Similar graft failure rates in low-activity patients (Tegner activity scale ≤ 4) undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with or without lateral extra-articular augmentation.

IF 5
Ali Alayane, Mohamad K Moussa, Maher Ghandour, Mohamad Ayari, Alain Meyer, Olivier Grimaud, Frédéric Khiami, Nicolas Lefèvre, Yoann Bohu, Alexandre Hardy
{"title":"Similar graft failure rates in low-activity patients (Tegner activity scale ≤ 4) undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with or without lateral extra-articular augmentation.","authors":"Ali Alayane, Mohamad K Moussa, Maher Ghandour, Mohamad Ayari, Alain Meyer, Olivier Grimaud, Frédéric Khiami, Nicolas Lefèvre, Yoann Bohu, Alexandre Hardy","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACLR + lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs) at mid-term follow-up in a low activity population based on the Tegner activity scale (TAS ≤ 4).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective analysis comparing patients with a pre-injury TAS ≤ 4 who underwent primary isolated ACLR versus ACLR + LEAPs between 2012 and 2022. Propensity score matching based on age, sex, and presence of meniscal injury was used to establish two groups: ACLR alone and ACLR with LEAP. The primary outcome was the graft failure rate, compared between both groups as diagnosed by clinical instability and radiological rupture of the graft. No formal a priori sample size calculation was performed. Secondary outcomes included return to sport (RTS) metrics and Lysholm score, TAS, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, ACL return to sport after injury scale (ACL-RSI) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at the final follow-up for each patient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the ACLR group, 170 patients were included, while in the ACLR + LEAPs group, 112 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of patients was 30.9 years (standard deviation [SD] = 10.8) for ACLR and 27.8 years (SD = 10.5) for ACLR + LEAP, with similar demographics and injury characteristics across both groups (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up period was 42.74 (34.28) months for the ACLR group and 34.98 (29.32) months for the ACLR + LEAP group. Graft failure rates were similar between groups: 4.2% (6/140) in ACLR versus 5.3% (5/93) in ACLR + LEAP (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in post-operative IKDC scores (ACLR: 73.9 ± 24.5 vs. LEAP: 75.4 ± 22.7), Lysholm scores (86.5 ± 15.1 vs. 88.6 ± 11.0), ACL-RSI scores (55.0 ± 33.4 vs. 58.3 ± 32.9) or KOOS subscales: Pain (88.5 ± 15.2 vs. 90.3 ± 9.1), Symptoms (83.1 ± 17.4 vs. 80.8 ± 15.2), ADL (92.7 ± 13.9 vs. 94.5 ± 8.2), Sport (76.4 ± 25.5 vs. 75.0 ± 22.8) and QoL (72.2 ± 27.4 vs. 72.1 ± 24.6). However, the ACLR + LEAP group showed a greater improvement in activity level, with TAS increasing from 2.8 ± 1.3 to 5.2 ± 2.0, compared to 3.0 ± 1.2 to 4.4 ± 1.9 in the ACLR group (p = 0.004). RTS was achieved by 74.2% of ACLR patients and 77.4% of ACLR + LEAP patients (p > 0.05), with 5.8% vs. 12.6% returning to a higher level than preinjury, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with a low TAS ≤ 4 who underwent isolated ACLR have a similar graft failure rate compared to those who underwent ACLR + LEAPs. This finding should be interpreted with caution, as the study was underpowered. Furthermore, the ACLR + LEAP group achieved a statistically significant, though modest, improvement in post-operative activity level.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, cohort study.</p>","PeriodicalId":520702,"journal":{"name":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.70031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACLR + lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs) at mid-term follow-up in a low activity population based on the Tegner activity scale (TAS ≤ 4).

Methods: This was a retrospective analysis comparing patients with a pre-injury TAS ≤ 4 who underwent primary isolated ACLR versus ACLR + LEAPs between 2012 and 2022. Propensity score matching based on age, sex, and presence of meniscal injury was used to establish two groups: ACLR alone and ACLR with LEAP. The primary outcome was the graft failure rate, compared between both groups as diagnosed by clinical instability and radiological rupture of the graft. No formal a priori sample size calculation was performed. Secondary outcomes included return to sport (RTS) metrics and Lysholm score, TAS, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, ACL return to sport after injury scale (ACL-RSI) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at the final follow-up for each patient.

Results: In the ACLR group, 170 patients were included, while in the ACLR + LEAPs group, 112 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of patients was 30.9 years (standard deviation [SD] = 10.8) for ACLR and 27.8 years (SD = 10.5) for ACLR + LEAP, with similar demographics and injury characteristics across both groups (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up period was 42.74 (34.28) months for the ACLR group and 34.98 (29.32) months for the ACLR + LEAP group. Graft failure rates were similar between groups: 4.2% (6/140) in ACLR versus 5.3% (5/93) in ACLR + LEAP (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in post-operative IKDC scores (ACLR: 73.9 ± 24.5 vs. LEAP: 75.4 ± 22.7), Lysholm scores (86.5 ± 15.1 vs. 88.6 ± 11.0), ACL-RSI scores (55.0 ± 33.4 vs. 58.3 ± 32.9) or KOOS subscales: Pain (88.5 ± 15.2 vs. 90.3 ± 9.1), Symptoms (83.1 ± 17.4 vs. 80.8 ± 15.2), ADL (92.7 ± 13.9 vs. 94.5 ± 8.2), Sport (76.4 ± 25.5 vs. 75.0 ± 22.8) and QoL (72.2 ± 27.4 vs. 72.1 ± 24.6). However, the ACLR + LEAP group showed a greater improvement in activity level, with TAS increasing from 2.8 ± 1.3 to 5.2 ± 2.0, compared to 3.0 ± 1.2 to 4.4 ± 1.9 in the ACLR group (p = 0.004). RTS was achieved by 74.2% of ACLR patients and 77.4% of ACLR + LEAP patients (p > 0.05), with 5.8% vs. 12.6% returning to a higher level than preinjury, respectively.

Conclusion: Patients with a low TAS ≤ 4 who underwent isolated ACLR have a similar graft failure rate compared to those who underwent ACLR + LEAPs. This finding should be interpreted with caution, as the study was underpowered. Furthermore, the ACLR + LEAP group achieved a statistically significant, though modest, improvement in post-operative activity level.

Level of evidence: Level III, cohort study.

低活动患者(Tegner活动量表≤4)行前交叉韧带重建伴或不伴外侧关节外增强术的移植物失败率相似。
目的:比较基于Tegner活动量表(TAS≤4)的低活动人群中期随访中孤立前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)与ACLR +外侧关节外手术(LEAPs)的结果。方法:这是一项回顾性分析,比较2012年至2022年期间接受原发性孤立ACLR和ACLR + LEAPs的损伤前TAS≤4的患者。使用基于年龄、性别和半月板损伤的倾向评分匹配来建立两组:ACLR单独组和ACLR合并LEAP组。主要结局是移植失败率,比较两组之间的临床不稳定性和放射学诊断的移植破裂。没有进行正式的先验样本量计算。次要结局包括每位患者最后随访时的运动恢复(RTS)指标和Lysholm评分、TAS、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分、ACL损伤后运动恢复量表(ACL- rsi)和膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结局评分(oos)。结果:ACLR组170例纳入,ACLR + LEAPs组112例符合纳入标准。ACLR组患者的平均年龄为30.9岁(标准差[SD] = 10.8), ACLR + LEAP组患者的平均年龄为27.8岁(SD = 10.5),两组患者的人口统计学特征和损伤特征相似(p > 0.05)。ACLR组平均随访时间为42.74(34.28)个月,ACLR + LEAP组平均随访时间为34.98(29.32)个月。两组间移植失败率相似:ACLR组为4.2%(6/140),而ACLR + LEAP组为5.3% (5/93)(p < 0.05)。没有观察到显著差异在术后IKDC分数(ACLR: 73.9±24.5 vs飞跃:75.4±22.7),Lysholm得分(86.5±15.1和88.6±11.0),ACL-RSI得分(55.0±33.4和58.3±32.9)或三星分量表:疼痛(88.5±15.2和90.3±9.1),症状(83.1±17.4和80.8±15.2),ADL(92.7±13.9 vs 94.5±8.2)、运动(76.4±25.5和75.0±22.8)和生命质量(72.2±27.4和72.1±24.6)。然而,ACLR + LEAP组在活动水平上表现出更大的改善,TAS从2.8±1.3增加到5.2±2.0,而ACLR组从3.0±1.2增加到4.4±1.9 (p = 0.004)。74.2%的ACLR患者和77.4%的ACLR + LEAP患者达到RTS (p < 0.05),分别有5.8%和12.6%的患者恢复到高于损伤前的水平。结论:低TAS≤4的患者行孤立ACLR与行ACLR + LEAPs的移植失败率相似。这一发现应该谨慎解读,因为这项研究的动力不足。此外,ACLR + LEAP组在术后活动水平上取得了统计学上显著的改善,尽管幅度不大。证据等级:III级,队列研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信