Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 30, 2026
Surgical Retrieval, Isolation and In vitro Expansion of Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament-derived Cells for Tissue Engineering Applications
Published on: April 30, 2014
Risk Factors for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Frequency With Which Patients Change Surgeons
Kirsty Sutherland1, Mark Clatworthy2, Kevin Chang3
1North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Background:
Revision surgery is a known complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), but the proportion of patients who seek a different surgeon for their revision procedure is unknown.
Purpose:
To determine the rate and risk factors for revision ACLR in New Zealand and to find the proportion of patients undergoing revision ACLR who see a different surgeon compared with their primary procedure as well as the factors that may influence this decision.
Study Design:
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
Data from New Zealand's single government insurer, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), were analyzed. All primary ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014 were evaluated, and revision ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, were evaluated to allow for a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Cases undergoing subsequent revision were divided into those with the same or a different surgeon compared with the primary procedure. Risk factors for revision and change of surgeons were assessed, including age, sex, time from injury to surgery, time between primary and revision procedures, surgeon volume, and ethnicity.
Results:
A total of 15,212 primary ACLR procedures were recorded in 14,926 patients. The mean patient age was 29.2 years, and 61% were male patients. There were 676 subsequent revision procedures and 510 contralateral procedures during the study period, resulting in a 5-year survival rate of 95.5% for the ACL graft and 96.5% for the contralateral ACL. Risk factors for revision surgery included male sex, age <20 years, and <1 year from injury to surgery. Of the revision procedures, 44.5% (n = 301) were performed by a different surgeon compared with primary ACLR. For primary ACLR procedures performed by low-volume surgeons, 75.0% of patients requiring revision ACLR changed surgeons, compared with 21.5% for high-volume surgeons (≤10 vs >50 primary ACLR/y; hazard ratio, 10.70 [95% CI, 6.01-19.05]; P < .001). Other factors associated with change of surgeons included older age, longer time between primary and revision surgery, and Asian and Maori ethnicities.
Conclusion:
A significant proportion of patients change surgeons when requiring revision ACLR. In the absence of formal follow-up systems such as registries, surgeons, particularly those with a low volume of ACLRs, may underestimate their personal revision rate.
