Poorer patient-reported knee function and quality of life, but not activity level, after revision ACL reconstruction compared with primary ACL reconstruction: a matched-pair analysis with a minimum 5-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: An appropriate method for comparing knee function and activity level between patients with primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is to perform a matched-group analysis. The aim was to assess and compare knee function, knee-related quality of life and activity level between patients with revision ACLR and primary ACLR at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients aged ≤ 40 years old who underwent revision ACLR between 2010 and 2015 and a matched control group (primary ACLR) (1:1) with age ± 2 years, year of ACLR, sex, and pre-injury sport and Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) were retrospectively identified in our clinic database. The preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and surgical data were extracted and analyzed. Patients were mailed KOOS and EQ-5D questionnaires at a minimum of 5-years after revision ACLR. Study-specific questions about knee function, limitation in sport, satisfaction, and activity level according to the TAS (all scales of 1-10, 10 best) were also asked by telephone. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients with a revision ACLR (mean age ± SD, 29.9 ± 6.0 years) matched with seventy-eight patients with a primary ACLR (30.2 ± 5.8 years) were included. The follow-up for the revision ACLR group was 7.0 ± 1.5 years and for the primary ACLR group 7.7 ± 1.6 years. The revision ACLR group reported poorer KOOS scores in all subscales (p < 0.05) except the Symptoms subscale, poorer EQ-5D VAS (mean 79.2 ± 20.1 vs 86.0 ± 20.1, p = 0.012), and less satisfaction with current knee function (median 7 (6-8) vs 8 (7-9), p < 0.001). Patients with revision ACLR also experienced greater limitation in sports (median 7 (4-8) vs 8 (6-9), p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the EQ-5D (mean 0.86 ± 0.17 vs 0.89 ± 0.11, p = 0.427), activity level (median 2 (2-5) vs 4 (2-7), p = 0.229), or satisfaction with activity level (median 8 (5-9) vs 8 (6-10), p = 0.281) between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: At a minimum 5-year follow-up, the revision ACLR group reported poorer knee function and quality of life, less satisfaction with knee function and a greater limitation in sports but no differences in activity level and satisfaction with activity level compared with the primary ACLR group.

Comparison of Knee Function and Activity Level Between Bilateral and Unilateral ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Group Analysis With Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

Background: There is a lack of knowledge regarding knee function and activity level after bilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) at midterm follow-up. Purpose: To compare activity level, patient-reported knee function, and quality of life in patients with bilateral ACLR and matched controls with unilateral ACLR at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bilateral ACLR who were aged ≤40 years and had a second ACLR performed between 2010 and 2015 were identified in the authors' local database. Surgical data and preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were extracted. The patients were sent a letter with questionnaires including the KOOS, EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D), and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) and were asked study-specific questions by telephone regarding activity level and knee function at a minimum 5-year follow-up. For every patient with bilateral ACLR, a control matched for age ±2 years, sex, year ACLR was performed, and preinjury activity level or sport at the time of injury were identified in the database. Results: A total of 98 patients (mean age ± SD, 33.3 ± 7.3 years) with bilateral ACLR and 98 patients with unilateral ACLR (mean age ± SD, 33.1 ± 7.7 years) were included. The mean postoperative follow-up was 7.6 ± 1.8 years (from the second ACLR) for patients with bilateral ACLR and 7.8 ± 1.7 years for patients with unilateral ACLR. Patients with bilateral ACLR reported lower scores on all KOOS subscales, the EQ-5D, and the EQ-VAS at follow-up (P < .05). There was no difference in activity level between the groups at follow-up, but patients with bilateral ACLR were less satisfied with their activity level and knee function (P < .05). Conclusion: Patient-reported knee function and health-related quality of life were inferior in patients with bilateral ACLR compared with patients with unilateral ACLR. Patients with bilateral ACLR cannot expect the same knee function and quality of life as patients with unilateral ACLR.