Table 4 Cartilage defect change (baseline to follow-up) between the three groups
Site | Cartilage defects change | ACLR isolated (n = 32) | ACLR combined (n = 25) | Controls (n = 9) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Medial tibia | Progression | 1 (3%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1.0 |
Stable | 31 (97%) | 24 (96%) | 9 (100%) | 1.0 | |
Regression | 0 (0) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0) | 0.52 | |
Medial femoral condyle | Progression | 2 (6%) | 4 (16%) | 0 (0) | 0.41 |
Stable | 27 (84%) | 20 (80%) | 9 (100%) | 0.51 | |
Regression | 3 (9%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0) | 0.79 | |
Lateral tibia | Progression | 2 (6%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.63 |
Stable | 25 (78%) | 23 (92%) | 9 (100%) | 0.27 | |
Regression | 5 (16%) | 2 (8%) | 0 (0) | 0.56 | |
Lateral femoral condyle | Progression | 1 (3%) | 2 (8%) | 0 (0) | 0.73 |
Stable | 31 (97%) | 20 (80%) | 9 (100%) | 0.09 | |
Regression | 0 (0) | 3 (12%) | 0 (0) | 0.10 |