RESUMEN
Background: While surgeons with high caseload volumes deliver higher value care when performing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), the effect of surgeon volume in the revision setting is unknown. Purposes: To determine the percentage of revision ACLR procedures that comprise the practice of high-, medium-, and low-volume surgeons and to analyze associated referral and practice patterns. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively investigated all revision ACLR procedures performed between 2015 and 2020 in a single health care system. Surgeons were categorized as low (≤17), medium (18-34), or high (≥35) volume based on the number of annual ACLR procedures performed. Patient characteristics, activity level, referral source, concomitant injuries, graft type, and treatment variables were recorded, and a comparison among surgeon groups was performed. Results: Of 4555 ACLR procedures performed during the study period, 171 (4%) were revisions. The percentage of revision ACLR procedures was significantly higher for high-volume (5%) and medium-volume (4%) surgeons compared with low-volume surgeons (2%) (P < .01). Patients undergoing revision ACLR by a high-volume surgeon had a significantly higher baseline activity level (P = .01). Allografts were used significantly more often by low-volume surgeons (70%) compared with medium-volume (35%) and high-volume (25%) surgeons (P < .01). Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) and quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts were used significantly more often by high-volume (32% BPTB, 39% QT) and medium-volume (38% BPTB, 14% QT) surgeons compared with low-volume surgeons (15% BPTB, 10% QT) (P < .01). High-volume surgeons were more likely to perform revision on patients with cartilage injuries (P = .01), perform staged revision ACLR (P = .01), and choose meniscal repair (54% high vs 22% medium and 36% low volume; P = .03), despite similar rates of concomitant meniscal tears, compared with low- and medium-volume surgeons. Conclusion: In this registry study of an integrated health care system, high-volume surgeons were more likely to perform revision ACLR on patients with higher activity and competition levels. Additionally, high-volume surgeons more commonly performed staged revision ACLR, chose meniscus-sparing surgery, and favored the use of autografts compared with low-volume surgeons.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Correct placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels in the anatomic footprint during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is paramount for restoring rotatory knee stability. Recent studies have looked at surgeon volume and its outcomes on procedures such as total knee arthroplasty and infection rates, but only few studies have specifically examined tunnel placement after ACLR based on surgeon volume. The purpose of this study was to compare the placement of femoral and tibial tunnels during ACLR between high-volume and low-volume surgeons. It was hypothesized that high-volume surgeons would have more anatomic tunnel placement compared with low-volume surgeons. METHODS: A retrospective review of all ACLR performed between 2015 and 2019 at an integrated health care system consisting of both academic and community hospitals with 68 orthopaedic surgeons was conducted. Surgeon volume was categorized as less than 35 ACLR per year (low volume) and 35 or more ACLR per year (high volume). Femoral tunnel placement for each patient was determined using an exact strict lateral radiograph (less than 6 mm of offset between the posterior halves of the medial and lateral condyles) taken after the primary ACLR using the quadrant method. The centre of the femoral tunnel was measured in relation to the posterior-anterior (PA) and proximal-distal (PD) dimensions (normal centre of anatomic footprint: PA 25% and PD 29%). Tibial tunnel placement for each patient was determined on the same lateral radiographs by measuring the mid-sagittal tibial diameter and the centre of the tibial attachment area of the ACL from the anterior tibial margin (normal centre of anatomic footprint: 43%). Each lateral radiograph was reviewed by one of two blinded reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 4500 patients were reviewed, of which 645 patients met all the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. There were 228 patients in the low-volume group and 417 patients in the high-volume group. Low-volume surgeons performed a mean of 5 ACLRs per year, whereas surgeons in the high-volume group performed a mean of 40 ACLRs per year. In the PA dimension, the low-volume group had significantly more anterior femoral tunnel placement compared with the high-volume group (32 ± 10% vs 28 ± 9%, p < 0.01). In the PD dimension, the low-volume group had statistically significant more proximal femoral tunnel placement compared to the high-volume group (32 ± 9% vs 35 ± 9%, p < 0.01). For the tibial tunnel, the low-volume group had significantly more posterior tibial tunnel placement compared with the high-volume group (41 ± 10% vs 38 ± 7%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Low-volume surgeons placed their femoral tunnels significantly more anterior and proximal (high) during ACLR, and placed their tibial tunnels significantly more posterior, compared with high-volume surgeons. Prior research has indicated that anatomic placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels during ACLR leads to improved rotatory knee stability. The findings of this study demonstrate the importance of surgical volume and experience during ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.