PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the knee strength and anterior laxity in between primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It was a cross-sectional study; 28 patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction and the another 30 patients who had primary ACL reconstruction once were compared each other which they all had been operated during the same period of season with the same technique in the same hospital. The isokinetic equipment was used to measure the main outcome for knee strength, and KT-2000 arthrometer was used for measuring anterior drawer test in 12 months post-reconstruction surgery. In the anterior drawer test, we found out that there were significantly differences between primary and revision ACL reconstruction groups (1.5±1.1 mm vs. 2.6±1.5 mm, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in the deficits of knee extensor and flexor muscle strength between primary and revision ACL reconstruction. Revision reconstruction groups have more laxity in anterior drawer than primary reconstruction groups. After revision ACL, the deficits of knee extensor and knee flexor muscle strength have no significantly difference from primary ACL reconstruction.
REFERENCES
1.Muneta T., Hara K., Ju YJ, et al. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by double-bundle technique using multi-strand semitendinosus tendon. Arthroscopy. 2010. 26:769–81.
2.Wolf RS., Lemak LJ. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. J South Orthop Assoc. 2002. 11:25–32.
3.Group MARS., Wright RW., Huston LJ, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med. 2010. 38:1979–86.
4.Diamantopoulos AP., Lorbach O., Paessler HH. Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results in 107 patients. Am J Sports Med. 2008. 36:851–60.
5.Brown CH Jr., Carson EW. Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Clin Sports Med. 1999. 18:109–71.
6.Bach BR Jr. Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Arthroscopy. 2003. 19(Suppl 1):14–29.
7.Weiler A., Schmeling A., Stohr I., Kaab MJ., Wagner M. Primary versus single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective matched-group analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2007. 35:1643–52.
8.Palmieri-Smith RM., Thomas AC., Wojtys EM. Maximizing quadriceps strength after ACL reconstruction. Clin Sports Med. 2008. 27:405–24.
9.Ardern CL., Webster KE., Taylor NF., Feller JA. Return to the preinjury level of competitive sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: two-thirds of patients have not returned by 12 months after surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2011. 39:538–43.
10.Yoon KH., Bae DK., Ha JH., Park HC., Kwan BK. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: cause of graft failure and results of revision surgery. Korean J Sports Med. 2005. 23:246–50.
11.Azar FM. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 2002. 51:335–42.
12.Dauty M., Menu P., Fouasson-Chailloux A., Dubois C. Muscular isokinetic strength recovery after knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction revision: preliminary study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014. 57:55–65.
13.Ahn JH., Choi HJ. Arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: 13 to 26-month follow-up evaluation. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2000. 35:375–80.
14.Harner CD., Olson E., Irrgang JJ., Silverstein S., Fu FH., Silbey M. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 3- to 5-year outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996. 324:134–44.
15.Tibor LM., Long JL., Schilling PL., Lilly RJ., Carpenter JE., Miller BS. Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft tissue. Sports Health. 2010. 2:56–72.
16.Woods GW., Fincher AL., O'Connor DP., Bacon SA. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the lateral third of the ipsilateral patellar tendon after failure of a central-third graft: a preliminary report on 10 patients. Am J Knee Surg. 2001. 14:23–31.
17.Lautamies R., Harilainen A., Kettunen J., Sandelin J., Kujala UM. Isokinetic quadriceps and hamstring muscle strength and knee function 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison between bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008. 16:1009–16.
18.Kim DK., Park WH. The correlation of the evaluation of quality of life depends on knee strength after 1-year an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Korean Sports Med. 2014. 32:139–43.
19.Grossman MG., ElAttrache NS., Shields CL., Glousman RE. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: three- to nine-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2005. 21:418–23.
20.Uribe JW., Hechtman KS., Zvijac JE., Tjin-A-Tsoi EW. Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: experience from Miami. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996. 325:91–9.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of subject in primary ACLR and revision ACLR group
| Parameter | Primary ACLR | Revision ACLR | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject size | 28 | 30 | - |
| Age (yr) | 28.4±7.1 | 30.3±6.5 | 0.559 |
| Height (cm) | 175.2±8.5 | 174.4±7.3 | 0.193 |
| Weight (kg) | 76.3±5.2 | 77.5±6.7 | 0.321 |
Table 3.
Result of anterior drawer test
| Anterior drawer | Primary ACLR | Revision ACLR |
|---|---|---|
| test (30 lb) | (n=30) | (n=28) |
| 3 mm＞ | 26 (86) | 14 (50) |
| 3−5 mm | 4 (14) | 13 (46) |
| 5 mm＜ | 0 | 1 (4) |
Table 2.
Isokinetic and anterior drawer test in primary and revision ACLR
XML Download