TABLE II.
Ipsilateral Graft Versus Contralateral ACL Tears
| Author | Year | Initial Cohort (no. of patients) | No. of Patients Included in Follow-up | Duration of Clinical Follow-up*(yr) | No. of Ipsilateral Ruptures | Ipsilateral Annualized Rate | No. of Contralateral Ruptures | Contralateral Annualized Rate |
| Deehan et al.5 | 2000 | 90 | 90 (100%) | 5 | 3/90 (3.3%) | 0.66 | 10/90 (11.1%) | 2.22 |
| Drogset and Grøntvedt6† | 2002 | 100 | 94 (94%) | 8 | 5/48 (10.4%) | 1.3 | 15/94 (16.0%) | 2 |
| Keays et al.10 | 2007 | 62 | 56 (90%) | 6 | 1/56 (1.8%) | 0.3 | 5/56 (8.9%) | 1.48 |
| Roe et al.16 | 2005 | 180 | 180 (100%) | 7 | 13/180 (7.2%) | 1.03 | 25/180 (13.9%) | 1.97 |
| Sajovic et al.18 | 2006 | 64 | 61 (95%) | 5 | 2/61 (3.3%) | 0.66 | 5/61 (8.2%) | 1.64 |
| Shelbourne and Gray19 | 2009 | 1545 | 1545 (100%) | 14 (10 to 24) | 90/1545 (5.8%) | 0.41 | 179/1545 (11.6%) | 0.83 |
| All | 2041 | 2026 (99%) | 114/1980 (5.8%) | 0.73 | 239/2026 (11.8%) | 1.69 |
*
The values are given as the mean, with or without the range in parentheses.
†
Study included patients with and without a ligament-augmentation device. All ninety-four patients were considered when determining contralateral rupture rate. Only the forty-eight patients without a ligament-augmentation device were considered when calculating the ipsilateral rerupture rate.