Retrospective study of patients treated with anterior cruciate ligament (acl) revision from 2001 to 2007 at a university referral clinic. KOOS, Tegner and SANE subjective scores, KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and registration of reoperations and complications. SANE global score (0-100) was 74 at follow-up; KOOS sub-scores were 66, 69, 77, 42 and 39 for pain, symptoms, activity of daily living,
Retrospective study of patients treated with anterior cruciate ligament (acl) revision from 2001 to 2007 at a university referral clinic. KOOS, Tegner and SANE subjective scores, KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and registration of reoperations and complications. SANE global score (0-100) was 74 at follow-up; KOOS sub-scores were 66, 69, 77, 42 and 39 for pain, symptoms, activity of daily living,
Retrospective study of patients treated with anterior cruciate ligament (acl) revision from 2001 to 2007 at a university referral clinic. KOOS, Tegner and SANE subjective scores, KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and registration of reoperations and complications. SANE global score (0-100) was 74 at follow-up; KOOS sub-scores were 66, 69, 77, 42 and 39 for pain, symptoms, activity of daily living,
Svend Erik Christiansen Received: 12 March 2011 / Accepted: 14 July 2011 / Published online: 29 July 2011 Springer-Verlag 2011 Abstract Purpose The aim of the present study is to present epi- demiology and clinical outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with an interme- diate follow-up time of up to 9 years. Methods A retrospective study of patients treated with ACL revision from 2001 to 2007 at a university referral clinic was conducted. Study follow-up was performed in 2010; this follow-up included objective IKDC scores, KOOS, Tegner and SANE subjective scores, KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and registration of reoperations and complications. Results One hundred and twenty-eight patients were available for follow-up. Median follow-up time was 6 (29) years. Mean age was 32 years, 50% were men. Eleven percent required staged procedures, 30% were reconstructed with allograft tendons and 23% had collateral ligament reconstruction in combination with the ACL revision. SANE knee global score (0100) was 74 at fol- low-up, KOOS sub-scores were preoperatively 66, 69, 77, 42 and 39 for pain, symptoms, activity of daily living, sports and quality of life, respectively. At follow-up, scores were 70, 76, 81, 50 and 50, respectively. Sport and quality of life scores increased signicantly. KT-1000 was 6.2 mm preoperatively and 2.5 at follow-up (P\0.05). Six percent were re-revised and 2 patients had total knee replacements. Conclusion Despite objective ndings of acceptable sagittal knee stability at follow-up, subjective outcome scores indicate signicant knee impairment with low scores in sport and quality of life. A re-revision rate of 6% after 6 years is acceptable. It is imperative that patients eligible for ACL revision receive proper counseling in terms of outcome expectancies. Level of evidence Retrospective case series, Level IV. Keywords Revision ACL Retrospective case study KOOS ACL failure Introduction Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in order to restore knee stability in young active patients is increasingly performed. Incidence of surgery in the age group most prone to ACL injuries (1540 years) is 85/100,000 [6]. Overall incidence in Western nations is approximately 40/100,000, resulting in more than 250,000 ACL reconstructions performed yearly in Europe and the United States alone. As established denitions of failure have not yet been determined, outcome of ACL recon- struction is at present not extensively described. Failed ACL reconstruction can ultimately necessitate ACL revision reconstruction. However, indications for ACL revision are not clearly dened, and certainly not all patients with poor outcome after ACL reconstruction will require an ACL revision nor will they benet from such a procedure. While the exact incidence of ACL reconstruction failure leading to ACL revision is unknown, data from national registries has demonstrated both that 10% of all ACL reconstruction procedures are revision procedures and that ACL revision is performed in less than 5% of all knee ligament reconstructions within the rst 2 postoperative M. Lind (&) B. Lund P. Faun S. Said L. L. Miller S. E. Christiansen Division of Sports Trauma, Orthopedic Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage Hansensgade 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark e-mail: Martinlind@dadlnet.dk 1 3 Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20:166172 DOI 10.1007/s00167-011-1629-3 years [15]. Therefore, opportunities to perform high-evi- dence level studies are severely limited. Current knowledge concerning outcome after ACL revision is based on level 3 and 4 studies, typically with fewer than 50 patients [5, 11]. Because these studies use varying objective and subjective outcome measures and present different operative tech- nique principles, inter-study comparison is difcult. In Scandinavia, national registries have now been established. These registries can generate demographic and outcome data for ACL revision for entire nations and thereby provide more reliable data describing the true outcome after both ACL reconstruction and ACL revision, but because these registries have been established only very recently, published data describing ACL revision outcome is correspondingly sparse [7, 15]. In the United States, multicenter cohort studies, the multicenter ortho- pedic outcome network (MOON), have established cohorts of ACL reconstruction and ACL revision-operated patients with high levels of follow-up and established outcome parameters that will enable the generation of valid data for the outcome of these procedures [23, 24]. Results from these studies have established that clinical outcome after ACL revision is poorer than after primary ACL recon- struction and that repeated graft failure is a potential problem. ACL revisions are typically performed on young and active individuals who will possibly face impaired knee function resulting from a failed procedure and it is there- fore vitally important to improve current knowledge con- cerning outcome after ACL revision. Since, at the present time, there is a lack of knowledge surrounding failure of ACL revision, predictors of repeat graft failure and poor clinical outcome need to be established. The aim of the present study is to investigate the epi- demiology and clinical outcome of ACL revision after an intermediate follow-up period of 29 years in a large patient cohort treated at a university referral clinic. Materials and methods In the period from 2001 to 2007, a total of 168 patients were treated with ACL revision surgery at Aarhus Uni- versity Hospital, Division of Sports Trauma, which is a university referral clinic. Inclusion criteria were: rst- time ACL revision surgery with and without concomitant collateral ligament reconstructions. Exclusion criteria were: repeat ACL revision or concomitant PCL knee ligament reconstruction. Due to lack of follow-up opportunity, deceased patients and patients who had migrated out of the country were also excluded from the study. Evaluation All included patients were admitted for study follow-up in the rst 6 months of 2010. At follow-up, patients were clinically evaluated by an independent physiotherapist; evaluation included objective and instrumented knee laxity measurement. Patients were evaluated by means of follow-up objective IKDC scores [8]. Pivot shift was graded as either absent, minor, moderate or gross. Anterior sagittal instability at 25 of knee exion was objectively assessed by means of instrumented KT-1000 measurements, with the index side to normal side difference at maximum anterior load as the primary parameter. Patient-related outcome measures were performed by means of preoperative and follow-up KOOS subjective scores [19]. KOOS quality of life subscale below 44 points has been suggested as an indicator for failure after ACL reconstruction surgery [3]. Using the single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) method, patients were also asked to rate their overall knee function on the operated side on a scale from 1 to 100, with 100 being normal [22]. Ability to perform sports and working ability were assessed by means of Tegner functional score (010) [20]. Pain at rest and after 15 min of walking was evaluated using a 010 Likert scale. Follow-up patient satisfaction with the outcome was graded: very satised with the outcome, satised with the outcome, slightly unsatised with the outcome and unsatised. Patients were also asked whether or not they would have the procedure performed again. All complications and reoperations during the follow-up period were registered. Generally, in cases with acceptable tunnel positioning and limited tunnel widening, an autograft tendon either semitendinosus/gracilis (ST/G) or patella-bone-tendon- bone (BTB) was used so that if the primary procedure was performed with ST/G and BTB, graft was used for the revision procedure and vice versa. If tunnel widening was extensive ([12 mm), a staged procedure with allogenic bone transplantation in both femoral and tibial tunnels was performed. Tunnel widening was assessed in accordance with the method described by LInsalata et al. [13]. Poor femoral tunnel position at primary surgery was dened as vertical if the hole angle was less than 25 to the vertical axis, and anterior if the center of the tunnel was anterior to the posterior one-third of the Blumensaat line (our own denition). Allograft tendons were used in cases where the patients occupation contraindicated the use of BTB graft, or if the patient had a strong aversion toward autograft harvest and the surgeon considered the use of allograft to be benecial. The latter could be applicable in cases of moderate tunnel widening and tunnel malposition Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20:166172 167 1 3 where an allograft with bone blocks could compensate for these insufciencies and enable a single stage procedure. Collateral ligament insufciency was treated with rele- vant ligament reconstruction according to previously pub- lished methods [9, 14]. Rehabilitation Patients were allowed unloaded free range of motion immediate postoperatively. Full-weight bearing was allowed after 2 weeks. Controlled sports activities after 34 months and contact sports after 12 months were allowed. However, patients were advised to discontinue contact sports if the cause for revision was new trauma during contact sports. Statistical analysis KOOS score, pain score, SANE score and KT-1000 data are expressed as mean values with standard deviation in brackets. Tegner scores are expressed as median values with range values in brackets. Comparison of preoperative and follow-up KT-1000 and KOOS data was performed with Students t test. A P value of \0.05 was considered signicant. Results One hundred and twenty-eight patients (76%) were avail- able for follow-up. Ninety-eight patients were seen at a project follow-up visit and, for all subjective scores, 30 patients were followed up by means of telephone interview and mail contact. Average follow-up was 5.9 years (range 29 years). Fifty percent were women. Median age was 31 years with a range from 16 to 58. Primary ACL reconstruction At primary ACL reconstruction, graft choice for the cohort was patella tendon in 50% of patients and semitendinosus/ gracilis in 41%. Of the 9% of other graft types, 6% were various synthetic graft materials. Thirty-three percent had meniscus injury; of these, 27% were isolated medial, 4% isolated lateral and 2% combined medial and lateral. Revision ACL reconstruction Median time from primary ACL reconstruction to ACL revision was 58 months (range 0311). The surgeon-eval- uated primary cause of ACL graft failure is shown in Table 1. The three most common causes were: new trauma (30%), unknown cause (24%) and femoral tunnel placement (20%). Staged procedures with initial tunnel bone grafting with allograft bone was performed in 11% of patients. Graft choice at ACL revision was PTB graft in 28%, semitendi- nosus/gracilis graft in 41% and allograft in 31% of patients. A collateral ligament reconstruction was performed at the time of ACL revision in 23% of cases. In 3% of cases, MCL was performed and in 20% of cases a combination of LCL and posterolateral corner reconstruction was performed. Meniscus injury was seen in 45% of patients with 30% medial and 15% lateral lesions. Cartilage lesions (ICRS grade 3 or 4) were seen in 59% of patients. In 17% of cases, the cartilage lesions were isolated to one compartment and in 32%, multiple compartments were affected. In all cases, cartilage lesions were treated solely with debridement, with no cartilage repair procedures performed. Objective knee stability outcome Sagittal knee laxity measured by means of the KT-1000 knee stability test improved signicantly from 6.5 mm preoperatively to 2.5 mm at follow-up. No improvement in sagittal knee laxity was seen in only 3% of patients and a follow-up side-to-side difference of [5 mm (IKDC group C and D for anterior laxity) was seen in 6% of patients. Pivot shift was absent in 41%, minor in 48% and moderate in 18% of patients. Overall, objective IKDC score at follow-up was 5% group A, 59% group B, 29% group C and 5% group D. Subjective outcome Patient-related outcome measures are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. KOOS scores demonstrated signicant improve- ment for the sub-score of sports and recreation and quality of life, which improved 8 and 11 points, respectively. When dividing the patient material into two groups of patients who had either isolated ACL revision or in com- bination with collateral ligament reconstruction, the fol- lowing was found: In terms of preoperative status, patients with collateral insufciency had a lower KOOS sports/ Table 1 Surgeon-evaluated causes for revision ACL surgery Cause for revision ACL surgery % New trauma 30 Unknown cause 24 Femoral tunnel placement 20 Collateral ligament laxity 7 Combined femoral and tibial tunnel placement 6 Tibia tunnel placement 6 Tunnel widening 3 Other cause 5 168 Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20:166172 1 3 recreation sub-score than patients with isolated sagittal laxity. At follow-up, a tendency toward higher KOOS scores but no signicant differences in the various sub- scores was found for patients with isolated ACL revision. Overall, 2/3 of the patients (63%) stated that they were satised or very satised with the outcome of the ACL revision and 74% stated that they would have the procedure again now that they knew the outcome. Pain score mean values are seen in Table 2. The mean values are relatively low, between 2 and 3. Fifty percent of patients were at rest and 43% completely pain free after 15 min of walking. Complications and failures The primary event indicating failure is re-revision of the ACL. Seven patients (6%) required re-ACL revision. The interval between ACL revision and re-ACL revision was between 2.3 and 8.4 years. Including re-ACL revision, a total of 30% of patients had one or more reoperations. Other causes for reoperation were: meniscus injury (13 patients/10%), arthrobrosis (2 patients/1.6%), deep infection (2 patients/1.6%), and supercial infection (1 patient/0.8%); 2 patients had total knee arthroplasty due to severe chronic pain. Another cause for reoperation was hardware removal in 12% of patients. A severely low score (below 44 points) in the KOOS quality of life subscale was found in 31% of patients. Discussion The most important nding of the present study was that outcome after ACL revision is less favorable than after primary ACL, based on less improvement in patient-related outcome scores, and higher reoperation rates. These key ndings emphasize the need for proper counseling of patients before consenting to undergo an ACL revision procedure. Table 2 Patient-related outcome results Tegner score, SANE score and pain scores is presented as median and range in brackets All cases N = 128 Isolated ACL revision N = 99 ACL revision ? collateral N = 29 Follow-up Follow-up Follow-up SANE score 75 (40100) 75 (40100) 80 (4590) Tegner score 4 (18) 4 (110) 4 (18) Pain score (rest) 2 (18) 2 (18) 2 (16) Pain score (15 min walk) 2 (110) 2 (110) 2 (110) Patient satisfaction Very satised (%) 33 35 33 Satised (%) 31 30 38 Fair (%) 26 28 19 Unsatised (%) 10 7 10 Would have procedure again (%) 74 74 73 Fig. 1 KOOS proles of preoperative and follow-up conditions. a All patients. b Patients with isolated ACL revision. c Patients with ACL revision in combination with collateral ligament reconstruction. The different sub-scores are PAIN, SYMPtoms, activities of daily living, SPORTs and recreation and quality Of life. Asterisk indicated P\0.05 for comparison within sub-score Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20:166172 169 1 3 Due to the scarcity of literature encompassing larger clinical studies, a comparison of outcome data from the present study to other studies is difcult. Most studies on ACL revision are focused on a specic surgical technique or graft choice [1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 18]. Few studies examine results after the normal spectrum of ACL revision seen at a specialized center. A recent review presented outcome data from published retrospective studies where the patient numbers ranged from 21 to 107 with failure rates from 6 to 24% after 56 years follow-up [11]. The majority of the studies used specic techniques and graft choices and as such did not investigate the typical array of surgical tech- niques needed for ACL revision. The value of the present study lies in its substantial patient cohort of 128 and the typical spectrum of ACL reconstruction failure cases seen at a specialized center combined with a midterm follow-up median 6 years. In contrast to the retrospective data mentioned above, a cohort of prospectively followed patients with ACL reconstruction and ACL revision procedures has been established in a multicenter orthopedic outcome network in the USA. Preliminary results from this network present a cohort of 47 ACL revision patients followed for 2 years. They demonstrate that reoperations were seen in 15% of patients and of these, 5% were re-ACL revision. Subjective outcome investigated by means of SF36 demonstrated improvement only in the physical activity score and not in mental health and vitality [23]. Another study derived from a national registry for knee ligament reconstruction also demonstrated less favorable results after 1 year follow-up in 222 patients based on KOOS scores after ACL revision compared to primary ACL reconstruction [15]. A case series from a major university clinic in the USA with 25 ACL revision patients operated with allografts presented data on patient satisfaction: In this study, 76% of patients declared that they would have the ACL revision procedure performed again compared to 74% in the present study [10]. We performed a subgroup analysis by dividing the patients into groups of either isolated ACL revision or in combination with collateral ligament reconstructions. The only difference between the two groups was a lower pre- operative KOOS sports and recreation sub-score, which is understandable against the background of a combined lig- ament insufciency. The various follow-up outcome scores between the two groups did not differ. The KOOS score has recently gained increasing popu- larity for the evaluation of patient-related outcome after ACL reconstruction [3, 6, 15]. However, of the ve sub- scales in the KOOS score, the subscale for activity of daily living is particularly unresponsive in terms of ACL reconstruction treatment. This has necessitated modica- tions of the score in order to adapt a measure specically for ACL reconstruction patients. A recent study investi- gating conservative treatment after ACL injury devised a measure called KOOS 4 that is calculated as the average score of KOOS pain, symptoms, sports and quality of life subscales [3]. Another problem with patient-related out- come measures in ACL patients is a poor correlation to functional parameters such leg strength, hop test and objective knee laxity [17]. An inter-study comparison of subjective outcome measures is always challenging. By using the overall improvement in responsive KOOS sub-scores (KOOS 4 ), the following impact of primary ACL reconstruction and ACL revision has been demonstrated: In the Danish ACL registry, the KOOS 4 improved 25 points for primary ACL reconstruction and 13 points for ACL revision [15]; in the recent ACL level 1 study by Frobell et al. [3], KOOS 4 improved 39 points for the ACL reconstruction group. These data must be compared to a KOOS 4 improvement of only 8 points in the present study. These data indicate that the impact on subjective outcome of ACL revision is only about half that of primary ACL reconstruction. A recent French multicenter study investigating descriptive data of ACL revision in 293 patients demon- strated that the main causes for ACL graft failure were femoral tunnel position (36%), new trauma (30%), and unknown cause (15%). The present study found the same three main revision causes [21]. The same study showed a cumulative meniscus lesion incidence of 70% after 2.5 years follow-up after ACL revision. They demonstrated that meniscectomy negatively inuenced both functional outcome and knee stability. This accumulated incidence of meniscus and cartilage injuries in ACL revision patients is a likely cause of poorer clinical outcome after ACL revi- sion as compared to primary ACL reconstruction. The use of allografts for primary ACL reconstruction has been demonstrated as a risk factor for revision. In a study by Mehta et al. [16], the use of allograft resulted in a tenfold increase in revision rates within the rst 4 postoperative years. The risk of re-revision in the present study was found to be 6% after a median 6 years follow-up. This is a higher risk compared to the revision risk after primary ACL reconstruction. The 5-year incidence following primary ACL reconstruction has recently been shown to be in the range of 34% in national register studies (unpublished data). Preliminary data from the MOON cohort at 2 years follow-up demonstrated a reoperation risk of 15%, of which 2.5% were re-revisions [23]. However, the latter prospective cohort was limited to 39 patients making the statistical background for re-revision rate potentially weak. In the present study, no patients had ACL revision before the 2 years follow-up. 170 Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20:166172 1 3 The present study is primarily limited by its design as a retrospective study. Another weakness is the follow-up completeness, which is limited by the fact that patients typically were referred to our clinic from the entire country and therefore living so far away that traveling to a follow- up visit was unacceptable. We did, however, gather follow- up data on some of these patients by means of telephone interview and mail correspondence in order to obtain patient-related outcome scores. The patients included in this study were surgically treated by four different sur- geons, which could potentially add bias due to different surgical strategies choices on the part of the individual surgeon. However, the results are more likely to represent the general outcome after ACL revision performed by multiple surgeons. Similarly, patients with a wide age range were included, which can also introduce bias but at the same time, this wide age range also represents the typical clinical scenario for ACL revision cases. Our sub- group analysis results in smaller study groups thus limiting the power of analysis. The results from the subgroup analysis should therefore be evaluated cautiously. For a single institution study, our case series, with follow-up data from 128 patients, is large, which increases the validity and interest of the presented data. Even though the present study is a single-center study, ACL revision was performed by means of a variety of techniques and multiple graft choices, all chosen by several surgeons. We therefore consider that our material represents the ACL revision patient population to an acceptable degree. As improvements in subjective clinical outcome fol- lowing revision ACL reconstruction are limited despite achievement of acceptable knee stability, patients should be carefully counseled before undergoing revision ACL surgery. Conclusion Results from this study on ACL revision demonstrate limited improvement in patient-related outcome scores compared to studies on primary ACL reconstruction. The total reoperation rate of 30%, 6% of which was re-ACL revision, is relatively high. It is imperative that patients eligible for ACL revision receive proper counseling in terms of outcome expectancies. References 1. Ferretti A, Conteduca F, Monaco E, De Carli A, DArrigo C (2006) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons and lateral extra- articular reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:23732379 2. Fox JA, Pierce M, Bojchuk J, Hayden J, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR Jr (2004) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with nonirradiated fresh-frozen patellar tendon allograft. Arthroscopy 20:787794 3. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS (2010) A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med 363:331342 4. Fules PJ, Madhav RT, Goddard RK, Mowbray MA (2003) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using auto- grafts with a polyester xation device. Knee 10:335340 5. George MS, Dunn WR, Spindler KP (2006) Current concepts review: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 34:20262037 6. Granan LP, Bahr R, Steindal K, Furnes O, Engebretsen L (2008) Development of a national cruciate ligament surgery registry: the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry. Am J Sports Med 36:308315 7. Granan LP, Forssblad M, Lind M, Engebretsen L (2009) The Scandinavian ACL registries 20042007: baseline epidemiology. Acta Orthop 80:563567 8. Hefti F, Muller W, Jakob RP, Staubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226234 9. Jakobsen BW, Lund B, Christiansen SE, Lind MC (2010) Ana- tomic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner of the knee: a case series with isolated reconstructions in 27 patients. Arthros- copy 26:918925 10. Johnson DL, Swenson TM, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD (1996) Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: experience from Pittsburgh. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:100109 11. Kamath GV, Redfern JC, Greis PE, Burks RT (2011) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 39:199217 12. Kartus J, Stener S, Lindahl S, Eriksson BI, Karlsson J (1998) Ipsi- or contralateral patellar tendon graft in anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery. A comparison of two methods. Am J Sports Med 26:499504 13. LInsalata JC, Klatt B, Fu FH, Harner CD (1997) Tunnel expansion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 5:234238 14. Lind M, Jakobsen BW, Lund B, Hansen MS, Abdallah O, Christiansen SE (2009) Anatomical reconstruction of the medial collateral ligament and posteromedial corner of the knee in patients with chronic medial collateral ligament instability. Am J Sports Med 37:11161122 15. Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB (2009) The rst results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5,818 knee ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:117124 16. Mehta VM, Mandala C, Foster D, Petsche TS (2010) Comparison of revision rates in bone-patella tendon-bone autograft and allo- graft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopedics 33:12 17. Moller E, Weidenhielm L, Werner S (2009) Outcome and knee- related quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament recon- struction: a long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:786794 18. Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD (2001) Revision anterior cruciate surgery with use of bone-patellar tendon-bone autogenous grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:11311143 19. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:8896 20. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:4349 Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20:166172 171 1 3 21. Trojani C, Sbihi A, Djian P, Potel JF, Hulet C, Jouve F, Bussiere C, Ehkirch FP, Burdin G, Dubrana F, Beauls P, Franceschi JP, Chassaing V, Colombet P, Neyret P (2011) Causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and inuence of meniscectomies after revi- sion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:196201 22. Williams GN, Gangel TJ, Arciero RA, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC (1999) Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evalua- tion method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med 27:214221 23. Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A, Andrish JT, Flanigan DC, Jones M, Kaeding CC, Marx RG, Matava MJ, McCarty EC, Parker RD, Vidal A, Wolcott M, Wolf BR, Spindler KP (2007) Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: two-year results from the MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 20:308311 24. Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Dunn WR, Haas AK, Allen CR, Cooper DE, DeBerardino TM, Lantz BB, Mann BJ, Stuart MJ (2010) Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med 38:19791986 172 Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2012) 20:166172 1 3 Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.