Purpose

The goal of this paper is to compare patient factors, intra-operative findings, and surgical techniques between patients followed in large cohorts in France, Norway, and North America.

Methods

Data collected on 2,286 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) were obtained. These data included 1,216 patients enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) in North America, 793 patients undergoing revision ACLR and recorded in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR), and 277 patients recorded in the revision ACL database of the Société Française d'Arthroscopie (SFA) in France. Data collected from each database included patient demographics (age, sex, height, and weight), graft choice and reason for failure of the primary ACLR, time from primary to revision ACLR, pre-revision patient-reported outcome scores (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee), associated intra-articular findings and treatments at revision, and graft choice for revision reconstruction.

Results

Patient demographics in the three databases were relatively similar. Graft choice for primary and revision ACLR varied significantly, with more allografts used in the MARS cohort. Hamstring autograft was favoured in the NKRL, while bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft was most common in the SFA cohort. Reasons for failure of the primary ACLR were comparable, with recurrent trauma noted in 46-56 % of patients in each of the three cohorts. Technical error was cited in 44-51 % of patients in the MARS and SFA cohorts, but was not clearly elucidated in the NKLR cohort. Biologic failure of the primary graft was more common in the MARS cohort. Differences in associated intra-articular findings were noted at the time of revision ACLR, with significantly more high-grade cartilage lesions noted in the MARS group.

Conclusions

Significant differences exist between patient populations followed in revision ACL cohorts throughout the world that should be considered when applying findings from such cohorts to different patient populations.

Level of evidence

Retrospective comparative study, Level III.