Next Article in Journal
Neurostimulation in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials—Part I: Pharyngeal and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation
Next Article in Special Issue
Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment: A Prospective Clinical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Term Follow-Up of Fractional CO2 Laser Therapy for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause in Breast Cancer Survivors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Predictors of Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 3
10.3390/jcm11030775
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Osteoarthritis Progression after ACL Reconstruction Was Significantly Higher Than That of the Healthy Contralateral Knees: Long-Term Follow Up Study of Mean 16.4 Years

by
Ali Zadehmohammad
1,2,*,
Johannes Grillari
2,
Vlado Stevanovic
3,
Georg Brandl
4,
Lukas Ernstbrunner
5,6,7 and
Thomas Hoffelner
1,4
1
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Paracelsus Medical University Hospital, Strubergasse 21, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
2
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Donaueschingerstraße 13, 1200 Vienna, Austria
3
Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Hospital, Muellner Hauptstraße 48, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
4
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Vincent Shoulder & Sports Clinic, Baumgasse 20A, 1030 Vienna, Austria
5
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
6
Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, Windsor, VIC 3181, Australia
7
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(3), 775; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030775
Submission received: 30 November 2021 / Revised: 24 January 2022 / Accepted: 29 January 2022 / Published: 31 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies for the Prevention of Knee Osteoarthritis)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: This study aimed to assess long-term progression of osteoarthritis (OA) after isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in athletes compared to the healthy contralateral side. Methods: The study included 15 patients and 30 knees with a mean age of 40 years (range, 35–46) years, none of whom had had revision surgery or an injury to the contralateral side. The mean follow-up period was 16.4 years (range, 13–22). Clinical and radiographic assessment included the Tegner activity scale (TAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade. The long-term results of the injured knees were compared with the status of the healthy contralateral side and compared with previously published mid-term results of the same cohort of patients. Results: Patients generally remained clinically asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic at final follow-up, which is reflected by a KOOS pain score of 33 points (maximum 36 points) and an IKDC total subjective score of 87% (maximum 100%). There was a significant difference between mid-term and final follow-up in terms of the function score of the IKDC subjective questionnaire (p = 0.031), compartment findings and donor site morbidity of the IKDC functional examination (both p = 0.034), and the total KOOS score (p = 0.047). The KL score indicated significant progression of OA from mid-term to final follow-up in the injured knees (p = 0.004) and healthy contralateral knees (p = 0.014). Mean OA grades of the injured knees were significantly higher compared with the healthy contralateral side (p = 0.006) at final follow-up, and two patients showed moderate to severe signs of OA in the injured knee. Conclusions: Although most patients remained clinically asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, long-term progression of OA after isolated ACL reconstruction in athletes was significantly higher compared with the healthy contralateral knee.

1. Introduction

Non-operative management of torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) can be associated with the development of osteoarthritis (OA) [1], especially when there are concomitant meniscal or multiligament injuries [2], and they are more frequently observed as long-term sequelae in athletes [3,4]. There is an ongoing debate about whether the risk of developing OA in conservatively treated ACL tears is higher than after ACL reconstruction due to the resulting rotational instability, which can lead to higher meniscal and cartilage shear forces [5,6,7].
The current recommendation for isolated ACL injuries favors surgical management in athletes [8]. Whether ACL reconstruction for an isolated injury can alter the development and progression of OA in athletes is debatable [9], as certain long-term studies reported a delay in the degenerative process [10,11], whereas other long-term studies showed a progression of OA [12,13]. Our initial results of isolated ACL reconstruction in athletes after a mean of 7.8 years showed no significant increase in OA in the injured knee compared to the uninjured knee [3]. Whether these results remain stable over a longer-term period is uncertain. Hence, the purpose of this study was to assess the long-term progression of OA in the same cohort of athletes following ACL reconstruction for an isolated injury and to compare it to our mid-term results, as well as to the uninjured contralateral knee. We hypothesized that OA does not significantly increase over a 16-year observational period and that the rate of OA in injured knees is not significantly different compared with uninjured knees.

2. Materials and Methods

Between 1995 and 2005, 28 athletes underwent ACL reconstruction for an isolated injury performed by two experienced orthopedic surgeons. Grafts used were either a bone−patellar tendon−bone (BPTB) graft or a hamstring tendon (HT) graft. Only patients without revision surgery, additional injuries such as meniscal tears and an uninjured contralateral knee were included in this study. At final follow-up, of the initial 28 patients [3], seven (25%) had revision surgery, and four (14%) were diagnosed with meniscal injuries in the uninjured knee. Two patients (7%) were lost to follow-up.
Therefore, the study cohort consisted of 15 athletes (nine men (60%) and six women) with a mean age of 40 (range = 35–46) years. The mean follow-up period was 16.4 (range = 13–22) years. The clinical and radiographic results were compared to our previous results at a mean follow-up of 7.8 (range = 4–13) years [3].
Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Salzburg (date: 24 February 2017/no. 415-E/2124/4-2017), and all included patients gave their consent for this study.

2.1. Surgical Technique

All 15 patients had undergone arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction, six with a BPTB graft and nine with an HT graft (double-looped single-bundle) (Table 1). Under general anesthesia, the Lachman, anterior drawer, and pivot-shift tests were used to confirm the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based diagnosis of an ACL tear. ACL reconstruction was performed according to the surgical technique described by Hoffelner et al. [3]. The tibial tunnel was positioned in the medium range of the intercondylar area between the medial and lateral tubercle by use of a tibial tunnel guiding device (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). The femoral tunnel was drilled through the tibial tunnel with the knee flexed at 90° by use of a transtibial femoral guiding device (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). The femoral screw was placed on the lateral femoral condyle at the 10- to 11-o’clock position in the right knee and the 1- to 2-o’clock position in the left knee.
For the hamstrings, femoral fixation was performed with the EndoButton device (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA, USA). Tibial fixation was carried out with a bioabsorbable interference screw (BIORCI Interference Screw; Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA, USA).
For the patellar tendon, a standard BPTB autograft was harvested from the ipsilateral side of the knee. Femoral fixation was performed with the RigidFix femoral fixation device (DePuy Mitek, Raynham, MA, USA). For tibial fixation, an interference screw was used [3].

2.2. Clinical and Radiographic Assessment

One examiner (AZ) performed the clinical assessment, which included a functional investigation according to International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) guidelines [14], an IKDC questionnaire for assessing subjective outcomes, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) [15], and sports activity level using the Tegner activity scale (TAS) [16]. As part of the IKDC guided functional examination, the single legged hop test [17] and the knee walking test for evaluation of donor site morbidity [18] were conducted. According to the IKDC, the Lachman and pivot shift test were performed and included in the group grading. The percentage of attained scores in the IKDC questionnaire for assessing subjective outcome was declared as total IKDC % [14].
Joint space narrowing in the injured and uninjured knees was radiographically evaluated using weight-bearing anteroposterior Rosenberg comparative views [19]. The Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) scoring system was used to assess OA [20]. This grading system has a maximum attainable score of 4 points: 0 = no sign of OA; 1 = slight narrowing of joint space and possible osteophytic lipping; 2 = definite osteophytes and joint space narrowing; 3 = multiple osteophytes, definite joint space narrowing, slight sclerosis and possible deformities of bone contour; and 4 = large osteophytes, severe joint space narrowing and sclerosis as well as definite deformity of bone contour [20]. Following, 3T MR (Philips Achieva; Philips Medical Systems, Andover, MA, USA) images of both knees were obtained. The 3D water-selective cartilage (WATS-c) scan sequence (slice thickness = 1 mm) was used to for calculation of the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) scoring system [21] to enable comparison with our previous results [3]. Imaging analyses of bone cysts, osteophytes and lesions to the posterior horn of the medial meniscus were also conducted.
Two of the authors (A.Z. and V.S.), who were blinded to clinical and radiographic results, analyzed the images and reached a consensus.

2.3. Statistics

Normal distribution was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test. A paired comparison using the t test (normal data) and the Wilcoxon signed rank test (non-normal data) was conducted to find significant differences between our previous (mid-term) and current long-term results of the injured knee, as well as between the injured and uninjured knee at final follow-up. The α level was set to 0.05, and all p values were two-tailed.

3. Results

3.1. Clinical Assessment

Patients remained clinically asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic at final follow-up, which is reflected by a KOOS for pain score of 33 points (maximum 36 points) and an IKDC total subjective score of 87% (maximum 100%). There was a significant difference between mid-term and final follow-up in terms of the function score of the IKDC subjective questionnaire (p = 0.031), compartment findings and donor site morbidity of the IKDC functional examination (both p = 0.034), and the total KOOS score (p = 0.047). All other clinical outcome measures showed no significant differences comparing the mid-term results with the results at final follow-up (Table 2).
When compared to the healthy contralateral side, the IKDC functional examination of the injured knee showed that 13 patients (86.7%) had a normal range of motion, and two patients (13.3%) showed nearly normal motion. In the one-leg hop test, 12 patients (80.0%) jumped on the injured leg to a height that was ≥90% of the height reached on the contralateral leg, while the other three patients (20.0%) were able to hop to a height 76–89% of the height reached on the contralateral leg. When performing the knee walking test for donor side morbidity, six patients (40%) reported a normal sensation, five (33.3%) reported being uncomfortable, and four (26.7%) found it difficult. Patients who received a BPTB graft seemed to have more symptoms while performing activities of daily living based on the KOOS subscore versus patients who received an HT graft (p = 0.027), but there were no significant differences in other clinical outcome scores between the two groups.

3.2. Radiographic Assessment

At final follow-up, the KL score indicated mild OA (grade 2) in three injured knees (20.0%) and in one uninjured knee (6.7%). Moderate OA (grade 3) was seen in the injured knee of one patient (6.7%), while severe OA (grade 4) was also detected in one injured knee (6.7%). No radiographic signs of OA were observed in the remaining 10 injured knees and in the remaining 14 uninjured knees. Overall, the mean OA grades of the injured knees were significantly higher compared with the uninjured knees (p = 0.006). Compared with the KL scores at mid-term follow-up, both the injured and uninjured knees showed significant progression of OA at final follow-up (injured, p = 0.004; uninjured, p = 0.014). This significant progression of OA over time in the injured knees was also confirmed by the MR-based assessment using the guidelines of the ICRS (p = 0.013), but it showed no significant progression of OA in the uninjured knee (Table 3).
When comparing OA of the injured versus the uninjured knees at final follow-up, the KL score revealed significantly higher OA grades in the injured knees (1.3 ± 1.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.6; p = 0.006) and a tendency toward higher OA grades in the injured knees based on the ICRS guidelines (1.9 ± 1.5 vs. 1.3 ± 1.4; p = 0.055).

4. Discussion

The main finding of this study is that long-term progression of OA after isolated ACL reconstruction in athletes was significantly higher compared with the healthy contralateral knee, which refuted our second hypothesis that the rate of OA in injured knees is not significantly different compared with uninjured knees in athletes undergoing ACL reconstruction for an isolated injury. In addition, our second hypothesis had to be refuted, as there was significant long-term progression of OA after isolated ACL reconstruction, although a similar progression was also observed in the uninjured knees. Besides this clear radiographic progression of OA and more pronounced OA in the injured knee at long-term follow-up, most patients remained clinically asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.
Current long-term studies report controversial clinical and radiographic outcomes after ACL reconstruction. Some studies reported a delay in OA progression after surgery [1,11,22]. Kvist et al. [1] followed 153 patients, including athletes and non-athletes, who had an ACL tear and received either conservative or surgical treatment. Patients allocated to early surgery had lower rates of OA after 32 to 37 years compared to patients treated conservatively. However, patients had similar clinical outcomes in both treatment groups. This is in contrast to other studies that suggested an increase in the degenerative process after ACL reconstruction over time [23] or compared to conservative treatment [24,25]. Kessler et al. [24] evaluated 109 patients treated conservatively or surgically, and patients who received ACL reconstruction showed more pronounced radiographic signs of OA after 11 years as compared to the ACL-deficient group. In addition, the clinical outcome according to the IKDC score was better in the conservatively managed group. There are clear differences in our results compared to these studies, such as they did not focus on isolated injuries to the ACL, nor were only athletes included. We also did not compare our results to a non-operatively treated group, but similar to some of the previous studies, besides the observed significant progression of OA in the surgically treated knee versus the healthy contralateral side, subjective clinical outcome was good at final follow-up. It remains unclear whether the observed radiographic deterioration over time is prodromal for a transition from mildly symptomatic to clinically relevant OA in the ACL reconstructed knees regarding the future.
Similar to our study, Holm et al. [26] examined the differences between the KL scores of the ACL reconstructed and uninjured knee and obtained results comparable to ours: a higher incidence of OA in the injured knee. Although cartilage degeneration is a physiological process of aging, multiple factors have been shown to be associated with acceleration of this process. Such factors include age, sex, obesity, genetics, occupation, and trauma [27]. It is also known that athletes involved in intense and strenuous activities are more likely to be affected by OA, particularly in the knee [28,29,30,31]. ACL reconstruction has not been shown to prevent OA directly, but it is considered to play a major role in restoring rotational stability, thus preventing further injury to the knee joint, which would promote degenerative processes [32]. After a 10-year period, the risk of developing OA may be reduced by initial ACL surgery [22]. However, the surgical procedure itself may also play a role in enhancing OA in the knee joint even in minimally invasive arthroscopy.
Selecting young patients for this study was crucial for evaluating OA outcome parameters because patients under 35 years of age are at a higher risk of developing OA after ACL injury [33]. The population of our study may show a higher rate of radiographic signs of OA in both knees as they get older because of the natural ongoing degenerative processes in the knee joint. The natural course of OA in the knee is significantly influenced by repetitive, high-impact activity. Hence, an increase in the degenerative process in both knees of this patient group according to the KL scores appears logical.
Considering that clinical symptoms such as pain are important in diagnosing OA in the knee, our patient group had a satisfactory clinical outcome after a mean of 16.4 years after isolated ACL reconstruction. Tesarz et al. [28] performed a systematic review of 15 articles and concluded that athletes had a significantly higher level of pain tolerance than did normally active controls. This conclusion might be important when interpreting results and correlating them with degenerative changes. Pinczewski et al. [34] concluded that the radiographic signs of OA in their study population were subclinical after ten years. Their patients were highly active at the time of injury. The subjective results of Pinczewski et al. appeared comparable to those of our patient group.
Although all available patients were included in this study, there are inevitable limitations associated with this retrospective design, such as limited power. Notwithstanding, a power calculation was omitted in this study, as post hoc power analysis is an inappropriate tool for power estimates [35,36]. In addition, no baseline imaging or clinical assessment was performed before the injury and surgery, although cartilage abnormalities in this healthy and previously pain-free population would have been unlikely.

5. Conclusions

Although most patients remained clinically asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, long-term progression of OA after isolated ACL reconstruction in athletes was significantly higher compared with the healthy contralateral knee.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Z., L.E. and T.H.; data curation, A.Z. and L.E.; formal analysis, A.Z., V.S. and L.E.; funding acquisition, J.G.; investigation, A.Z. and V.S.; methodology, A.Z. and L.E.; project administration, A.Z. and T.H.; resources, J.G. and T.H.; software, V.S. and L.E.; supervision, J.G., G.B., L.E. and T.H.; validation, G.B., L.E. and T.H.; visualization, V.S.; writing—original draft, A.Z.; writing—review and editing, L.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Salzburg (protocol code: 415-E/2124/4-2017; date of approval: 24 February 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mark McCoy, for enabling the radiographic assessment at the department of radiology of the Christian Doppler clinic in Salzburg. We also appreciate the contributions of Juergen Steinbacher and Markus Schober and his team, who performed all the imaging.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kvist, J.; Filbay, S.; Hons, B. Radiographic and Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis 32 to 37 Years After Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture. Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 2387–2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ruano, J.S.; Sitler, M.R.; Driban, J.B. Prevalence of Radiographic Knee Osteoarthritis After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, With or Without Meniscectomy: An Evidence-Based Practice Article. J. Athl. Train. 2017, 52, 606–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Hoffelner, T.; Resch, H.; Moroder, P.; Atzwanger, J.; Wiplinger, M.; Hitzl, W.; Tauber, M. No increased occurrence of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after isolated anterior cruciate ligament injury in athletes. Arthrosc. J. Arthrosc. Relat. Surg. 2012, 28, 517–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Louboutin, H.; Debarge, R.; Richou, J.; Selmi, T.A.S.; Donell, S.T.; Neyret, P.; Dubrana, F. Osteoarthritis in patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture: A review of risk factors. Knee 2009, 16, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lording, T.; Corbo, G.; Bryant, D.; Burkhart, T.A.; Getgood, A. Rotational Laxity Control by the Anterolateral Ligament and the Lateral Meniscus Is Dependent on Knee Flexion Angle: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017, 475, 2401–2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Keays, S.L.; Sayers, M.; Mellifont, D.B.; Richardson, C. Tibial displacement and rotation during seated knee extension and wall squatting: A comparative study of tibiofemoral kinematics between chronic unilateral anterior cruciate ligament deficient and healthy knees. Knee 2013, 20, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moewis, P.; Duda, G.N.; Jung, T.; Heller, M.O.; Boeth, H.; Kaptein, B.; Taylor, W.R. The restoration of passive rotational tibio-femoral laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Musahl, V.; Karlsson, J. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 2341–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Luc, B.; Gribble, P.A.; Pietrosimone, B.G. Osteoarthritis prevalence following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and numbers-needed-to-treat analysis. J. Athl. Train. 2014, 49, 806–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Barenius, B.; Ponzer, S.; Shalabi, A.; Bujak, R.; Norlén, L.; Eriksson, K. Increased risk of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A 14-year follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 2014, 42, 1049–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lohmander, L.S.; Englund, P.M.; Dahl, L.L.; Roos, E.M. The long-term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: Osteoarthritis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2007, 35, 1756–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Grassi, A.; Pizza, N.; Al-Zu’Bi, B.B.H.; Fabbro, G.D.; Lucidi, G.A.; Zaffagnini, S. Clinical Outcomes and Osteoarthritis at Very Long-term Follow-up After ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Orthop. J. Sport Med. 2022, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Webster, K.E.; Hewett, T.E. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and Knee Osteoarthritis: An Umbrella Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2021. online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Irrgang, J.J.; Anderson, A.F.; Boland, A.L.; Harner, C.D.; Kurosaka, M.; Neyret, P.; Richmond, J.C.; Shelborne, K.D. Development and Validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am. J. Sports Med. 2001, 29, 600–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Øiestad, B.E.; Engebretsen, L.; Storheim, K.; Risberg, M.A. Knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury: A systematic review. Am. J. Sports Med. 2009, 37, 1434–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Tegner, Y.; Lysholm, J. Rating Systems in the Evaluation of Knee Ligament Injuries. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1985, 198, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Noyes, F.R.; Barber, S.D.; Mangine, R.E. Abnormal lower limb symmetry determined by function hop tests after ACL rupture. Am. J. Sports Med. 1991, 19, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kartus, J.; Stener, S.; Lindahl, S.; Engström, B.; Eriksson, B.I.; Karlsson, J. Factors affecting donor-site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts. Knee Surg. Sport Traumatol. Arthrosc. 1997, 5, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rosenberg, T.D.; Paulos, L.E.; Parker, R.D.; Coward, D.B.; Scott, S.M. The Forty-five-DegreePosteroanterior Flexion Weight-Bearing Radiograph of the Knee. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1988, 70, 1479–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kellgren, J.H.; Lawrence, J.S. Radiolocigal assessment of osteoarthrosis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 1957, 16, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ho, Y.Y.; Stanley, A.J.; Hui, J.H.-P.; Wang, S.-C. Postoperative Evaluation of the Knee after Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation: What Radiologists Need to Know. RadioGraphics 2007, 27, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Ajuied, A.; Wong, F.; Smith, C.; Norris, M.; Earnshaw, P.; Back, D.; Davies, A. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and Radiologic Progression of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2014, 42, 2242–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Cinque, M.E.; Dornan, G.J.; Chahla, J.; Moatshe, G.; Laprade, R.F. High Rates of Osteoarthritis Develop After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery: An Analysis of 4108 Patients. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 2011–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kessler, M.A.; Behrend, H.; Henz, S.; Stutz, G.; Rukavina, A.; Kuster, M.S. Function, osteoarthritis and activity after ACL-rupture: 11 Years follow-up results of conservative versus reconstructive treatment. Knee Surg. Sport Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2008, 16, 442–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Daniel, D.M.; Stone, M.L.; Dobson, B.E.; Fithian, D.C.; Rossman, D.J.; Kaufman, K. Fate of the ACL-injured Patient A Prospective Outcome Study. Am. Orthop. Soc. Sport Med. 1984, 22, 632–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Holm, I.; Øiestad, B.E.; Risberg, M.A.; Aune, A.K. No Difference in Knee Function or Prevalence of Osteoarthritis After Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament With 4-Strand Hamstring Autograft Versus Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft. Am. J. Sports Med. 2010, 38, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ashkavand, Z.; Malekinejad, H.; Vishwanath, B.S. The pathophysiology of osteoarthritis. J. Pharm. Res. 2013, 7, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tesarz, J.; Schuster, A.K.; Hartmann, M.; Gerhardt, A.; Eich, W. Pain perception in athletes compared to normally active controls: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Pain 2012, 153, 1253–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Thornton, C.; Sheffield, D.; Baird, A. Observational study A longitudinal exploration of pain tolerance and participation in contact sports. Scand. J. Pain 2017, 16., 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Driban, J.B.; Hootman, J.M.; Sitler, M.R.; Harris, K.; Cattano, N.M. Is Participation in Certain Sports Associated With Knee Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review. J. Athl. Train. 2007, 52, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arliani, G.G.; Astur, D.C.; Yamada, R.K.F.; Yamada, A.F.; Miyashita, G.K.; Mandelbaum, B.; Cohen, M. Early osteoarthritis and reduced quality of life after retirement in former professional soccer players. Clinics 2014, 69, 589–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cheung, E.C.; Dilallo, M.; Feeley, B.T.; Lansdown, D.A. Osteoarthritis and ACL Reconstruction—Myths and Risks. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2020, 13, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Snoeker, B.; Turkiewicz, A.; Magnusson, K.; Frobell, R.; Yu, D.; Peat, G.; Englund, M. Risk of knee osteoarthritis after different types of knee injuries in young adults: A population-based cohort study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 725–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Pinczewski, L.A.; Lyman, J.; Salmon, L.J.; Russell, V.J.; Roe, J.; Linklater, J. A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: A controlled, prospective trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 2007, 35, 564–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hoenig, J.M.; Heisey, D.M. The Abuse of Power. Am. Stat. 2001, 55, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mumford, J.A. A power calculation guide for FMRI studies. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2012, 7, 738–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table
Table 1. Demographic data of athletes separated by graft type.
Table 1. Demographic data of athletes separated by graft type.
Patient CharacteristicsBPTBHT
Number of patients69
Age in years (mean ± SD)40 ± 3.3741 ± 4
Number of soccer players64
Number of skiers05
Years of follow-up (mean ± SD)18.3 ± 215.1 ± 2.7
Body mass index (mean ± SD)25.6 ± 3.725.9 ± 3.4
BPTB, none–patellar tendon–bone; HT, hamstring tendon.
Table
Table 2. Clinical and radiographic outcome at mid-term and final follow-up.
Table 2. Clinical and radiographic outcome at mid-term and final follow-up.
Variable †Mid-Term FUFinal FUp (Mid-Term vs. Final FU)
TAS, points6.1 ± 1.85.3 ± 1.20.183
IKDC function, points
Effusion00.3 ± 0.70.157
Motion deficit0.1 ± 0.30.1 ± 0.40.564
Compartment findings0.1 ± 0.30.5 ± 0.70.034 1
Harvest site pathology0.2 ± 0.40.6 ± 0.50.034 1
One leg hop test0.3 ± 0.50.2 ± 0.40.317
IKDC subjective, points
Symptoms30.7 ± 5.430.9 ± 5.80.487
Sports and recreation36.7 ± 3.736.7 ± 3.21.000
Function9.2 ± 1.48.4 ± 2.00.031 1
IKDC total, percentage88.1 ± 11.387.3 ± 11.40.733
KOOS, points
Symptoms23.7 ± 3.821.9 ± 50.145
Pain34 ± 3.432.9 ± 4.20.322
ADL67 ± 2.166 ± 2.70.169
Sport/Rec17.5 ± 4.516.1 ± 4.40.108
QoL13.4 ± 312.7 ± 2.70.227
KOOS total, percentage92.6 ± 8.689.1± 9.50.047 1
FU, follow-up; TAS, Tegner Activity Scale; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; KOOS, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; ADL, activities of daily living; Sport/Rec, sports and recreation; QoL, quality of life. † Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. 1 Significant result (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Radiographic outcome at mid-term and final follow-up.
Table 3. Radiographic outcome at mid-term and final follow-up.
Variable †Mid-Term FUFinal FUp (Mid-Term vs. Final FU)
KL score injured, points0.4 ± 0.61.3 ± 1.10.004 1
KL score uninjured, points0.2 ± 0.60.6 ± 0.60.014 1
ICRS injured, points1.1 ± 1.71.9 ± 1.50.013 1
ICRS uninjured, points1.1 ± 1.41.3 ± 1.40.164
FU, follow-up; KL, Kellgren and Lawrence; ICRS, International Cartilage Repair Society. † Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. 1 Significant result (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zadehmohammad, A.; Grillari, J.; Stevanovic, V.; Brandl, G.; Ernstbrunner, L.; Hoffelner, T. Osteoarthritis Progression after ACL Reconstruction Was Significantly Higher Than That of the Healthy Contralateral Knees: Long-Term Follow Up Study of Mean 16.4 Years. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030775

AMA Style

Zadehmohammad A, Grillari J, Stevanovic V, Brandl G, Ernstbrunner L, Hoffelner T. Osteoarthritis Progression after ACL Reconstruction Was Significantly Higher Than That of the Healthy Contralateral Knees: Long-Term Follow Up Study of Mean 16.4 Years. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(3):775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030775

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zadehmohammad, Ali, Johannes Grillari, Vlado Stevanovic, Georg Brandl, Lukas Ernstbrunner, and Thomas Hoffelner. 2022. "Osteoarthritis Progression after ACL Reconstruction Was Significantly Higher Than That of the Healthy Contralateral Knees: Long-Term Follow Up Study of Mean 16.4 Years" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 3: 775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030775

APA Style

Zadehmohammad, A., Grillari, J., Stevanovic, V., Brandl, G., Ernstbrunner, L., & Hoffelner, T. (2022). Osteoarthritis Progression after ACL Reconstruction Was Significantly Higher Than That of the Healthy Contralateral Knees: Long-Term Follow Up Study of Mean 16.4 Years. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(3), 775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030775

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop