Subsequent Surgery After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors From a Multicenter Cohort

BackgroundWhile revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR.PurposeTo report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR.Study designCase-control study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsA total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation.ResultsOf the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged <20 years had twice the odds of patients aged 20 to 29 years to undergo a reoperation. The use of an allograft at the time of revision ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P = .007) was a significant predictor for reoperations at 2 years, while staged revision (bone grafting of tunnels before revision ACLR) (OR, 1.93; P = .052) did not reach significance. Patients with grade 4 cartilage damage seen during revision ACLR were 78% less likely to undergo subsequent operations within 2 years. Sex, body mass index, smoking history, Marx activity score, technique for femoral tunnel placement, and meniscal tearing or meniscal treatment at the time of revision ACLR showed no significant effect on the reoperation rate.ConclusionThere was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age <20 years and the use of allograft tissue at the time of revision ACLR

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.HypothesisExperienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.Study designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.MethodsTwenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).ResultsThe 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).ConclusionThis study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction

Biotic rescaling reveals importance of species interactions for variation in biodiversity responses to climate change

Generality in understanding biodiversity responses to climate change has been hampered by substantial variation in the rates and even directions of response to a given change in climate. We propose that such context dependencies can be clarified by rescaling climate gradients in terms of the underlying biological processes, with biotic interactions as a particularly important process. We tested this rescaling approach in a replicated field experiment where entire montane grassland communities were transplanted in the direction of expected temperature and/or precipitation change. In line with earlier work, we found considerable variation across sites in community dynamics in response to climate change. However, these complex context dependencies could be substantially reduced or eliminated by rescaling climate drivers in terms of proxies of plant−plant interactions. Specifically, bryophytes limited colonization by new species into local communities, whereas the cover of those colonists, along with bryophytes, were the primary drivers of local extinctions. These specific interactions are relatively understudied, suggesting important directions for future work in similar systems. More generally, the success of our approach in explaining and simplifying landscape-level variation in climate change responses suggests that developing and testing proxies for relevant underlying processes could be a fruitful direction for building more general models of biodiversity response to climate change