Introduction: Understanding individual patient expectations and aspirations around the time of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) surgery is paramount to delivering quality medical care that leads to patient satisfaction. Patients, influenced by a variety of sources, are likely to have different expectations about return to sport, persistent knee symptoms, clinical graft failure and reoperation than their surgeon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate which clinical outcomes and potential complications patients consider most important in defining success after ACLR, and to compare these priorities with those of surgeons. Methods: We established the Exploring Patient and Healthcare Worker Expectations in ACL Surgery (Expect-ACL) study to investigate expectations and perspectives surrounding ACL surgery. The Expect-ACL study utilised a cross-sectional survey design distributed to (1) surgeons and (2) patients who were a minimum 12 months after a primary ACLR. Results: We received completed surveys from 49 knee surgeons and 55 adult ACL patients. Patients prioritised “Lowest risk of re-injury” higher than surgeons (median rank 3 vs. 5, p = 0.012). Patients considered persistent hamstring and quadriceps weakness, reduced knee flexion and donor site pain to be more problematic than surgeons. A higher proportion of surgeons considered graft re-rupture to be problematic. Conclusions: Patients’ and surgeons’ expectations following ACLR differed in important ways. Patients were more concerned about experiential aspects, whereas surgeons were more likely to prioritise outcomes related to the patients’ surgical knee.
- Open Access
- Article
Patients Differ from Surgeons in Their Perceptions of Common Donor Site Morbidity Problems after Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Surgery
- Taimoor A. Sehgol 1,*,
- Shradha Kulkarni 1,
- Harbeer Ahedi 1,
- Venkatesh Bhagavath 1,2 and
- Alexander S. Nicholls 1
Author Information
Received: 28 March 2026 | Revised: 07 September 2026 | Accepted: 26 October 2026 | Published: 06 November 2026
Abstract
Keywords
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction | donor site morbidity | rehabilitation | expectations | patient | surgeon | return to sport
References
- 1.
Rayan, F.; Nanjayan, S.K.; Quah, C.; et al. Review of evolution of tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. World J. Orthop. 2015, 6, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v6.i2.252.
- 2.
Getgood, A.; Bryant, D.; Firth, A.; et al. The Stability study: A protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis in individuals who are at high risk of graft failure. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2589-x.
- 3.
Getgood, A.M.J.; Bryant, D.M.; Litchfield, R.; et al. Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Reduces Failure of Hamstring Tendon Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 2-Year Outcomes from the STABILITY Study Randomized Clinical Trial. Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519896333.
- 4.
Hettrich, C.M.; Dunn, W.R.; Reinke, E.K.; et al. The Rate of Subsequent Surgery and Predictors after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Two- and 6-Year Follow-Up Results from a Multicenter Cohort. Am. J. Sports Med. 2013, 41, 1534–1540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513490277.
- 5.
Marmura, H.; Bryant, D.M.; Birmingham, T.B.; et al. Same knee, different goals: Patients and surgeons have different priorities related to ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2021, 29, 4286–4295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06550-7.
- 6.
Cheung, S.C.; Allen, C.R.; Gallo, R.A.; et al. Patients’ attitudes and factors in their selection of grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 2012, 19, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.11.009.
- 7.
Adie, S.; Harris, I.A.; Naylor, J.M.; et al. Are outcomes reported in surgical randomized trials patient-important? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can. J. Surg. 2017, 60, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.010616.
- 8.
Heijne, A.; Axelsson, K.; Werner, S.; et al. Rehabilitation and recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: patients’ experiences. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2008, 18, 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2007.00700.x.
- 9.
Engle, R.L.; Mohr, D.C.; Holmes, S.K.; et al. Evidence-based practice and patient-centered care: Doing both well. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2021, 46, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000254.
- 10.
Siminoff, L.A. Incorporating patient and family preferences into evidence-based medicine. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2013, 13 (Suppl. 3), S6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-s3-s6.
- 11.
Bensing, J. Bridging the gap.: The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Educ. Couns. 2000, 39, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(99)00087-7.
- 12.
Brinker, M.R.; O’Connor, D.P. Stakeholders in Outcome Measures: Review from a Clinical Perspective. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2013, 471, 3426–3436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3265-3.
- 13.
Jin, H.; He, M.; Xie, W.; et al. Research Trends of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopedic Medical Practices: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59091664.
- 14.
Dermott, J.A.; Wright, F.V.; Salbach, N.M.; et al. Development of the gait outcomes assessment list for lower-limb differences (GOAL-LD) questionnaire: A child and parent reported outcome measure. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2021, 19, 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01775-z.
- 15.
Petushek, E.J.; Diekfuss, J.A.; Lamplot, J.D.; et al. Usefulness of Current Patient-Reported Outcome Scales for ACL Injury: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Stakeholder-Perceived Utility of Specific Constructs and Items Across the Rehabilitation Timeline. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2024, 12, 23259671231218964. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671231218964.
- 16.
Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Minor, B.L.; et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 95, 103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
- 17.
Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Thielke, R.; et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inform. 2009, 42, 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
- 18.
Culvenor, A.G.; Øiestad, B.E.; Holm, I.; et al. Anterior knee pain following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not increase the risk of patellofemoral osteoarthritis at 15- and 20-year follow-ups. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2017, 25, 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.09.012.
- 19.
Gill, V.S.; Tummala, S.V.; Han, W.; et al. Athletes Continue to Show Functional Performance Deficits at Return to Sport after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy 2024, 40, 2309–2321.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.12.033.
- 20.
Baez, S.; Harkey, M.; Birchmeier, T.; et al. Psychological Readiness, Injury-Related Fear, and Persistent Knee Symptoms After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J. Athl. Train. 2023, 58, 998–1003. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0229.22.
- 21.
Pearsall, C.; Chen, A.Z.; Abdelaziz, A.; et al. Patient Preferences for Graft Selection in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2024, 12, 23259671241258429. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241258429.
- 22.
Luxenburg, D.; Khan, A.M.; Levy, B.A. Editorial Commentary: Different Grafts, Different Problems: Why Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Selection Requires Individualized Decision-Making. Arthroscopy 2026, 42, 1733–1735. https://doi.org/10.1002/arj.70270.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
