Home  ›  Systematic Review Annual Incidence of Acl Injury and Surgery in Various Populations

Systematic Review Annual Incidence of Acl Injury and Surgery in Various Populations

Written By segunda-feira, 18 de abril de 2022 Add Comment Edit

jfmk-logo

Article Menu

/ajax/scifeed/subscribe

Article

Application and Surgical Technique of ACL Reconstruction Using Worldwide Registry Datasets: What Can We Extract?

past , , , , and *

Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria

*

Writer to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Academic Editor: Vito Pavone

Received: 25 Nov 2021 / Revised: 21 December 2021 / Accepted: 26 December 2021 / Published: 27 December 2021

Abstruse

Inductive cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are among the most common knee joint injuries. The purpose of this report was to compare surgical reconstruction of the ACL between dissimilar countries and regions in order to describe differences regarding epidemiological information, reconstruction frequency, and graft choice. A systematic literature search was performed using the ACL study group website in club to identify the relevant knee ligament registers. Four national registries were included, comprising those from Sweden, the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, New Zealand, and Norway. A large variation was found concerning the total number of main ACL reconstructions with a reported range from iv.1 to 51.three per 100,000 inhabitants. The country-specific delay between injury and reconstruction varied between an average of 6.0 months and 17.6 months. The leading sports activities resulting in ACL injury included soccer, tall skiing, handball, rugby, and netball. Moreover, a strong variability in graft option for primary reconstruction was found. The comparing of ACL registers revealed large differences, indicating dissimilar clinical implications regarding bourgeois or surgical therapy and option of the preferable graft. ACL registers offering a real-globe clinical perspective with the aim to ameliorate quality and patient rubber past investigating factors associated with subsequent surgical outcomes.

one. Introduction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are among the well-nigh mutual genu injuries, with an incidence of 68.six per 100,000 inhabitants [1]. Particularly in athletes, ACL rupture is reported every bit the human knee ligament injury that most often requires surgical reconstruction [2]. Moreover, studies have shown a steady increment of ACL reconstructions in contempo years [i,three]. Along with symptomatic knee instability, ACL injury involves an increased take a chance of meniscal and cartilage lesions and hence premature osteoarthritis (OA), regardless of treatment [four,5]. Incidence of knee OA is known to rise from 15% to twenty% in ACL-scarce knee, representing a ten-fold increase. In other words, studies evidence that more one-half of all patients suffering an ACL injury will develop symptomatic osteoarthritis in the following 10 to 20 years [6,7]. The chief aims of ACL reconstruction include restoration of normal knee kinematics, stabilization of the articulatio genus joint, and hence prevention of additional chondral and meniscal damage. Nevertheless, some studies have shown increased incidence of osteoarthritis fifty-fifty after surgical reconstruction of ACL [viii,ix].

ACL registers enable prospective surveillance of a selected patient population to gain long-term follow-up information of patients and thereby provide feedback to surgeons to improve patient condom and quality. Several ACL registers from all over the earth have aimed to summarize land-specific patient characteristics, surgical techniques, graft pick, and revision rates after ACL reconstruction. The generalization of outcomes from unmarried registries to other populations throughout the world still remains unclear, as patient- as well as surgeon-dependent factors varying between countries play a role. A cross-registry analysis gives the opportunity to evaluate surgery-related factors globally and enables interaction and share of knowledge betwixt physicians. Furthermore, it yields the risk to improve patient outcomes after treatment of ACL injuries due to a big database summarizing unlike therapeutic strategies for ACL reconstruction and their respective outcomes [10].

The purpose of this study was to compare surgical reconstructions of the ACL between unlike countries and regions in order to depict differences regarding procedure types, including surgical technique and graft type, and frequency. Furthermore, epidemiological information and patient demographics were extracted from worldwide ACL registers. The authors hypothesized that ACL register analysis would reveal major differences betwixt countries concerning the number of ACL reconstructions due to supposedly unlike approaches regarding bourgeois and surgical therapy, as well as regarding graft choice due to assumed land-specific different preferences.

ii. Materials and Methods

2.ane. Search Strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted using the ACL study group website in order to identify the relevant knee ligament registers [xi]. In addition, a free-hand search using the search keywords "(ACL register) OR (knee ligament annals)" was performed via Google. The final search date was 20 September 2021. This method is widely accepted and has been applied repeatedly in the field of orthopedics concerning the employ of arthroplasty registers [12,13,14].

ACL registers that fulfilled the following inclusion criteria were considered for evaluation: (1) Reports had to be publicly bachelor, (2) reports had to be written in English language, and (3) data had to be reported from the years 2019 or 2020 to recall recent data. Exclusion criteria included reports with updates older than 2019 every bit well as reports not available in the English language and registers not publicly bachelor.

2.two. Report Option and Outcomes

The relevant ACL registers were searched to observe the annual written report from 2020 or, if not bachelor, from 2019. Data were extracted with respect to the number of performed ACL reconstructions, patients' historic period distribution, patients' activity in connectedness with ACL injury, time between injury and reconstruction, and process types and type of ACL graft called in master reconstructions.

Eligibility of the registers was assessed independently and in duplicate and the assessments were crosschecked later on. Disagreement was resolved by discussion or, if necessary, by the conclusion of the senior author according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [15].

Three countries presented their information in the class of an almanac report for each year separately, whereas the register from the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland (Great britain) reported summarized data from the year of establishment of their ACL register until the most recently documented time menses. Registers used different classifications with respect to age distribution and fourth dimension betwixt injury and reconstruction and were pooled, if applicative.

ii.3. Data Analysis

Methodologically, real life data and no "probabilities" were analyzed in this study. Hence, no p values could be calculated equally previously published [sixteen]. In this report, to compare all included registers, almanac total number of primary ACL reconstructions per 100,000 inhabitants were calculated.

In general, due to limited data and the utilize of different reporting techniques, the present review focused on descriptive assay of the results.

3. Results

The primary search yielded seven knee ligament registers. After applying the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, four registers (Sweden, Norway, the U.k., and New Zealand) fulfilled the criteria and offered sufficient data. Hence, all four were included in the final analysis.

A large variation was found apropos the full number of principal ACL reconstructions in 2019 with a reported range from iv.1 to 51.3 per 100,000 inhabitants, equally depicted in Effigy one.

Patients' mean historic period at primary surgery was reported in all registers just the Norwegian report. Hateful age at surgery ranged from 28.0 to 29.ii years. The leading sports activities causing ACL injury mainly included soccer, alpine skiing, handball, rugby, and netball. A strong divergence between the four countries was found concerning the time span between injury and primary reconstruction surgery. This variable was not reported in the Norwegian ACL register. The delay between injury and reconstruction varied between an average of 6.0 months in the UK, an average of 10.one months in New Zealand, and an average of 17.half-dozen months in Sweden. A summary of these variables is presented in Table 1.

Moreover, there was a strong variability regarding graft choice for primary reconstruction between the different countries, as shown in Figure ii.

For example, hamstring tendons (HT) accounted for 90% of grafts in chief ACL reconstructions in the U.k., 71% in New Zealand, and 85% in Sweden, but fabricated up simply 23% in Norway, respectively, where 71% of grafts in chief ACL reconstructions were patellar tendon grafts (PT). Quadriceps tendons and allografts were rarely used in all four countries, with percentages ranging from 0% to 2% of grafts in primary reconstructions.

four. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare surgical reconstructions of the ACL between different countries and regions in order to describe differences regarding procedure types and frequency, and to written report clinical implications. The authors' hypotheses regarding differences in frequency and graft option were somewhen accustomed.

I of the almost important findings of this study was a big variation concerning the annual number of master ACL reconstructions ranging from iv.1 to 51.iii per 100,000 inhabitants. In an Australian population-based study, this figure was slightly higher with an average of 52.0 procedures per 100,000 inhabitants [17]. Population-based studies from other countries or regions presented lower figures, including incidences from 28.vii to 35.2 per 100,000 inhabitants in population-based information from the Usa, 32.0 per 100,000 citizens in Federal republic of germany, and 38.0 per 100,000 inhabitants in Kingdom of denmark, respectively [18,19,xx,21]. Publications of pooled data within countries that have their ain ACL registers showed quite similar results to registry information for Norway and Sweden, with incidences of 34.0 and 32.0 per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively [22,23], except for differences regarding New Zealand. A pooled analysis by Gianotti et al. in 2009 showed an incidence of 37.8 per 100,000 inhabitants, while the register from 2020 presented an incidence of 51.3 per 100,000 [2]. This might be explained by the significant increase of ACL reconstructions in New Zealand in recent years. In general, differences in reconstructions per 100,000 inhabitants could be explained past dissimilar sport habits merely also health economic factors, for example the insurance arrangement and cost coverage for surgery. Moreover, these rather large country-specific differences might point unlike tendencies such as whether to aim for a conservative or surgical handling approach primarily due to varying experiences and land-specific noesis from the previous decades.

A strong difference was found regarding the delay between injury and reconstruction, which was not reported in the Norwegian register. That timespan varied between an average of half-dozen.0 months in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, an average of 10.1 months in New Zealand, and an average of 17.6 months in Sweden. In 2009, Granan et al. reported a median time (in months) from injury to surgery of 7 months (range 0–482) in Kingdom of norway, nine months (range 0–371) in Kingdom of denmark, and 10 months (range 0–527) in Sweden [23]. In a individual institutional ACL register from a private hospital in Brazil, the median time from injury to surgery only amounted to 44 days [24]. This discrepancy might be explained by different national traditions concerning treatment of ACL injury and differing favoritism of trying a conservative handling arroyo by muscle strengthening and just switching to surgical treatment if stabilization of the genu joint cannot be achieved by conservative therapy. In addition, differences in national health care systems and dissimilar requirements for cost coverage by insurances could play a role.

The leading sports activities causing ACL injury included soccer, alpine skiing, handball, rugby, and netball in all iv registers. This was confirmed in an Australian population-based report, where skiing, soccer, football game, rugby, and netball showed the highest incidences of ACL reconstructions per 100,000 participants [17]. In Kingdom of denmark, the foremost sports activities causing ACL injury were soccer, handball, alpine sports, and football game [18]. Additionally, even slight differences in country-specific sports preferences might take an impact on the frequency of ACL reconstructions in the respective countries, for example, if some high-risk sports are performed more commonly in i country compared to the other.

Furthermore, significant differences with respect to graft choice in primary reconstructions were observed. Hamstring tendons accounted for 90.0% of grafts in chief ACL reconstructions in the Britain, 71.0% in New Zealand, and 85.0% in Sweden, just made up only 22.seven% in Norway, respectively, where 71.0% of main ACL grafts were patellar tendon grafts. Quadriceps tendons and allografts were barely used across all four countries. In an analysis from a Brazilian private institutional register, hamstring tendons were the most commonly used grafts with a share of lxx.2%, followed past os-tendon-bone patellar grafts with a share of 28.8%. Quadriceps tendons were simply used in 0.8% of cases. This is in line with our findings regarding all countries except for Kingdom of norway, as depicted in Figure 2 [24]. Moreover, our findings were also similar to those from Denmark, where 70.8% of main ACL reconstructions were performed using hamstring tendons and 22.0% were done using patellar tendon grafts, respectively. In a systematic review, including eight national surveys from Europe, North or Latin America, and Asia, the hamstring tendon graft was reported as the preferred graft, with a share of 45.0% to 89.0% in the surveyed population, followed by patellar tendon graft, with a share of 2.0% to 41.0%, and allograft, with a share of 2.0% to 17.0% [25]. Variations in graft choice may exist explained by several factors, such as patient demographics (country-specific sports habits differing in risk of causing injury) and national conditions, such as differences in healthcare systems (insurance status), number and availability of performing surgeons, medical facilities, and surgeon-dependent factors, such as definition of indications, pedagogy, tradition in graft option, and experience [eight,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35].

Worldwide human knee ligament registers are essential to compare state-specific differences and share experience between countries, specially concerning the early identification of inferior clinical outcomes associated with a particular graft or surgical technique and to make up one's mind factors for the optimization of patient care. Thus, the comparing of ACL registers entails implications for daily clinical do. In addition, ACL registers, every bit well every bit knee ligament and arthroplasty registers in general, represent important tools to support the wellness care system, equally ACL reconstruction contributes to health care costs significantly. Hence, collecting and sharing data in ACL registers tin help to reduce expenses regarding treatment and postoperative rehabilitation. Moreover, knee ligament registers provide feedback to surgeons as well as patients [17].

Limitations

There are several limitations to this present study. Commencement, outcomes of patients with a bourgeois treatment approach for their ACL rupture were not tracked, and therefore, this study is limited to patients with a reconstructed ACL. Second, this study is of a descriptive nature and conclusions betwixt sure take chances factors and consequential outcomes subsequently surgical reconstruction cannot be drawn. 3rd, reported findings from the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland registry may exist contorted every bit this register was established more than recently compared to the others and thus includes a smaller number of reconstructions. Furthermore, registries were not written according to standardized structures hence, information were sometimes reported in different manners, and comparisons, including graphical ones, could not be performed. Moreover, some exact data were missing in some reports, for case patients' age or the percentage frequencies regarding activities in connection with ACL injuries in the Norwegian written report. Additionally, in the Swedish registry, per centum frequencies regarding activities associated with ACL injuries were reported separately by gender.

5. Conclusions

A comparison of worldwide ACL registers revealed big differences regarding the annual number of primary ACL reconstructions per inhabitant and concerning ACL process types, especially different preferences in graft selection, indicating different clinical implications regarding conservative or surgical therapy and option of preferable graft. ACL registers offer a real-earth clinical perspective with the aim to improve quality and patient condom by investigating factors associated with subsequent surgical outcomes.

Author Contributions

All authors (U.West., G.H., I.5., P.R., A.50. and P.Southward.) contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by U.Due west., K.H., I.V. and P.R. The first draft of the manuscript was written by U.W. and all authors (U.W., G.H., I.V., P.R., A.L. and P.S.) commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No external funding was used.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Consent to publish was not required as this is a comparative analysis of databases not involving humans or animals.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the showtime writer on reasonable asking.

Conflicts of Interest

A.50. reports grants from Depuy Synthes and Alphamed exterior the submitted work. P.Due south. is a reviewer for the journal "Arthroscopy", the journal "Genu Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy", and "The Journal of Arthroplasty". The other authors take no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

References

  1. Sanders, T.50.; Maradit Kremers, H.; Bryan, A.J.; Larson, D.R.; Dahm, D.L.; Levy, B.A.; Stuart, Yard.J.; Krych, A.J. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction: A 21-year population-based report. Am. J. Sports Med. 2016, 44, 1502–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gianotti, S.M.; Marshall, S.; Hume, P.; Bunt, L. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other articulatio genus ligament injuries: A national population-based report. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2009, 12, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ardern, C.Fifty.; Taylor, North.F.; Feller, J.A.; Webster, K.East. Fifty-v per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Br. J. Sports Med. 2014, 48, 1543–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Andersson, D.; Samuelsson, K.; Karlsson, J. Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries with special reference to surgical technique and rehabilitation: An assessment of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2009, 25, 653–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ghodadra, Due north.; Mall, Due north.A.; Karas, V.; Grumet, R.C.; Kirk, S.; McNickle, A.One thousand.; Garrido, C.P.; Cole, B.J.; Bach, B.R., Jr. Articular and meniscal pathology associated with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J. Knee. Surg. 2013, 26, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lohmander, 50.S.; Englund, P.M.; Dahl, L.50.; Roos, E.G. The long-term consequence of inductive cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: Osteoarthritis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2007, 35, 1756–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Paschos, N.K.; Howell, South.M. Inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction: Principles of treatment. EFORT Open up Rev. 2016, 1, 398–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oiestad, B.Eastward.; Holm, I.; Aune, A.K.; Gunderson, R.; Myklebust, Grand.; Engebretsen, L.; Aarsland Fosdahl, M.; Risberg, M.A. Articulatio genus function and prevalence of knee osteoarthritis after inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective study with 10 to 15 years follow-up. Am. J. Sports Med. 2010, 38, 2201–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sajovic, M.; Stropnik, D.; Skaza, K. Long-term Comparison of Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Versus Patellar Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 17-Year Follow-upwardly of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 1800–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Engebretsen, Fifty.; Forssblad, Thousand.; Lind, 1000. Why registries analysing cruciate ligament surgery are important. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 636–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. The Inductive Cruciate Ligament Report Group (ACL Study Group). Bachelor online: https://www.aclstudygroup.com/acl-registries.php/ (accessed on 20 March 2021).
  12. Vielgut, I.; Kastner, Northward.; Pichler, Yard.; Holzer, 50.; Glehr, M.; Gruber, Thou.; Leithner, A.; Labek, Chiliad.; Sadoghi, P. Application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: A systematic comparative assay using worldwide registers. Int. Orthop. 2013, 37, 1465–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hauer, Thou.; Bernhardt, Grand.A.; Hohenberger, G.; Leitner, L.; Ruckenstuhl, P.; Leithner, A.; Gruber, G.; Sadoghi, P. Similar revision rates in clinical studies and arthroplasty registers and no bias for developer publications in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2020, 140, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hauer, G.; Heri, A.; Klim, S.; Puchwein, P.; Leithner, A.; Sadoghi, P. Survival rate and awarding number of total hip arthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fracture: An analysis of clinical studies and national arthroplasty registers. J. Arthroplasty 2020, 35, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, K.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, 50.A.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pabinger, C.; Bridgens, A.; Berghold, A.; Wurzer, P.; Boehler, Northward.; Labek, G. Quality of effect information in total hip arthroplasty: Comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades. Hip Int. 2015, 25, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Janssen, K.Westward.; Orchard, J.Due west.; Driscoll, T.R.; van Mechelen, W. High incidence and costs for anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed in Australia from 2003–2004 to 2007–2008: Time for an inductive cruciate ligament register by Scandinavian model? Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2012, 22, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lind, M.; Menhert, F.; Pedersen, A.B. The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: Epidemiologic and two twelvemonth follow-upwards results from 5,818 human knee ligament reconstructions. Human knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2008, 17, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lobenhoffer, P. Knee ligament injuries, anatomy, biomechanics, diagnosis, indications. Der Chir. Z. Alle Geb. Oper. Medizen 1999, 70, 219–230. [Google Scholar]
  20. Csintalan, R.P.; Inacio, Yard.C.South.; Funahashi, T.T. Incidence rate of inductive cruciate ligament reconstructions. Perm. J. 2008, 12, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lyman, Southward.; Koulouvaris, P.; Sherman, South.; Do, H.; Mandl, 50.A.; Marx, R.1000. Epidemiology of inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction: Trends, readmissions, and subsequent knee surgery. J. Os Jt. Surg. Am. 2009, 91, 2321–2328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Granan, 50.P.; Bahr, R.; Steindal, Yard.; Furnes, O.; Engebretsen, Fifty. Development of a national cruciate ligament surgery registry: The Norwegian National Articulatio genus Ligament Registry. Am. J. Sports Med. 2008, 36, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Granan, L.P.; Forssblad, M.; Lind, M.; Engebretsen, L. The Scandinavian ACL registries 2004–2007: Baseline epidemiology. Acta Orthop. 2009, eighty, 563–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Costa, 50.A.; Foni, N.O.; Antonioli, Eastward.; Teixeira de Carvalho, R.; Paião, I.D.; Lenza, Grand.; Ferretti, K. Analysis of 500 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from a private institutional register. PLoS I 2018, 13, e0191414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Grassi, A.; Carulli, C.; Innocenti, M. New trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review of national surveys of the concluding v years. Joints 2018, six, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Freedman, K.B.; D'Amato, M.J.; Nedeff, D.D.; Kaz, A.; Bach, B.R., Jr. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis comparison patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am. J. Sports Med. 2003, 31, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Feller, J.A.; Webster, Yard.E. A randomized comparing of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am. J. Sports Med. 2003, 31, 564–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Thompson, S.1000.; Salmon, L.J.; Waller, A.; Linklater, J.; Roe, J.P.; Pinczewski, L.A. 20-year outcome of longitudinal prospective evaluation of isolated endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon or hamstring autograft. Am. J. Sports Med. 2016, 44, 3083–3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Feller, J.; Webster, Chiliad.Due east. Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int. Orthop. 2013, 37, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Marumo, K.; Saito, K.; Yamagishi, T.; Fujii, K. The ligamentization process in man anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar and hamstring tendons: A biochemical report. Am. J. Sports Med. 2005, 33, 1166–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tomita, F.; Yasuda, 1000.; Mikami, South.; Sakai, T.; Yamazaki, Southward.; Tohyama, H. Comparisons of intraosseous graft healing between doubled flexor tendon graft and the os-patellar tendon-bone graft in inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2001, 17, 461–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mulford, J.S.; Hutchinson, S.E.; Rang, J.R. Outcomes for primary anterior cruciate reconstruction with the quadriceps autograft: A systematic review. Genu Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2013, 21, 1882–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Slone, H.Southward.; Romine, South.Due east.; Premkumar, A.; Xerogeanes, J.W. Quadriceps tendon autograft for inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comprehensive review of current literature and systematic review of clinical results. Arthroscopy 2015, 31, 541–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Geib, T.G.; Shelton, W.R.; Phelps, R.A.; Clark, L. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadriceps tendon autograft: Intermediate-term issue. Arthroscopy 2009, 25, 1408–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mouarbes, D.; Menetrey, J.; Marot, V.; Courtot, 50.; Berard, E.; Cavaignac, E. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for quadriceps tendon autograft versus bone-patellar tendon-os and hamstring-tendon autografts. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 3531–3540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Figure 1. Reported number of almanac primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions per 100,000 inhabitants in different worldwide ACL registers.

Figure ane. Reported number of almanac primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions per 100,000 inhabitants in different worldwide ACL registers.

Jfmk 07 00002 g001

Figure 2. Percentage frequency of different grafts used in primary ACL reconstructions.

Figure 2. Percentage frequency of unlike grafts used in primary ACL reconstructions.

Jfmk 07 00002 g002

Table 1. State-specific differences regarding activities associated with ACL injury, patients' hateful age at surgery, and filibuster to surgery.

Table ane. State-specific differences regarding activities associated with ACL injury, patients' hateful historic period at surgery, and delay to surgery.

. Activities Associated with ACL Injury Hateful Age at Surgery Filibuster to Surgery
Sweden 2019 Women: 28.0 years 17.half dozen months
ane. Skiing 27%
2. Soccer 26%
3. Handball 8%
Men:
1. Soccer 50%
2. Skiing x%
3. Floorball 8%
Norway 2019 i. Soccer ° n.eastward.* n.e.*
two. Skiing °
iii. Handball °
United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland 2019 1. Soccer 48% 29.0 years 6.0 months
2. Rugby 12%
three. Skiing 12%
New Zealand 2020 ane. Rugby 28% 29.2 years 10.1 months
2. Football fifteen%
3. Netball 14%

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

jacksmaidest.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/7/1/2/htm

0 Response to "Systematic Review Annual Incidence of Acl Injury and Surgery in Various Populations"

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel