This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the activity for this article: CME 2: April, May, June 2006 (publication date July 5, 2006; expiration dat... [Supplementary Material] Letters to the Editor: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Drogset, J. O. Articles by Engebretsen, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Drogset, J. O. Articles by Engebretsen, L. Related Collections Sports Social Bookmarking             What's this?

A Sixteen-Year Follow-up of Three Operative Techniques for the Treatment of Acute Ruptures of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

¹ Department of Orthopedics, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, 7006 Trondheim, Norway. E-mail address for J.O. Drogset: jon.o.drogset{at}medisin.ntnu.no. E-mail address for T. Grøndvedt: torbjorn.grontvedt{at}medisin.ntnu.no. E-mail address for A.T. Viset: annja.viset{at}stolav.no
² Department of Orthopedics, Aker University Hospital HF, 0514 Oslo, Norway. E-mail address: sega-s{at}online.no
³ Department of Orthopedics, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Liesvei 65, N-5021 Bergen, Norway. E-mail address: anders.moelster{at}haukeland.no
⁴ Department of Orthopedics, Ullevaal University Hospital, 0407 Oslo, Norway. E-mail address: lars.engebretsen{at}ioks.uio.no

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopedics, University Hospital in Trondheim, Trondheim, the Department of Orthopedics, Aker University Hospital, Oslo, and the Department of Orthopedics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Methods: This is the third report on a group of patients who were randomized to the three different procedures between 1986 and 1988. There were fifty patients in each group. The patients were evaluated prospectively at one, two, five, and sixteen years with use of the Tegner activity score and the Lysholm functional score. Stability of the knee was assessed with clinical examination and with use of the KT-1000 arthrometer.

Results: One hundred and twenty-nine (88%) of the 147 patients who were available for follow-up completed the study. Eleven patients (24%) who had a primary repair, four patients (10%) who had repair with a ligament augmentation device, and one patient (2%) who had augmentation with autologous bone-patellar tendon-bone graft underwent anterior cruciate ligament revisions between the primary operation and the sixteen-year follow-up examination. The rate of revision was ten times higher in the group that had primary repair than in the group that had repair with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (p = 0.003). In the remaining patients, those who had repair with a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft had significantly more stable knees than those who had repair with a ligament augmentation device, as measured by the Lachman test (p = 0.026). Nine (11%) of the eighty-five patients for whom data were available had osteoarthritis in the primarily reconstructed knee, and three patients (3.5%) had osteoarthritis in the contralateral knee at sixteen years (p = 0.001); no difference was noted among the three groups. The mean Lysholm score at sixteen years was 88 points for the knees that had primary repair, 85 points for those that had repair with the ligament augmentation device, and 90 points for those managed with a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (p = 0.286).

Conclusions: At long-term (sixteen-year) follow-up, the rate of revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery is much higher following primary repair than after primary repair augmented by a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. It can be expected that approximately 10% of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction acutely will have osteoarthritis develop in the reconstructed knee. We no longer perform any of these surgical techniques as open procedures.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Lebel, C. Hulet, B. Galaud, G. Burdin, B. Locker, and C. Vielpeau Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Using Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-up Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2008; 36(7): 1275 - 1282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. S. Lohmander, P. M. Englund, L. L. Dahl, and E. M. Roos The Long-term Consequence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Meniscus Injuries: Osteoarthritis Am. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2007; 35(10): 1756 - 1769. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Evidence based journal watch Br. J. Sports Med., March 1, 2007; 41(3): 185 - 186. [Full Text] [PDF]

Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press (TM) assists in the publication of JBJS Online.
Copyright © 2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. Online ISSN: 1535-1386.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery®, JBJS®, JB&JS®, and eJBJS® are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.