Table 6.
Differences Between in Contralateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and No Contralateral Injurya
| Contralateral Injury, n (%) or Mean ± SD |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | P Value | Statistic | |
|
| ||||
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 66 (8) | 736 (92) | .829 | 0.05a |
| Female | 18 (8) | 189 (92) | ||
| Age, y | 19.7 ± 4.2 | 24.2 ± 7.2 | <.001c | −0.16d |
| Preoperative Marx score | 12.4 ± 4.3 | 11.4 ± 5.0 | .303 | 0.04d |
| Injury mechanism | ||||
| Jumping/landing | 17 (8) | 189 (92) | .671 | 2.36b |
| Sidestep/pivot | 40 (8) | 432 (92) | ||
| Tackling | 3 (4) | 73 (96) | ||
| Being tackled | 20 (9) | 189 (91) | ||
| Other | 4 (9) | 42 (91) | ||
| Injury contact | ||||
| Direct | 15 (7) | 199 (93) | .73 | 0.63b |
| Indirect | 14 (9) | 143 (91) | ||
| Noncontact | 55 (9) | 583 (91) | ||
| Graft type | ||||
| BPTB | 66 (8) | 755 (92) | .495 | 0.47b |
| HT | 18 (9) | 170 (91) | ||
| Extra-articular tenodesis | ||||
| Yes | 0 (0) | 24 (100) | .135 | 2.23b |
| No | 84 (9) | 901 (91) | ||
| Medial meniscus treatment | ||||
| Nil | 67 (9) | 721 (91) | .975 | 0.22b |
| Left in situ | 10 (8) | 112 (92) | ||
| Meniscectomy | 4 (7) | 53 (3) | ||
| Repair | 3 (7) | 38 (93) | ||
| Lateral meniscus treatment | ||||
| Nil | 48 (8) | 559 (92) | .477 | 3.50b |
| Left in situ | 19 (12) | 140 (88) | ||
| Meniscectomy | 15 (7) | 198 (93) | ||
| Repair | 2 (7) | 27 (93) | ||
| Chondral pathology: MFC | ||||
| Nil | 68 (8) | 797 (92) | .105 | 2.63b |
| Grade 1–2 | 14 (13) | 95 (87) | ||
| Grade 3–4 | 2 (6) | 33 (94) | ||
| Chondral pathology: LFC | ||||
| Nil | 74 (9) | 790 (91) | .711 | 0.14b |
| Grade 1–2 | 10 (7) | 123 (93) | ||
| Grade 3–4 | 0 (0) | 12 (100) | ||
a
BPTB, bone–patellar tendon–bone; HT, hamstring tendon; LFC, lateral femoral condyle; MFC, medial femoral condyle.
b
Chi-square analysis.
c
P < .05.
d
Point biserial correlation.