Low-Volume Surgeons Use Allograft in Younger Patients and Show Greater Rates of Revision Following Primary Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Compared with High-Volume Surgeons.

Purpose:To determine whether surgeon volume affects revision rate following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with allograft and to determine whether surgeon volume impacts allograft tissue type used.Methods:All patients aged 14 years or older who underwent primary allograft ACLR at a large hospital system between January 2015 to December 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patients with double-bundle ACLR, multiligament reconstruction, and absent allograft type data were excluded. Surgeon volume was categorized as 35 or more ACLR/year for high-volume surgeons and less than 35 ACLR/year for low-volume surgeons. Revision was defined as subsequent ipsilateral ACLR. Patient characteristics, operative details, allograft type, and revision ACLR rates were retrospectively collected. Revision rate and allograft type were analyzed based on surgeon volume.Results:A total of 457 primary allograft ACLR cases (mean age: 38.8 ± 12.3 years) were included. Low-volume surgeons experienced greater revision rates (10% vs 5%, P = .04) and used allograft in a younger population (37.6 vs 40.0 years old, P = .03) than high-volume surgeons. Subgroup analysis of the total cohort identified a significantly increased failure rate in patients <25 years old compared with ≥25 years old (30% vs 4%, P < .001). Allograft type selection varied significantly between surgeon volume groups, with low-volume surgeons using more bone-patellar tendon-bone (P < .001) and less semitendinosus allograft (P = .01) than high-volume surgeons. No differences in revision rate were observed based on allograft type (P = .71).Conclusions:There was a greater revision rate following primary allograft ACLR among low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons. Low-volume surgeons also used allograft in a younger population than did high-volume surgeons.Level of Evidence:Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.