Incidence, management and outcome assessment of post operative infection following single bundle and double bundle acl reconstruction

Mishra, Pallav; Lal, Ajay; Mohindra, Mukul; Mehta, Nitin; Joshi, Deepak; Chaudhary, Deepak

doi:10.1016/j.jcot.2017.09.017

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 20 European studies reporting on 156,597 ACLRs, the average incidence of infection was 0.53% (range 0.25-1.85%) 7, 13, 15, 18-20, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 42, 46-52 . For five studies from Asia reporting on 37,696 ACLRs, the calculated incidence of infection was 0.93% (range 0.52-1.48%) 27,32,36,40,53 . Among the 19 studies from the United States, which reported on 158,429 ACLRs, the incidence of infection was 0.54% (range 0.15-2.44%) 4, 8-11, 16, 17, 21, 23-25, 31, 35, 38, 39, 44, 45, 54, 55 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence, Common Pathogens, and Risk Factors for Infection after Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Schneider,

Ormseth,

DiBartola

et al. 2023

J Knee Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: We sought to assess the current literature to present a comprehensive summary of the incidence, common pathogens, and risk factors for infection after ACL reconstruction. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies reporting on infection after ACL reconstruction. Two reviewers independently screened the extracted studies for adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were selected if they reported on the incidence of infection, pathogens cultured from infected knees, or risk factors for infection after primary ACL reconstruction. Exclusion criteria consisted of studies with less than 100 patients or studies that included revision ACL reconstruction. Results: Fifty studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, reporting on a total of 316,214 ACL reconstructions. Included studies evaluated between 123-104,255 patients. The overall incidence of infection was 0.60% (0.15% - 2.44%). The most common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and coagulase-negative Staphylococci (CNS). Five studies reported that the use of hamstring autograft was a statistically significant risk factor for infection after ACL reconstruction, thus making hamstring autograft the most commonly reported risk factor. Other reported risk factors included male sex, use of immuno-suppressive medications or intraarticular steroid injections, prior knee surgery, and diabetes. Conclusion: Systematic review of the literature revealed that infection after ACL reconstruction remains an infrequent event with an incidence of 0.60% (0.15%-2.44%). Furthermore, the most common pathogens are from the Staphylococcus genus of bacteria, comprising 84% of all culture-positive infections. Multiple risk factors have been reported for ACL reconstruction, however statistical significance varied across studies. Together, these findings may help guide physicians in the prevention and treatment of infection after ACL reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence, Common Pathogens, and Risk Factors for Infection after Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Schneider,

Ormseth,

DiBartola

et al. 2023

J Knee Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This concept is supported by a current meta-analysis that showed that the objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was significantly better for anatomical ACL reconstructions than for nonanatomical reconstructions [17] and by a systematic review which proved that the osteoarthritis rates after anatomical ACL reconstruction were significantly lower than after nonanatomical ACL reconstruction [18]. However, the double-bundle technique-as a special anatomical reconstruction technique-is not recommended as a standard technique due to the lack of superiority in the long term and the increased risk of complications [19][20][21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Visualising the tunnel position is easier on the tibial side than on the femur, but incorrect positioning of the tunnel also occurs on the tibial side. Therefore, using landmarks is also recommended for tibial tunnel positioning (statements [20][21][22]. Various studies have shown that the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus is a suitable landmark for finding the centre of the tibial insertion; however, the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus does not always indicate the centre of the tibial insertion [25,28,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management after acute injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Part 3: Recommendation on surgical treatment

Häner,

Stoffels,

Guenther

et al. 2024

Knee surg. sports traumatol. arthrosc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim of this consensus project was to give recommendations regarding surgical treatment of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injured patient.MethodsFor this consensus process, an expert, steering and rating group was formed. In an initial online meeting, the steering group, together with the expert group, formed various key topic complexes for which multiple questions were formulated. For each key topic, a structured literature search was performed by the steering group. The results of the literature review were sent to the rating group with the option to give anonymous comments until a final consensus voting was performed. Sufficient consensus was defined as 80% agreement.ResultsDuring this consensus process, 30 topics regarding the surgical management and technique of ACL reconstruction were identified. The literature search for each key question resulted in 30 final statements. Of these 30 final statements, all achieved consensus.ConclusionsThis consensus process has shown that surgical treatment of ACL injury is a complex process. Various surgical factors influence patient outcomes. The proposed treatment algorithm can be used as a decision aid for the surgeon.Level of EvidenceLevel V.

show abstract

“…Manandhar et al 6 reported no clinical differences regarding the range of motion and functional results between early and delayed ACL reconstruction. Mohindra et al 7 found a higher incidence of infection following double-bundle ACL reconstruction, compared to a single-bundle technique.…”

Section: Editorialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three common orthopaedic surgical procedures of the lower limb

Vaishya

Lal

2018

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incidence, management and outcome assessment of post operative infection following single bundle and double bundle acl reconstruction

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Incidence, Common Pathogens, and Risk Factors for Infection after Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Incidence, Common Pathogens, and Risk Factors for Infection after Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Management after acute injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Part 3: Recommendation on surgical treatment

Three common orthopaedic surgical procedures of the lower limb

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About