Various Definitions of Failure Are Used in Studies of Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

• Main Authors: Levi Aldag, B.S (Author), Johnathan Dallman, B.S (Author), Erik Henkelman, M.D (Author), Ashley Herda, Ph.D (Author), Jeffrey Randall, M.D (Author), Armin Tarakemeh, B.A (Author), Tucker Morey, B.S (Author), Bryan G. Vopat, M.D (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Elsevier, 2023-12-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 2666-061X; 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100801
• Keywords: Sports medicine; RC1200-1245
• Source: Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Vol 5, Iss 6, Pp 100801- (2023)

Purpose: To conduct a literature review to assess the definitions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure used throughout the orthopaedic literature. Methods: A systematic search of Embase, Ovid Medline, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science was conducted by a university librarian to identity level I-IV clinical studies on ACLR failure. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent ACLR and included a definition of failure of ACLR. Patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repairs, animal/cadaver studies, review studies, non-English language articles, and non-full text articles were excluded. Failure data were extracted from each study and categorized. Other data that were extracted included follow-up time after ACLR, failure reoperation rate, and failure reoperation procedure. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data. Results: Out of 2,775 studies, 104 (3.75%) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. The most common definition of ACLR failure included the use of a physical examination, specifically Lachman's test (21/104 [20.2%]), anterior laxity assessment, or a Pivot-Shift test (24/104 [35.2%]) or undergoing or requiring revision ACLR (39/104 [37.5%]). Although some studies used quantitative tests or imaging to help define "failure," others simply defined it as graft rerupture that was otherwise not defined (22/104 [22.5%]). Other common definitions included: the use of imaging (magnetic resonance imaging/radiographs) to confirm graft re-rupture (37/104 [35.6%]), patient-reported outcomes (recurrent instability)/patient reported outcomes measures (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Tegner) (18/104 [17.3%]), and the use of an arthrometer (KT-1000/2000, Rollimeter, or Kneelax) (17/104 [16.3%]). The least common definitions included graft failure or rerupture confirmed by arthroscopy (13/104 [12.5%]) and nonrevision surgery (2/104 [1.0%]). The failure rate of this procedure ranged from 0% to 100% depending on the definition of "failure." Conclusions: In this study, we found that a variety of definitions of failure are used among studies published in the orthopaedic literature. The most common criteria for failure of ACLR were the results of physical examination tests (35%), the need for undergoing a revision ACLR (36%), and the use of imaging to diagnose the failure (34%). About 17% of studies included in this review used patient-reported outcomes, specifically recurrent instability, or PROMs (IKDC, KOOS, Tegner) in their assessment of failure of ACLR. The least used definitions of "failure" of ACLR included nonrevision ACLR surgery (2%). Although some studies used similar tests or categories in their definition of failure, there were a variety of score and grade cutoff points between them. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.