Purpose To determine how concomitant medial collateral ligament (MCL) and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) injuries affect outcome after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods Patients aged > 15 years who were registered in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry for primary ACL reconstruction between 2005 and 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Patients with a concomitant MCL or LCL injury were stratified according to collateral ligament treatment (non-surgical, repair or reconstruction), and one isolated ACL reconstruction group was created. The outcomes were ACL revision and the 2-year Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which were analyzed using univariable and multivariable Cox regression and an analysis of covariance, respectively. Results A total of 19,457 patients (mean age 27.9 years, 59.4% males) met the inclusion criteria. An isolated ACL reconstruction implied a lower risk of ACL revision compared with presence of a non-surgically treated MCL injury (HR = 0.61 [95% CI 0.41–0.89], p = 0.0097) but not compared with MCL repair or reconstruction. A concomitant LCL injury did not impact the risk of ACL revision. Patients with a concomitant MCL or LCL injury reported inferior 2-year KOOS compared with isolated ACL reconstruction. The largest difference was found in the sports and recreation subscale across all groups, with MCL reconstruction resulting in the maximum difference (14.1 points [95% CI 4.3–23.9], p = 0.005). Conclusion Non-surgical treatment of a concomitant MCL injury in the setting of an ACL reconstruction may increase the risk of ACL revision. However, surgical treatment of the MCL injury was associated with a worse two-year patient-reported knee function. A concomitant LCL injury does not impact the risk of ACL revision compared with an isolated ACL reconstruction. Level of evidence Cohort study, Level III.

PurposeTo analyse patient-related risk factors for 2-year ACL revision after primary reconstruction. The hypothesis was that younger athletes would have a higher incidence of an early ACL revision.MethodsThis prospective cohort study was based on data from the Norwegian and Swedish National Knee Ligament Registries and included patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction from 2004 to 2014. The primary end-point was the 2-year incidence of ACL revision. The impact of activity at the time of injury, patient sex, age, height, weight, BMI, and tobacco usage on the incidence of early ACL revision were described by relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 58,692 patients were evaluated for eligibility and 30,591 patients were included in the study. The mean incidence of ACL revision within 2 years was 2.82% (95% CI 2.64–3.02%). Young age (13–19) was associated with an increased risk of early ACL revision (males RR = 1.54 [95% CI 1.27–1.86] p < 0.001 and females RR = 1.58 [95% CI 1.28–1.96] p < 0.001). Females over 1 SD in weight ran an increased risk of early ACL revision (RR = 1.82, [95% CI 1.15–2.88] p = 0.0099). Individuals with a BMI of over 25 ran an increased risk of early ACL revision (males: RR = 1.78, [95% CI 1.38–2.30] p < 0.001 and females: RR = 1.84, [95% CI 1.29–2.63] p = 0.008).ConclusionYoung age, a BMI over 25, and overweight females were risk factors for an early ACL revision.Level of evidenceII.

PurposeAn Achilles tendon rupture is a common injury that typically affects people in the middle of their working lives. The injury has a negative impact in terms of both morbidity for the individual and the risk of substantial sick leave. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of surgical compared with non-surgical management in patients with an acute Achilles tendon rupture.MethodsOne hundred patients (86 men, 14 women; mean age, 40 years) with an acute Achilles tendon rupture were randomised (1:1) to either surgical treatment or non-surgical treatment, both with an accelerated rehabilitation protocol (surgical n = 49, non-surgical n = 51). One of the surgical patients was excluded due to a partial re-rupture and five surgical patients were lost to the 1-year economic follow-up. One patient was excluded due to incorrect inclusion and one was lost to the 1-year follow-up in the non-surgical group. The cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. The direct cost is the actual cost of health care, whereas the indirect cost is the production loss related to the impact of the patient’s injury in terms of lost ability to work. The health benefits were assessed using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Sampling uncertainty was assessed by means of non-parametric boot-strapping.ResultsPre-injury, the groups were comparable in terms of demographic data and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The mean cost of surgical management was €7332 compared with €6008 for non-surgical management (p = 0.024). The mean number of QALYs during the 1-year time period was 0.89 and 0.86 in the surgical and non-surgical groups respectively. The (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratio was €45,855. Based on bootstrapping, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows that the surgical treatment is 57% likely to be cost-effective at a threshold value of €50,000 per QALY.ConclusionsSurgical treatment was more expensive compared with non-surgical management. The cost-effectiveness results give a weak support (57% likelihood) for the surgical treatment to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay per QALY threshold of €50,000. This is support for surgical treatment; however, additionally cost-effectiveness studies alongside RCTs are important to clarify which treatment option is preferred from a cost-effectiveness perspective.Level of evidenceI.