4.5 Article

Comparison of outcomes between males and females after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Journal

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 75-+

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-003-0348-9

Keywords

outcomes; anterior; cruciate ligament reconstruction; gender

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few studies have specifically addressed the potential differences in outcome from ACL reconstruction between males and females. The present study compared patient-reported outcomes between the sexes after a minimum of 2 years following arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft. Patients were also categorized as acute or chronic based on the time from injury to surgery. Outcome questionnaires were mailed to 638 patients, resulting in 151 eligible respondents included in the analysis. The outcome instruments used were the Cincinnati scale, the ACL-Quality of Life scale, and the Tegner activity rating scale. At an average of 5 years following ACL reconstruction no differences were found between males (n=74) and females (n=77) on the ACL-QOL scale. Females perceived a significantly higher activity level prior to surgery according to the Tegner scale. However, no other differences were identified by gender or stage based on prior, highest, or current Tegner activity levels. Results of the Cincinnati scale for the entire sample showed that females scored an average of 5.7 points lower than males. Analysis of this difference by patient age indicates a trend toward lower scores in females between 12-18 and over 24 years old. Chronicity was not a factor that affected outcome in either males or females. No differences were found in the number of patients who complained of anterior knee pain. We conclude that autogenous bone-patella tendon-bone ACL reconstruction is equally successful in well-matched populations of males and females.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available