Table 5.
Differences Between in Ipsilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and No Ipsilateral Injurya
| Ipsilateral Injury, n (%) or Mean ± SD |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | P Value | Statistic | OR: Ipsilateral Injury (95% CI) | |
|
| |||||
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 32 (4) | 736 (96) | .485 | 0.49b | |
| Female | 6 (3) | 189 (97) | |||
| Age, y | 20.3 ± 5.1 | 24.2 ± 7.2 | .003c | 0.10d | |
| Preoperative Marx score | 11.4 (4.9) | 11.7 (5.1) | .803 | 0.01d | |
| Injury mechanism | |||||
| Jumping/landing | 7 (3) | 189 (97) | .992 | 0.27b | |
| Sidestep/pivot | 19 (4) | 432 (96) | |||
| Tackling | 3 (4) | 73 (96) | |||
| Being tackled | 7 (3) | 189 (97) | |||
| Other | 2 (5) | 42 (95) | |||
| Injury contact | |||||
| Direct | 8 (4) | 199 (96) | .885 | 0.25b | |
| Indirect | 7 (4) | 143 (96) | |||
| Noncontact | 23 (4) | 583 (96) | |||
| Graft type | |||||
| BPTB | 15 (1.9) | 755 (98.1) | <.001c | 40.39b | 6.80 (3.48–13.31) |
| HT | 23 (11.9) | 170 (89.1) | |||
| Extra-articular tenodesis | |||||
| Yes | 0 (0) | 24 (100) | .337 | 0.92b | |
| No | 38 (4) | 901 (96) | |||
| Medial meniscus treatment | |||||
| Nil | 31 (4) | 721 (96) | .779 | 1.09b | |
| Left in situ | 3 (2) | 112 (98) | |||
| Meniscectomy | 3 (5) | 53 (95) | |||
| Repair | 1 (2) | 38 (98) | |||
| Lateral meniscus treatment | |||||
| Nil | 25 (4) | 559 (96) | .504 | 3.33b | |
| Left in situ | 8 (5) | 140 (95) | |||
| Meniscectomy | 5 (2) | 198 (98) | |||
| Repair | 0 (0) | 28 (100) | |||
| Chondral pathology: MFC | |||||
| Nil | 34 (4) | 797 (96) | .427 | 1.7b | |
| Grade 1–2 | 4 (4) | 95 (96) | |||
| Grade 3–4 | 0 (0) | 33 (100) | |||
| Chondral pathology: LFC | |||||
| Nil | 31 (3) | 790 (97) | .786 | 0.48b | |
| Grade 1–2 | 6 (5) | 123 (95) | |||
| Grade 3–4 | 1 (7) | 12 (93) | |||
a
BPTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone; HT, hamstring tendon; LFC, lateral femoral condyle; MFC, medial femoral condyle; OR, odds ratio.
b
Chi-square analysis.
c
P < .05.
d
Point biserial correlation.