 36/235 (15.3%) respectively for Re-ACL compared with 38/235 (16.2%) and 11/235 (4.7%) for ACL-R (p<.05). Functional assessment indicated statistically significant differences in single leg balance and single-leg hop test performance with 108/235 (46%) achieving 90% limb symmetry for Re-ACL compared with 202/235 (86%) for ACL-R (p<.01). Rate of return to sport or activity was 54% for Re-ACL compared with 92% for ACL-R. The pre to post ACL-QOL scores improved from 29.5 to 61.3 for Re-ACL and 27.5 to 76.0 for ACL-R. One-way ANOVA demonstrated statistically significant between group differences in post-operative ACL-QOL scores, f = 55.3, p< .001. In this matched-cohort study comparing outcomes at 24-months post-operative, Re-ACL demonstrated statically significantly higher rates of failure and residual laxity, lower achievement of limb symmetry and return to sport, and lower disease-specific QOL. In counselling patients regarding Re-ACL surgery, strong consideration should be given to discussing clinical, functional and QOL outcomes to help manage patient expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".