Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Sports Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah Klang, Ministry of Health, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan. light71829@gmail.com
  • 4 Department of Sports Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. pk90007@naver.com
Sci Rep, 2018 06 15;8(1):9186.
PMID: 29907841 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-27595-8

Abstract

Comparing to primary surgery, revision ACL reconstruction is more technically demanding and has a higher failure rate. Theoretically, rehabilitation can improve knee function after ACL reconstruction surgery. This study aimed to compare knee stability, strength, and function between primary and revision ACL reconstructed knees. 40 primary and 40 revision ACL reconstruction surgeries were included between April 2013 and May 2016. Patients with revision surgery had a higher anteroposterior translation comparing those with primary reconstruction (median laxity, 2.0 mm vs. 3.0 mm, p = 0.0022). No differences were noted in knee extensor at 60°/sec or 180°/sec (p = 0.308, p = 0.931, respectively) or in flexor muscle strength at 60°/sec or 180°/sec between primary and revision ACL reconstruction knees (p = 0.091, p = 0.343, respectively). There were also no significant differences between functional scores including IKDC score and Lysholm score in primary versus revision surgeries at 12th months after index operation (p = 0.154, p = 0.324, respectively). In conclusion, despite having higher anteroposterior instability, patients with revision ACL reconstruction can have non-inferior outcomes in isokinetic knee strength and function compared to those with primary ACL reconstruction after proper rehabilitation.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.