Revision Rates After Primary ACL Reconstruction Performed Between 1969 and 2018: A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis. Issue 8 (4th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liukkonen, Rasmus J.; Ponkilainen, Ville T.; Reito, Aleksi
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 10:Issue 8(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-08-04
• Subjects: ACL -- anterior cruciate ligament -- revision -- metaregression -- traumatology; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/23259671221110191
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: Numerous studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), have been published on the optimal graft choice for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To review existing studies to investigate whether advances in orthopaedics have affected revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The PubMed database was searched from inception to December 31, 2020, using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Patient series, observational studies, clinical trials, and registry-based studies investigating primary ACL reconstruction were included, as were high-quality RCTs from an additional study. The minimum required follow-up time for inclusion was 1 year. The primary outcome measure was the pooled prevalence of revision ACL reconstruction. The effect of the year the surgery was performed on revision rates was evaluated with metaregression analysis. All graft types were analyzed simultaneously, and all analyses were repeated separately for each graft type. Results: Overall, 330 articles with 52, 878 patients were included, with a median patient age of 28 years (range, 15-57 years). The primary ACL reconstructions were performed between 1969 and 2018. At a median of 2.3 years of follow-up, the overall revision rate was 3.14% (95% CI, 2.76% to 3.56%); it was 2.71% (95% CI, 2.25% to 3.27%) for hamstring autografts, 2.38% (95% CI, 1.82% to 3.11%) for bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autografts, and 5.24% (95% CI, 4.02% to 6.80%) for other graft types. For hamstring grafts, the revision rate increased over time (year of surgery), with a 0.0434 (95% CI, 0.0150 to 0.0718) increase effect in the logit-transformed scale for every additional year. There was a slight decrease in revision rates for BPTB (β = –0.0049; 95% CI, –0.0352 to 0.0254) and other graft types (β = –0.0306; 95% CI, –0.0608 to −0.0005) over time; however, confidence intervals for BPTB included the zero change. Conclusion: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, ACL reconstruction is a reliable procedure with overall low historical revision rates. BPTB autograft had the lowest revision rate and a slightly decreasing trend of failures during the past 45 years, although both BPTB and hamstring autografts are reliable graft choices.