Email Alert | RSS

北京大学学报（医学版） ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (5): 857-863. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.05.008

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

前交叉韧带翻修重建术后中长期临床疗效及影响因素

蒋艳芳,王健,王永健,刘佳,裴殷,刘晓鹏,敖英芳,马勇()   

  1. 北京大学第三医院运动医学科,北京大学运动医学研究所,运动医学关节伤病北京市重点实验室,北京 100191
  • 收稿日期:2021-06-24 出版日期:2021-10-18 发布日期:2021-10-11
  • 通讯作者: 马勇 E-mail:huidong01@sina.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划(2019YFF0301705-1);国家重点研发计划(2019YFF0301700)

Mid-to-long term clinical outcomes and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament revision

JIANG Yan-fang,WANG Jian,Yong-WANG Jian,LIU Jia,PEI Yin,LIU Xiao-peng,AO Ying-fang,MA Yong()   

  1. Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Institute of Sports Medicine of Peking University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Sports Injuries, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2021-06-24 Online:2021-10-18 Published:2021-10-11
  • Contact: Yong MA E-mail:huidong01@sina.com

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

摘要：

目的: 分析前交叉韧带翻修重建术后中长期临床疗效及预后影响因素。方法: 收集2001年1月至2015年12月间在北京大学第三医院运动医学科行膝关节前交叉韧带(anterior cruciate ligament,ACL)重建术首次翻修手术的235例患者,采集患者人口学信息、ACL首次翻修重建信息(移植物断裂时间、失效原因、翻修重建时间、手术技术、合并损伤及处理方式)和初次ACL重建手术时的信息(初次断裂时间、受伤原因、受伤机制、初次重建时间、手术技术、合并损伤及处理方式)。同时对患者进行术后2年以上的随访,随访内容包括疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、Tegner活动水平评分、Lysholm评分、国际膝关节文献委员会(International Knee Documentation Committee,IKDC)膝关节主观评分、翻修术后同侧膝关节和对侧膝关节损伤和手术情况。通过多因素分析确定临床疗效的独立影响因素。结果: 按排除标准实际随访纳入166例(70.63%),平均随访时间(4.44±2.40)年(2.03~14.63年)。患者末次随访时Lysholm评分、Tegner活动水平评分、IKDC主观评分均较术前明显提高,分别从70.51±21.25、3.39±1.77、63.78±15.04提高至术后88.64±14.36、4.67±1.739和 80.23±13.31(P<0.05)。3例患者(1.81%)翻修术后出现感染,39例(23.49%)患者在随访期内同侧和对侧膝关节再次接受手术(41例次)。与运动损伤导致的移植物失效相比,因生活意外或初次重建手术技术原因导致翻修的患者术后评分显著偏低(P<0.05):Lysholm评分分别低9.90(95%CI:1.49~18.31)、8.53(95%CI:1.31~15.75), IKDC分别低10.35(95%CI:0.17~20.54)和9.39(95%CI:1.03~17.74),Tegner活动水平评分分别低1.41(95%CI:0.10~2.72)和1.28(95%CI:0.14~2.43)。经胫骨骨道钻取股骨骨道的患者术后Lysholm评分较经前内入路患者低11.18(95%CI:4.73~17.63, P=0.001)。术中同期进行内侧半月板缝合的患者术后IKDC评分较无半月板合并损伤患者高11.06(95%CI:1.21~20.92, P=0.029)。其他预后因素差异无统计学意义。结论: ACL翻修术可提高患者膝关节稳定性,明显改善膝关节功能。与生活意外或初次重建手术技术原因导致的翻修相比,运动损伤导致移植物失效的患者术后疗效恢复更好。内侧半月板缝合和经前内入路钻取股骨骨道对ACL翻修术后的临床功能在统计学上体现出保护作用。

关键词: 前交叉韧带损伤, 前交叉韧带重建, 再手术, 临床疗效, 预后

Abstract:

Objective: To assess the mid-to-long term clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery and to analyze their predictors. Methods: The medical records of 235 patients undergoing ACL revision surgery between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2015 at Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital were reviewed. Data were collected including demographic information, information related to revision surgery (time and cause of graft failure, date of revision surgery, surgical technique, combined injuries and management, etc.), as well as information related to primary ACL reconstruction (time, cause and mechanism of first-time ACL rupture, date of primary ACL reconstruction, surgical technique, combined injuries and management, etc.). Patients were followed up at least 2 years after revision surgery for clinical outcomes [Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee score]. Post-revision surgeries on the involved knee and the contralateral knee joint were also documented. Multivariate regression model was used to analyze the predictors of clinical outcomes after ACL revision surgery. Results: A total of 166 (70.63%) patients were followed up at a mean of (4.44±2.40) years (2.03-14.63 years). Clinical outcomes improved significantly at the last follow-up from pre-operative level, with the Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores improving from 70.51±21.25, 3.39±1.77, 63.78±15.04 to 88.64±14.36, 4.67±1.739, 80.23±13.31 (P<0.05), respectively. Three (1.81%) patients experienced infection while 39 (23.49%) patients underwent surgery after revision surgery during the follow-up. Compared with that those occurred during sports, graft failure that occurred during daily activities or due to surgical technical errors that led to poorer clinical outcomes, with the Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores of 9.90 (95%CI: 1.49-18.31), 1.41 (95%CI: 0.10-2.72), 10.35 (95%CI: 0.17-20.54), and 8.53 (95%CI: 1.31-15.75), 1.28 (95%CI: 0.14-2.43), 9.39 (95%CI: 1.03-17.74) lower, respectively. Compared with antero-medial portal, transtibial technique for placement of the femoral bone tunnel showed poorer Lysholm scores of 11.18 (95%CI: 4.73-17.63, P=0.001). Concurrent repair of medial meniscus yielded higher IKDC scores of 11.06 (95%CI: 1.21-20.92, P=0.029) than those with intact medical meniscus. Other factors showed no significant effect. Conclusion: ACL revision surgery is able to restore knee stability and improve knee function. Graft failure caused by sports, concurrent repair of medical meniscus and antero-medial portal technique predicts better outcomes after revision surgery.

Key words: Anterior cruciate ligament injuries, Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, Reoperation, Treatment outcome, Prognosis

中图分类号: 

  • R686.5

图1

患者筛选流程图"

表1

纳入研究患者和失访患者的一般情况对比"

Baseline characteristics Included (n=166) Excluded (n=69) P value
Gender, n(%) 0.324
Male 128 (77.11) 49 (71.01)
Female 38 (22.89) 20 (28.99)
Professional athletes, n(%) 15 (9.04) 10 (14.49) 0.217
Age at revision/years, x ?±s 27.55±7.60 27.04±7.55 0.639
BMI/(kg/m2), x ?±s 25.19±3.73 24.31±3.21 0.090
Interval between primary ACLR and revision/years, M (range) 2.78 (0.40-18.40) 3.17 (0.40-16.99) 0.895
Side, n(%) 0.919
Left knee 82 (49.40) 34 (49.28)
Right knee 84 (50.60) 35 (50.72)
Hospital of primary ACLR, n(%) 0.761
Peking University Third Hospital 81 (48.80) 36 (52.17)
Other hospitals 85 (51.20) 33 (47.83)
Technique at primary ACLR, n(%) 0.209
Single-bundle 70 (42.17) 35 (50.72)
Double-bundle 10 (6.02) 1 (1.45)
Unknown 86 (51.81) 33 (47.83)
Graft at primary ACLR, n(%) 0.122
Autografts 79 (47.59) 44 (63.77)
Hamstring 76 (45.78) 37 (53.62)
BPTB 2 (1.20) 5 (7.25)
Hybrid graft 1 (0.60) 2 (2.90)
Allograft 17 (10.24) 6 (8.70)
Artificial ligament 7 (4.22) 2 (2.90)
Hybrid autograft and allograft 2 (1.20) 0
Unknown 61 (36.74) 17 (24.64)
Cause of graft failure, n(%) 0.025
Sports 73 (43.98) 30 (43.48)
Daily activities 29 (17.47) 22 (31.88)
Traffic accident 4 (2.40) 0
Technical 60 (36.14) 17 (24.64)
Technique at revision, n(%) 0.521
Single-bundle 165 (99.40) 68 (98.55)
Double-bundle 1 (0.60) 1 (1.45)
Graft at revision, n(%) 0.078
Autograft 164 (98.80) 66 (95.65)
Hamstring 109 (65.66) 37 (53.62)
BPTB 52 (31.33) 24 (34.78)
Quadriceps 3 (1.81) 3 (4.35)
Others 0 2 (2.90)
Allograft 2 (1.20) 3 (4.35)

表2

ACL首次翻修手术前后临床主观评分比较(n=160)"

Patient-reported outcomes Pre-operation Last follow-up P value
Tegner 3.39±1.77 4.67±1.73 <0.001
IKDC 63.78±15.04 80.23±13.31 <0.001
Lysholm 70.51±21.25 88.64±14.36 <0.001

表3

ACL首次翻修术后临床疗效的影响因素"

[1] Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB. Incidence and outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Results from the Danish registry for knee ligament reconstructions [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2012, 40(7):1551-1557.
doi: 10.1177/0363546512446000
[2] Hettrich CM, Dunn WR, Reinke EK, et al. The rate of subsequent surgery and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Two- and 6-year follow-up results from a multicenter cohort [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2013, 41(7):1534-1540.
doi: 10.1177/0363546513490277 pmid: 23722056
[3] Wasserstein D, Khoshbin A, Dwyer T, et al. Risk factors for recurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A population study in Ontario, Canada, with 5-year follow-up [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2013, 41(9):2099-2107.
doi: 10.1177/0363546513493580 pmid: 23857886
[4] Maletis GB, Inacio MC, Funahashi TT. Analysis of 16 192 ante-rior cruciate ligament reconstructions from a community-based registry [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2013, 41(9):2090-2098.
doi: 10.1177/0363546513493589
[5] Leroux T, Wasserstein D, Dwyer T, et al. The epidemiology of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in Ontario, Canada [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2014, 42(11):2666-2672.
doi: 10.1177/0363546514548165
[6] Group M. Predictors of clinical outcome following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [J]. J Orthop Res, 2020, 38(6):1191-1203.
doi: 10.1002/jor.v38.6
[7] Yan X, Yang XG, Feng JT, et al. Does revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction provide similar clinical outcomes to primary ACL reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Orthop Surg, 2020, 12(6):1534-1546.
doi: 10.1111/os.v12.6
[8] Ma Y, Ao YF, Yu JK, et al. Failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Analysis of factors leading to instability after primary surgery [J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2013, 126(2):280-285.
[9] Grossman MG, ElAttrache NS, Shields CL, et al. Revision ante-rior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Three- to nine-year follow-up [J]. Arthroscopy, 2005, 21(4):418-423.
pmid: 15800521
[10] O’Neill DB. Revision arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with previously unharvested ipsilateral autografts [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2004, 32(8):1833-1841.
doi: 10.1177/0363546504264585
[11] Garofalo R, Djahangiri A, Siegrist O. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft [J]. Arthroscopy, 2006, 22(2):205-214.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.08.045
[12] 任忠明, 谢国庆, 金文孝, 等. 关节镜下前交叉韧带重建术后失败行翻修术的近中期临床疗效 [J]. 武警医学, 2020, 31(8):654-656.
[13] Granan LP, Inacio MC, Maletis GB, et al. Intraoperative findings and procedures in culturally and geographically different patient and surgeon populations: An anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction registry comparison between Norway and the USA [J]. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83(6):577-582.
doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.741451
[14] Griffith TB, Allen BJ, Levy BA, et al. Outcomes of repeat revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2013, 41(6):1296-1301.
doi: 10.1177/0363546513482568 pmid: 23605223
[15] Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD. Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: Results using a quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2006, 34(4):553-564.
doi: 10.1177/0363546505281812
[16] Ohly NE, Murray IR, Keating JF. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Timing of surgery and the incidence of meniscal tears and degenerative change [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2007, 89(8):1051-1054.
pmid: 17785744
[17] Trojani C, Sbihi A, Djian P, et al. Causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and influence of meniscectomies after revision [J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2011, 19(2):196-201.
doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1201-6
[18] Widener DB, Wilson DJ, Galvin JW, et al. The prevalence of meniscal tears in young athletes undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [J]. Arthroscopy, 2015, 31(4):680-683.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.10.006
[19] Group M. Meniscal and articular cartilage predictors of clinical outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2016, 44(7):1671-1679.
doi: 10.1177/0363546516644218
[20] Wegrzyn J, Chouteau J, Philippot R, et al. Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A retrospective review of management and outcome of 10 patients with an average 3-year follow-up [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2009, 37(4):776-785.
doi: 10.1177/0363546508330141 pmid: 19336620
[21] Wright RW, Gill CS, Chen L, et al. Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2012, 94(6):531-536.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00733 pmid: 22438002
[22] Yoon KH, Lee HW, Park JY, et al. Clinical outcomes and the failure rate of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were comparable between patients younger than 40 years and patients older than 40 years: A minimum 2-year follow-up study [J]. Arthroscopy, 2020, 36(9):2513-2522.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.06.012
[23] 运行, 魏钰, 李众利, 等. 前交叉韧带翻修术中期疗效研究 [J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2021, 35(1):58-63.
[24] Group M, Wright RW, Huston LJ, et al. Predictors of patient-reported outcomes at 2 years after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2019, 47(10):2394-2401.
doi: 10.1177/0363546519862279 pmid: 31318611
[1] 任爽, 时会娟, 梁子轩, 张思, 胡晓青, 黄红拾, 敖英芳. 前交叉韧带重建术后侧切动作的生物力学特征[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(5): 868-873.
[2] 欧俊永,倪坤明,马潞林,王国良,颜野,杨斌,李庚午,宋昊东,陆敏,叶剑飞,张树栋. 肌层浸润性膀胱癌合并中高危前列腺癌患者的预后因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 582-588.
[3] 刘帅,刘磊,刘茁,张帆,马潞林,田晓军,侯小飞,王国良,赵磊,张树栋. 伴静脉癌栓的肾上腺皮质癌的临床治疗及预后[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 624-630.
[4] 虞乐,邓绍晖,张帆,颜野,叶剑飞,张树栋. 具有低度恶性潜能的多房囊性肾肿瘤的临床病理特征及预后[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 661-666.
[5] 周泽臻,邓绍晖,颜野,张帆,郝一昌,葛力源,张洪宪,王国良,张树栋. 非转移性T3a肾细胞癌患者3年肿瘤特异性生存期预测[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 673-679.
[6] 方杨毅,李强,黄志高,陆敏,洪锴,张树栋. 睾丸鞘膜高分化乳头状间皮肿瘤1例[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(4): 741-744.
[7] 曾媛媛,谢云,陈道南,王瑞兰. 脓毒症患者发生正常甲状腺性病态综合征的相关因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(3): 526-532.
[8] 王江静,魏顺依,敖英芳,杨渝平. 前交叉韧带重建术后三种不同药物镇痛早期疗效的对比[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(2): 293-298.
[9] 苏俊琪,王晓颖,孙志强. 舌鳞状细胞癌根治性切除术后患者预后预测列线图的构建与验证[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2024, 56(1): 120-130.
[10] 李建斌,吕梦娜,池强,彭一琳,刘鹏程,吴锐. 干燥综合征患者发生重症新型冠状病毒肺炎的早期预测[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(6): 1007-1012.
[11] 刘欢锐,彭祥,李森林,苟欣. 基于HER-2相关基因构建风险模型用于膀胱癌生存预后评估[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 793-801.
[12] 薛子璇,唐世英,邱敏,刘承,田晓军,陆敏,董靖晗,马潞林,张树栋. 青年肾肿瘤伴瘤栓的临床病理特征及预后分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(5): 802-811.
[13] 卢汉,张建运,杨榕,徐乐,李庆祥,郭玉兴,郭传瑸. 下颌牙龈鳞状细胞癌患者预后的影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(4): 702-707.
[14] 时云飞,王豪杰,刘卫平,米岚,龙孟平,刘雁飞,赖玉梅,周立新,刁新婷,李向红. 血管免疫母细胞性T细胞淋巴瘤临床与分子病理学特征分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(3): 521-529.
[15] 朱晓娟,张虹,张爽,李东,李鑫,徐玲,李挺. 人表皮生长因子受体2低表达乳腺癌的临床病理学特征及预后[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2023, 55(2): 243-253.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
ISSN 1671-167X
CN 11-4691/R
主管单位：中华人民共和国教育部
主办单位：北京大学
地址： 北京市海淀区学院路38号 北京大学医学部 《北京大学学报（医学版）》
邮编：100191
电话：010-82801551
Email： xbbjb2@bjmu.edu.cn

《北京大学学报（医学版）》
微信公众号
版权所有 © 2018 《北京大学学报（医学版）》编辑部