Isolated ACL versus multiple knee ligament injury: associations with patient characteristics, cartilage status, and meniscal tears identified during ACL reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine (1) if patients undergoing reconstruction of an isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear had different characteristics (age, gender, body mass index [BMI]) than patients undergoing ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with multiple knee ligament (MKL) tears and (2) whether there was a difference in prevalence of articular cartilage injury and meniscus tears between these two groups. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary ACLR between February 2005 and June 2013 were identified through an ACLR registry. Patients were grouped by whether they had an isolated ACL tear or an ACL tear associated with another knee ligament tear. The study cohort was analyzed to identify differences in patient characteristics and cartilage/meniscus injury patterns between the groups. RESULTS: Of the 21,377 ACLR cases enrolled in the registry during the study period, 2.5% (n = 549) had MKL tears. The MKL group had more males (73.2% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001) than the isolated ACL group. The MKL group also had a higher percentage of patients with a BMI greater than 30 (31.1% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.0002). When adjusting for these variables, any articular cartilage injury was equal in the two groups (OR = 1.01, CI 0.82-1.25, p = 0.922), while medial femoral condyle injury was less common in the MKL group (OR = 0.73, CI = 0.56-0.07, p = 0.28). The likelihood of any meniscus tear was lower in the MKL group (OR = 0.56, CI = 0.47-0.67, p < 0.001) as was the likelihood of medial meniscus tears (OR = 0.53, CI = 0.44-0.65, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing patients with MKL tears versus isolated ACL tears at ACLR, there was a higher percentage of males and patients with BMI over 30 in the MKL group. Medial femoral condyle articular cartilage injury, any meniscus tear, and medial meniscus tears were less common in patients with MKL injury compared to patients with isolated ACL tears.

Revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery.

BACKGROUND: The survivorship of implants after revision total hip arthroplasty and risk factors associated with re-revision are not well defined. We evaluated the re-revision rate with use of the institutional total joint replacement registry. The purpose of this study was to determine patient, implant, and surgeon factors associated with re-revision total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The total joint replacement registry was used to identify patients who had undergone revision total hip arthroplasty for aseptic reasons from April 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010. The end point of interest was re-revision total hip arthroplasty. Risk factors evaluated for re-revision total hip arthroplasty included: patient risk factors (age, sex, body mass index, race, and general health status), implant risk factors (fixation type, bearing surface, femoral head size, and component replacement), and surgeon risk factors (volume and experience). A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-nine revision total hip arthroplasties with sixty-three (10%) re-revisions were evaluated. The mean cohort age (and standard deviation) was 57.0 ± 12.4 years, the mean body mass index (and standard deviation) was 29.5 ± 6.1 kg/m(2), and most of the patients were women (64.5%) and white (81.9%) and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of <3 (52.9%). The five-year implant survival after revision total hip arthroplasty was 86.8% (95% confidence interval, 83.57% to 90.25%). In adjusted models, age, total number of revision surgical procedures performed by the surgeon, fixation, and bearing surface were associated with the risk of re-revision. For every ten-year increase in patient age, the hazard ratio for re-revision decreases by a factor of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.90). For every five revision surgical procedures performed by a surgeon, the risk of revision decreases by a factor of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.99). At the time of revision, a new or retained cemented femoral implant or all-cemented hip implant increases the risk of revision by a factor of 3.19 (95% confidence interval, 1.22 to 8.38) relative to a retained or new uncemented hip implant. A ceramic on a highly cross-linked polyethylene bearing articulation decreases the hazard relative to metal on highly cross-linked polyethylene by a factor of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.95). Metal on constrained bearing increases the hazard relative to metal on highly cross-linked polyethylene by a factor of 3.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 9.48). CONCLUSIONS: When evaluating patient, implant, and surgical factors at the time of revision total hip arthroplasty, age, surgeon experience, implant fixation, and bearing surfaces had significant impacts on the risk of re-revision.