Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Feb;43(2):310-9.
doi: 10.1177/0363546514560880. Epub 2014 Dec 23.

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure: A Radiographic and Video Analysis of the MARS Cohort

Collaborators, Affiliations
Free PMC article

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure: A Radiographic and Video Analysis of the MARS Cohort

Matthew J Matava et al. Am J Sports Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.

Hypothesis: Experienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.

Study design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Twenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).

Results: The 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).

Conclusion: This study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament; interobserver reliability; revision; tunnel placement.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Case #1. Selected radiographic views: 1a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 1b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 1c: 30° lateral; 1d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 3No: 7
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 9No: 1
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 2No: 8
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 8No: 2
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Figure 1
Figure 1
Case #1. Selected radiographic views: 1a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 1b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 1c: 30° lateral; 1d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 3No: 7
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 9No: 1
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 2No: 8
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 8No: 2
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Figure 1
Figure 1
Case #1. Selected radiographic views: 1a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 1b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 1c: 30° lateral; 1d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 3No: 7
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 9No: 1
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 2No: 8
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 8No: 2
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Figure 1
Figure 1
Case #1. Selected radiographic views: 1a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 1b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 1c: 30° lateral; 1d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 3No: 7
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 9No: 1
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 2No: 8
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 8No: 2
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Figure 2
Figure 2
Case #2. Selected radiographic views: 2a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 2b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 2c: 30° lateral; 2d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 3No: 7
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 3No: 7
Figure 2
Figure 2
Case #2. Selected radiographic views: 2a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 2b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 2c: 30° lateral; 2d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 3No: 7
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 3No: 7
Figure 2
Figure 2
Case #2. Selected radiographic views: 2a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 2b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 2c: 30° lateral; 2d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 3No: 7
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 3No: 7
Figure 2
Figure 2
Case #2. Selected radiographic views: 2a: Weight bearing anteroposterior; 2b: 45° flexion-weight bearing (Rosenberg); 2c: 30° lateral; 2d: Full extension lateral. Selected questions pertaining to tunnel location and number of corresponding “Yes” or “No” responses:
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 3No: 7
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient FEMORAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO VERTICAL?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR FEMORAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
Do you feel that PRIMARY GRAFT FAILURE was due to insufficient TIBIAL FIXATION?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of both position AND size?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel ideal in terms of position, but ENLARGED?Yes: 4No: 6
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO MEDIAL?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO LATERAL?Yes: 1No: 9
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO ANTERIOR?Yes: 0No: 10
In regard to the PRIOR TIBIAL tunnel position at revision, is the tunnel TOO POSTERIOR?Yes: 3No: 7

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 11 articles

  • 3-Dimensional Printed Models May Be a Useful Tool When Planning Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
    Kitamura G, Albers MBV, Lesniak BP, Rabuck SJ, Musahl V, Andrews CL, Ghodadra A, Fu F. Kitamura G, et al. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2019 Sep 26;1(1):e41-e46. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2019.06.004. eCollection 2019 Nov. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2019. PMID: 32266339 Free PMC article.
  • Predictors of clinical outcome following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
    MARS Group. MARS Group. J Orthop Res. 2020 Jun;38(6):1191-1203. doi: 10.1002/jor.24562. Epub 2020 Jan 14. J Orthop Res. 2020. PMID: 31840832
  • Physiologic Preoperative Knee Hyperextension Is a Predictor of Failure in an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Cohort: A Report From the MARS Group.
    MARS Group, Cooper DE, Dunn WR, Huston LJ, Haas AK, Spindler KP, Allen CR, Anderson AF, DeBerardino TM, Lantz BBA, Mann B, Stuart MJ, Albright JP, Amendola AN, Andrish JT, Annunziata CC, Arciero RA, Bach BR Jr, Baker CL 3rd, Bartolozzi AR, Baumgarten KM, Bechler JR, Berg JH, Bernas GA, Brockmeier SF, Brophy RH, Bush-Joseph CA, Butler V JB, Campbell JD, Carey JL, Carpenter JE, Cole BJ, Cooper JM, Cox CL, Creighton RA, Dahm DL, David TS, Flanigan DC, Frederick RW, Ganley TJ, Garofoli EA, Gatt CJ Jr, Gecha SR, Giffin JR, Hame SL, Hannafin JA, Harner CD, Harris NL Jr, Hechtman KS, Hershman EB, Hoellrich RG, Hosea TM, Johnson DC, Johnson TS, Jones MH, Kaeding CC, Kamath GV, Klootwyk TE, Levy BA, Ma CB, Maiers GP 2nd, Marx RG, Matava MJ, Mathien GM, McAllister DR, McCarty EC, McCormack RG, Miller BS, Nissen CW, O'Neill DF, Owens BD, Parker RD, Purnell ML, Ramappa AJ, Rauh MA, Rettig AC, Sekiya JK, Shea KG, Sherman OH, Slauterbeck JR, Smith MV, Spang JT, Svoboda SJ, Taft TN, Tenuta JJ, Tingstad EM, Vidal AF, Viskontas DG, White RA, Williams JS Jr, Wolcott ML, Wolf BR, York JJ, Wright RW. MARS Group, et al. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Oct;46(12):2836-2841. doi: 10.1177/0363546518777732. Epub 2018 Jun 8. Am J Sports Med. 2018. PMID: 29882693 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
  • Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
    MARS Group, Allen CR, Anderson AF, Cooper DE, DeBerardino TM, Dunn WR, Haas AK, Huston LJ, Lantz BBA, Mann B, Nwosu SK, Spindler KP, Stuart MJ, Wright RW, Albright JP, Amendola AN, Andrish JT, Annunziata CC, Arciero RA, Bach BR Jr, Baker CL 3rd, Bartolozzi AR, Baumgarten KM, Bechler JR, Berg JH, Bernas GA, Brockmeier SF, Brophy RH, Bush-Joseph CA, Butler JB 5th, Campbell JD, Carey JL, Carpenter JE, Cole BJ, Cooper JM, Cox CL, Creighton RA, Dahm DL, David TS, Flanigan DC, Frederick RW, Ganley TJ, Garofoli EA, Gatt CJ Jr, Gecha SR, Giffin JR, Hame SL, Hannafin JA, Harner CD, Harris NL Jr, Hechtman KS, Hershman EB, Hoellrich RG, Hosea TM, Johnson DC, Johnson TS, Jones MH, Kaeding CC, Kamath GV, Klootwyk TE, Levy BA, Ma CB, Maiers GP 2nd, Marx RG, Matava MJ, Mathien GM, McAllister DR, McCarty EC, McCormack RG, Miller BS, Nissen CW, O'Neill DF, Owens BD, Parker RD, Purnell ML, Ramappa AJ, Rauh MA, Rettig AC, Sekiya JK, Shea KG, Sherman OH, Slauterbeck JR, Smith MV, Spang JT, Svoboda SJ, Taft TN, Tenuta JJ, Tingstad EM, Vidal AF, Viskontas DG, White RA, Williams JS Jr, Wolcott ML, Wolf BR, York JJ. MARS Group, et al. Am J Sports Med. 2017 Sep;45(11):2586-2594. doi: 10.1177/0363546517712952. Epub 2017 Jul 11. Am J Sports Med. 2017. PMID: 28696164 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
  • CORR Insights®: Rotational Laxity Control by the Anterolateral Ligament and the Lateral Meniscus Is Dependent on Knee Flexion Angle: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.
    Pagenstert G. Pagenstert G. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Oct;475(10):2409-2411. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5398-2. Epub 2017 Jun 5. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017. PMID: 28584927 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
See all "Cited by" articles

Publication types

Feedback