We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Neither Residual Anterior Knee Laxity Up to 6 mm nor a Pivot Glide Predict Patient-Reported Outcome Scores or Subsequent Knee Surgery Between 2 and 6 Years After ACL Reconstruction.
American Journal of Sports Medicine 2021 August
BACKGROUND: A primary goal of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is to reduce pathologically increased anterior and rotational laxity of the knee, but the effects of residual laxity on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ACLR remain unclear.
HYPOTHESIS: Increased residual laxity at 2 years postoperatively is predictive of a higher risk of subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery and decreases in PRO scores from 2 to 6 years after surgery.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: From a prospective multicenter cohort, 433 patients aged <36 years were identified at a minimum 2 years after primary ACLR. These patients underwent a KT-1000 arthrometer assessment and pivot-shift test and completed PRO assessments with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. Patients completed the same PROs at 6 years postoperatively, and any subsequent ipsilateral knee procedures during this period were recorded. Subsequent surgery risk and change in PROs from 2 to 6 years postoperatively were compared based on residual side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer differences (<-1 mm, -1 to 2 mm, 2 to 6 mm, and >6 mm) in laxity at 2 years postoperatively. Multiple linear regression models were built to determine the relationship between 2-year postoperative knee laxity and 2- to 6-year change in PROs while controlling for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, meniscal and cartilage status, and graft type.
RESULTS: A total of 381 patients (87.9%) were available for follow-up 6 years postoperatively. There were no significant differences in risk of subsequent knee surgery based on residual knee laxity. Patients with a difference >6 mm in side-to-side anterior laxity at 2 years postoperatively were noted to have a larger decrease in PROs from 2 to 6 years postoperatively ( P < .05). No significant differences in any PROs were noted among patients with a difference <6 mm in side-to-side anterior laxity or those with pivot glide (IKDC B) versus no pivot shift (IKDC A).
CONCLUSION: The presence of a residual side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer difference <6 mm or pivot glide at 2 years after ACLR is not associated with an increased risk of subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery or decreased PROs up to 6 years after ACLR. Conversely, patients exhibiting a difference >6 mm in side-to-side anterior laxity were noted to have significantly decreased PROs at 6 years after ACLR.
HYPOTHESIS: Increased residual laxity at 2 years postoperatively is predictive of a higher risk of subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery and decreases in PRO scores from 2 to 6 years after surgery.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: From a prospective multicenter cohort, 433 patients aged <36 years were identified at a minimum 2 years after primary ACLR. These patients underwent a KT-1000 arthrometer assessment and pivot-shift test and completed PRO assessments with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. Patients completed the same PROs at 6 years postoperatively, and any subsequent ipsilateral knee procedures during this period were recorded. Subsequent surgery risk and change in PROs from 2 to 6 years postoperatively were compared based on residual side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer differences (<-1 mm, -1 to 2 mm, 2 to 6 mm, and >6 mm) in laxity at 2 years postoperatively. Multiple linear regression models were built to determine the relationship between 2-year postoperative knee laxity and 2- to 6-year change in PROs while controlling for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, meniscal and cartilage status, and graft type.
RESULTS: A total of 381 patients (87.9%) were available for follow-up 6 years postoperatively. There were no significant differences in risk of subsequent knee surgery based on residual knee laxity. Patients with a difference >6 mm in side-to-side anterior laxity at 2 years postoperatively were noted to have a larger decrease in PROs from 2 to 6 years postoperatively ( P < .05). No significant differences in any PROs were noted among patients with a difference <6 mm in side-to-side anterior laxity or those with pivot glide (IKDC B) versus no pivot shift (IKDC A).
CONCLUSION: The presence of a residual side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer difference <6 mm or pivot glide at 2 years after ACLR is not associated with an increased risk of subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery or decreased PROs up to 6 years after ACLR. Conversely, patients exhibiting a difference >6 mm in side-to-side anterior laxity were noted to have significantly decreased PROs at 6 years after ACLR.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app