The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to analyze the causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and the influence of meniscectomies after revision. This study was conducted over a 12-year period, from 1994 to 2005 with ten French orthopaedic centers participating. Assessment included the objective International Knee Documenting Committee (IKDC) 2000 scoring system evaluation. Two hundred and ninety-three patients were available for statistics. Untreated laxity, femoral and tibial tunnel malposition, impingement, failure of fixation were assessed, new traumatism and infection were recorded. Meniscus surgery was evaluated before, during or after primary ACL reconstruction, and then during or after revision ACL surgery. The main cause for failure of ACL reconstruction was femoral tunnel malposition in 36% of the cases. Forty-four percent of the patients with an anterior femoral tunnel as a cause for failure of the primary surgery were IKDC A after revision versus 24% if the cause of failure was not the femoral tunnel (P = 0.05). A 70% meniscectomy rate was found in revision ACL reconstruction. Comparison between patients with a total meniscectomy (n = 56) and patients with preserved menisci (n = 65) revealed a better functional result and knee stability in the non-meniscectomized group (P = 0.04). This study shows that the anterior femoral tunnel malposition is the main cause for failure in ACL reconstruction. This reason for failure should be considered as a predictive factor of good result of revision ACL reconstruction. Total meniscectomy jeopardizes functional result and knee stability at follow-up.
Mean follow-up was 11.6 +/- 0.8 years. Nine graft ruptures occurred. The satisfaction rate was excellent (90%). Seventy patients (74%) were still actively participating in sports. The mean subjective IKDC 2000 score was 90.5 +/- 8.8 points. The IKDC score was statistically correlated to laxity, time from injury, and osteoarthritis development at final follow-up. Ninety-one percent of patients were graded A or B according to the overall IKDC score. The radiological assessment reported osteoarthritis development in 17.8% of patients, and 39% showed radiological changes. Osteoarthritis was correlated with body mass index (P = .01) and age at follow-up (P = .006). In a selected population without meniscus and articular cartilage injury, an osteoarthritis rate of only 8% was found. Conclusion Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft resulted in high patient satisfaction levels and good clinical results after 10 years. Moreover, a high percentage of patients remained involved in sports activities, and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction protected their meniscus from a secondary tear. However, knee osteoarthritis developed in 17.8% of patients so treated.
Long-term results of a retrospective series of primary arthroplasty with the original cementless dual mobility socket (A) and the midterm results with the second generation (B) are reported. In series A (follow-up 16.5 years) 437 total hip arthroplasties (THA) were included and in series B (follow-up five years) 231 hips. The 15-year survival rate was 84.4 ± 4.5% (revision for any reason as endpoint); 30 hips (6.8%) were revised for aseptic loosening. Five THA were revised for dislocation: two early and three after ten years or more. With the second generation socket neither dislocation nor revision for mechanical reasons were observed. The survival rate was 99.6 ± 0.4% (revision for any reason). The prevalence of revision for dislocation was very low in our series. This concept does not avoid wear and aseptic loosening, especially in young active patients, but the long-term stability has been confirmed. Dual mobility can be recommended for patients over 70 years of age and for younger patients with high risk of dislocation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.