Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 5/2016

01-05-2016 | Orthopaedic Surgery

Current status of ACL reconstruction in Germany

Authors: Sven Shafizadeh, Vera Jaecker, Robin Otchwemah, Marc Banerjee, Jan-Hendrik Naendrup

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is characterized by a variety of possibilities concerning its implementation. Different choices for grafts, fixation methods and tunnel positioning, as well as diverse technical tools are available and have clinical significance. Besides specific pre- and post-operative procedures, different indications for surgery and further surgeon-/clinic-related factors add variability to the treatment. In response to the lack of descriptive statistics about the implementation of these factors and the increasing numbers of ACL reconstructions this study has been conducted to display the current state of the treatment for ACL tears throughout Germany.

Materials and methods

709 clinics with surgical and orthopedic departments were provided an online-questionnaire that surveyed their statistical records (e.g. annually implemented operations, number of surgeons, duration of operations), implemented techniques (e.g. choice of grafts, construction of drilling tunnel, tibial/femoral fixation) and personal assessment (e.g. frequency/cause of graft failure, frequency/handling of infection). The response rate was 22 % (n = 155). Based on the statistical records a specialized group within the respondents was identified, enabling a cross-comparison between high- and low-volume surgeons.

Results

On average, the German orthopedic surgeons in the clinics surveyed annually performs 35 ACL reconstructions, with each operation lasting an average of 67 min. After subdividing the data with references to annually performed surgeries into high- and low-volume-surgeons, differences and common features between the subgroups become apparent. Differences between high- and low-volume-surgeons, respectively, show shorter duration of both ACL reconstructions (55 vs. 71 min) and revision ACL reconstructions (75 vs. 90 min), higher membership rates in professional associations (83 vs. 38 % have at least one membership), more frequent implementation of stability examinations (47 vs. 21 %) and different frequencies of femoral drilling techniques (using the anterolateral portal in 71 vs. 54 %). With reference to evaluating operation dates, choosing grafts and assessing reasons for graft failure both groups share commonalities, as well as regarding the predominant use of monofixation for femoral fixation (88 % of the participants—mainly with endobutton in 38 % and transfixation pin in 27 %) and for tibial fixation (81 % of the participants—mainly with bioabsorbable screw in 60 %).

Conclusions

The treatment of ACL tears in the group of German clinics studied is characterized by a variety of surgical possibilities. This condition might reflect the entirety of clinics reconstructing ACL in Germany. For the first time, a descriptive statistical survey was implemented to display this variety and to provide insight into the current status quo. Within the entirety of surgeons implementing ACL reconstruction a specialized subgroup with a particular expertise seems to exist.
Literature
1.
Dandy DJ, O’Carroll PF (1982) Arthroscopic surgery of the knee. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 285(6350):1256–1258CrossRef
2.
Luc B, Gribble PA, Pietrosimone BG (2014) Osteoarthritis prevalence following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and numbers-needed-to-treat analysis. J Athl Train 49(6):806–819CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Michalitsis S et al (2015) Meniscal and articular cartilage lesions in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee: correlation between time from injury and knee scores. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(1):232–239CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mall NA et al (2014) Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med 42(10):2363–2370CrossRefPubMed
5.
Möller E, Weidenhielm L, Werner S (2009) Outcome and knee-related quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Traumatol Arthrosc 17(7):786–794CrossRef
6.
McAllister DR et al (2014) Outcome of chronic isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 27(5):383–392CrossRefPubMed
7.
Ochiai S et al (2011) Prospective analysis of health-related quality of life and clinical evaluations in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury undergoing reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(8):1091–1094CrossRefPubMed
8.
Saccomanno MF et al (2014) Clinical and functional outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using cortical button fixation versus transfemoral suspensory fixation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 30(11):1491–1498CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cvetanovich GL et al (2014) Hamstring autograft versus soft-tissue allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 30(12):1616–1624CrossRefPubMed
10.
Mascarenhas R et al (2015) Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 31(3):561–568CrossRefPubMed
11.
Harner CD et al (1996) Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 3- to 5-year outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res 324:134–144CrossRefPubMed
12.
Xie X et al (2015) A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 22(2):100–110CrossRefPubMed
13.
Passler HH, Hoher J (2004) Intraoperative quality control of the placement of bone tunnels for the anterior cruciate ligament. Unfallchirurg 107(4):263–272CrossRefPubMed
14.
Hatcher J et al (2005) An investigation to examine the inter-tester and intra-tester reliability of the Rolimeter knee tester, and its sensitivity in identifying knee joint laxity. J Orthop Res 23(6):1399–1403PubMed
15.
Lokannavar HS, Yang X, Guduru H (2012) Arthroscopic and low-field MRI (0.25 T) evaluation of meniscus and ligaments of painful knee. J Clin Imaging Sci 2:24
16.
Sharifah MI, Lee CL, Suraya A, Johan A, Syed AF, Tan SP (2015) Accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of meniscal tears in patients with chronic ACL tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(3):826–830CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wiertsema SH et al (2008) Reliability of the KT1000 arthrometer and the Lachman test in patients with an ACL rupture. Knee 15(2):107–110CrossRefPubMed
18.
Shelbourne KD, Patel DV (1995) Timing of surgery in anterior cruciate ligament-injured knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 3(3):148–156CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Höher J, Tiling T (2000) Differenzierte Transplantatauswahl in der Kreuzbandchirurgie. Der Chirurg 71:1045–1054
21.
Bedi A et al (2011) Transtibial versus anteromedial portal reaming in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an anatomic and biomechanical evaluation of surgical technique. Arthroscopy 27(3):380–390CrossRefPubMed
22.
MARS Group, Wright RW et al (2010) Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med 38(10):1979–1986CrossRef
23.
Lind M et al (2012) Medium to long-term follow-up after ACL revision. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(1):166–172CrossRefPubMed
24.
MARS Group (2013) Radiographic findings in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from the MARS cohort. J Knee Surg 26(4):239–247CrossRefPubMedCentral
25.
Hosseini A et al (2012) Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis. Int Orthop 36(4):845–852CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Singhal MC, Gardiner JR, Johnson DL (2007) Failure of primary anterior cruciate ligament surgery using anterior tibialis allograft. Arthroscopy 23(5):469–475CrossRefPubMed
27.
Johnson DL et al (1996) Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: experience from Pittsburgh. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:100–109CrossRefPubMed
28.
Carson EW et al (2004) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: etiology of failures and clinical results. J Knee Surg 17(3):127–132PubMed
29.
Leroux T et al (2014) The epidemiology of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in Ontario, Canada. Am J Sports Med 42(11):2666–2672CrossRefPubMed
30.
Kvist J et al (2014) Results from the Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register. Arthroscopy 30(7):803–810CrossRefPubMed
31.
Sechriest 2nd VF et al (2013) Incidence of knee sepsis after ACL reconstruction at one institution: the impact of a clinical pathway. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95(9):843–849, S1–S6
32.
Maletis GB et al (2013) Incidence of postoperative anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction infections: graft choice makes a difference. Am J Sports Med 41(8):1780–1785CrossRefPubMed
33.
Sonnery-Cottet B et al (2011) Prevalence of septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction among professional athletes. Am J Sports Med 39(11):2371–2376CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Current status of ACL reconstruction in Germany
Authors
Sven Shafizadeh
Vera Jaecker
Robin Otchwemah
Marc Banerjee
Jan-Hendrik Naendrup
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2426-8

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 5/2016 Go to the issue

Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine

Are porcine flexor digitorum profundus tendons suitable graft substitutes for human hamstring tendons in biomechanical in vitro-studies?

Orthopaedic Surgery

Patch-augmented rotator cuff repair: influence of the patch fixation technique on primary biomechanical stability

Trauma Surgery

Anterior augmentation plating of aseptic humeral shaft nonunions after intramedullary nailing

Trauma Surgery

Which factor is most important for occurrence of cutout complications in patients treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation? Retrospective analysis of 298 patients

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor concerning “Incidence of adjacent segment degeneration in cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical decompression and fusion meta-analysis of prospective studies” by Luo et al. (2015) Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(2):155–60. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2125-2

Knee Arthroplasty

Measuring long radiographs affects the positioning of femoral components in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial