A systematic review of single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction using the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist

Effects of higher femoral tunnels on clinical outcomes, MRI, and second-look findings in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a minimal 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

To perform anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), tunnels should be placed relatively higher in the femoral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) footprint based on the findings of direct and indirect femoral insertion. But the clinical results of higher femoral tunnels (HFT) in double-bundle ACLR (DB-ACLR) remain unclear. The purpose was to investigate the clinical results of HFT and lower femoral tunnels (LFT) in DB-ACLR.

METHODS

From September 2014 to February 2016, 83 patients who underwent DB-ACLR and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were divided into HFT-ACLR (group 1, n = 37) and LFT-ACLR (group 2, n = 46) according to the position of femoral tunnels. Preoperatively and at the final follow-up, clinical scores were evaluated with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner activity, and Lysholm score. The stability of the knee was evaluated with KT-2000, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test. Cartilage degeneration grades of the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) were evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Graft tension, continuity, and synovialization were evaluated by second-look arthroscopy. Return-to-sports was assessed at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

Significantly better improvement were found for KT-2000, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test postoperatively in group 1 ( P >0.05). Posterolateral bundles (PL) showed significantly better results in second-look arthroscopy regarding graft tension, continuity, and synovialization ( P <0.05), but not in anteromedial bundles in group 1. At the final follow-up, cartilage worsening was observed in groups 1 and 2, but it did not reach a stastistically significant difference ( P >0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in IKDC subjective score, Tegner activity, and Lysholm score between the two groups. Higher return-to-sports rate was found in group 1 with 86.8% (32/37) vs. 65.2% (30/46) in group 2 ( P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

The HFT-ACLR group showed better stability results, better PL, and higher return-to-sports rate compared to the LFT-ACLR group.

A Systematic Approach for Stronger Documentation of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Choice

Numerous studies have focused on determining the optimal choice between the two most used anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction autografts. In order to address this matter, we performed a systematic review of every meta-analysis published on the PubMed platform between 2001 and 2020, comparing the functional outcomes, the static stability parameters, as well as the postoperative and long-term complications of the patellar tendon (BPTB) autograft and hamstrings (HT). We retrieved a total of 26 meta-analyses that met our criteria, and the characteristics and outcomes of every meta-analysis, as well as subgroup analysis regarding the type of the study design, number of strands of HT autograft, and fixation method, were extensively recorded. The majority of the meta-analyses showed that there were no significant differences between BPTB and HT in terms of functional outcomes and static stability parameters while HT autografts seem to be superior to BPTB regarding kneeling pain and anterior knee pain. Other outcomes seem to be affected by the number of strands of the HT autograft, the fixation technique, and the type of study design, indicating superiority of the four-strand HT autograft with the use of an extra-cortical button fixation. Overall, there is no clear superiority of BPTB over HT autografts for ACL reconstruction, as both types present similar outcomes in the majority of postoperative parameters. Autograft selection should be individualized according to each patient's needs and more RCTs are warranted in order to reach safer results on the appropriate autograft type.

Subjective assessment reported by patients shows differences between single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, systematic review and meta-analysis

To determine the functional recovery, active reincorporation, and anteroposterior and rotational stability of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using arthroscopy techniques with simple-bundle (SB) or double-bundle (DB). The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier platform), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley platform), Web of Science, and CINAHL. Level I and II studies involving anterior cruciate ligament arthroscopy were included in the search. Records were screened by title and abstract and assessed the risk of bias of selected studies. Meta-analyses using RevMan 5.3 software were conducted on the following outcomes: knee functionality, objective measurements of knee stability, rotational knee stability and knee anterior stability, sports reincorporation, and subjective assessments. Twenty-four studies of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis (1707 patients) for Lysholm score, Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner score, KT-1000/2000, Lachman test, Objective IKDC score, and Pivot-Shift test. A return to pre-injury level showed a significant decrease in the Lysholm score (mean difference, - 0.99; 95% CI - 1.71 to - 0.40; P = 0.007) and Tegner score (mean difference, - 0.07; 95% CI, - 0.13 to - 0.01; P = 0.02) at DB reconstruction, similar to the knee functionality outcome of the subjective IKDC score (mean difference - 1.42; 95% CI - 2.46 to - 0.38; P = 0.007). There is no clear or significant difference in clinical stability and knee function or in sports incorporation with the true difference occurring in the subjective assessment.

Clinical Outcome Evaluation of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Tunnel Positioning Using Gold Standard Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

There have been conflicting results about the theoretical advantages of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Purpose:

To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes comparing anatomic single- versus double-bundle techniques, anatomic versus nonanatomic techniques, and transportal versus outside-in tunnel drilling for ACL reconstruction.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A search was performed in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to August 2018 for clinical trials comparing anatomic ACL reconstruction (with tunnel positioning demonstrated using gold standard radiologic techniques) with another technique, with a minimum functional and biomechanical follow-up of 6 months. A meta-analysis was performed to compare clinical and functional outcomes between anatomic single- versus double-bundle reconstruction and between anatomic versus nonanatomic techniques, using the risk difference or the mean difference. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Jadad Score for randomized controlled trials.

Results:

Included were 15 studies comprising 1290 patients (follow-up, 12-36 months). No significant differences favoring anatomic double-bundle over anatomic single-bundle reconstruction or outside-in over transportal techniques were found. The meta-analyses showed significant differences in the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score (risk difference, –0.14; 95% confidence interval, –0.27 to –0.01) favoring anatomic over nonanatomic reconstruction. No statistically significant differences were found between anatomic and nonanatomic surgical techniques on other functional scores or clinical examination outcomes, including the IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, KT-1000 arthrometer test, or pivot-shift test.

Conclusion:

Double-bundle reconstruction was not superior to the single-bundle technique in clinical and functional outcomes. Anatomic ACL reconstruction shows significantly superior results over nonanatomic ACL reconstruction, reinforcing the anatomic technique as the gold standard choice for clinical practice.

Clinical Trial Registry Use in Orthopaedic Surgery Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have the highest level of evidence (Level I), often drive clinical decision-making and health policy. Often, unpublished trial data are omitted from systematic reviews, raising concerns about the extent of the reliability and validity of results that have been drawn from systematic reviews. We aimed to determine the extent to which systematic review authors include searches of clinical trial registries for unpublished data when conducting systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery.

METHODS

Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were gathered from the top 5 orthopaedic surgery journals based on the h5-index from Google Scholar Metrics. Systematic reviews that had been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which requires the inclusion of a clinical trial registry search, served as controls. For the primary outcome, each systematic review from the top 5 orthopaedic journals was screened to determine whether the authors of each study searched for unpublished data in clinical trial registries. We then compared the rate of registry searches with those in the control group. For the secondary analysis, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for unpublished trial data for 100 randomized systematic reviews.

RESULTS

All 38 of the Cochrane systematic reviews (100%) included clinical trial registry searches, while the top 5 orthopaedic journals had only 31 of 480 studies (6.5%) that looked at clinical trial registries. The secondary analysis yielded 59 of 100 systematic review articles (59.0%) that could have included unpublished clinical trial data from ≥1 studies to their sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews that have been published in the top orthopaedic surgery journals seldom included a search for unpublished clinical trial data.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The exclusion of clinical trial registry searches potentially contributes to publication bias within the orthopaedic literature. Moving forward, systematic review authors should include clinical trial registry searches for unpublished clinical trial data to provide the most accurate representation of the available evidence for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

A Secondary Injury of the Anterolateral Structure Plays a Minor Role in Anterior and Anterolateral Instability of Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Deficient Knees in the Case of Functional Iliotibial Band

PURPOSE

To analyze the contribution of a secondary anterolateral structure (ALS) deficiency to knee instability based on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency, in the condition of a functional iliotibial band (ITB).

METHODS

Nine freshly-frozen cadaveric knees were sectioned sequentially to create ACL deficiency and ACL-ALS deficiency, using intact knees before sectioning as controls. When ITB was tensioned with 30 N, 4 separate aspects of knee instability were tested as follows: anterior translation in 90 N anterior load, isolated internal rotation in 5 N·m internal rotational torque from 0° to 90° in 15° increments, and anterolateral translation and internal rotation during a simulated pivot-shift test at 0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°. The contribution of ACL deficiency alone and additional ALS deficiency to knee instability were evaluated.

RESULTS

The addition of an ALS lesion produced no significant exacerbation of either anterior translational or pivot shift instability in ACL-deficient knees. Additional ALS deficiency in an ACL-deficient knee resulted in a significant increase in isolated internal rotation from 45° to 90° (P = .001 at 45° and P < .001 in other cases). After sequentially sectioning, the contribution to instability of additional ALS deficiency to the entire instability in ACL-ALS-deficient knees was significantly smaller than that of ACL deficiency alone during anterior load and pivot-shift test (P < .001 in all cases), but significantly contributed more to isolated internal rotational instability at 60° (P = .011) and 90° (P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

When ITB was tensioned, ALS played a minor role in controlling both anterior or pivot shift stability in ACL-deficient knees but a major role in restraining isolated internal rotation from 45° to 90°.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In the condition of functional ITB, concomitant ALS injury might not exacerbate anterior and pivot-shift instability after ACL rupture, while affecting isolated internal rotation stability at higher flexion.

Anatomic ACL reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature for radiographic prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) at a minimum of 10 years following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with anatomic vs. non-anatomic techniques. It was hypothesized that the incidence of OA at long-term follow-up would be lower following anatomic compared to non-anatomic ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies reporting OA prevalence by radiographic classification scales at a minimum of 10 years following ACLR with autograft. Studies were categorized as anatomic if they met or exceeded a score of 8 according the Anatomic ACL Reconstruction Scoring Checklist (AARSC), while those with a score less than 8 were categorized as non-anatomic/non-specified. Secondary outcomes included graft failure and measures of knee stability (KT-1000, Pivot Shift) and functional outcomes [Lysholm, Tegner, subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores]. OA prevalence on all radiographic scales was recorded and adapted to a normalized scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included, of which 5 achieved a score of 8 on the AARSC. Using a normalized OA classification scale, 87 of 375 patients (23.2%) had diagnosed OA at a mean follow-up of 15.3 years after anatomic ACLR and 744 of 1696 patients (43.9%) had OA at mean follow-up of 15.9 years after non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. The AARSC scores were 9.2 ± 1.3 for anatomic ACLR and 5.1 ± 1.1 for non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. Secondary outcomes were relatively similar between techniques but inconsistently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that anatomic ACLR, defined as an AARSC score ≥ 8, was associated with lower OA prevalence at long-term follow-up. Additional studies reporting long-term outcomes following anatomic ACLR are needed, as high-level studies of anatomic ACLR are lacking. The AARSC is a valuable resource in performing and evaluating anatomic ACLR. Anatomic ACLR, as defined by the AARSC, may reduce the long-term risk of post-traumatic OA following ACL injury to a greater extent than non-anatomic ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Failure rate and patients-reported outcomes at 4-11 years of follow up

Background

Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that single bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (SB-ACLr), which represents the gold standard for the management of ACL lesions, is not sufficient to completely restore the rotational stability and resistance to valgus stress of the knee.

Purpose

To evaluate the failure rate and patients reported outcomes at a long-term follow-up of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLr).

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Materials and methods

The database of arthroscopic DB-ACLr procedures performed from 2006 to 2015 at our Institution was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were screened for eligibility according to the following inclusion criteria: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) lesion, positive anterior drawer test and/or Lachman test; age ≤ 45 years at the time of surgery; DB-ACLr with autologous hamstrings, minimum follow up of 24 months. Patients were excluded if they presented associated lesions of the knee preoperatively or at the time of surgery, expect for meniscal lesions, or in case of inability to complete clinical questionnaires. Clinical outcomes were assessed at a mean follow up of 95.4 ± 21.9 months (range 51-129 months; median 98 months) using the Tegner-Lysholm score and the IKDC subjective score. Failures were defined as Tegner-Lysholm score ≤65 points, and were confirmed with MRI.

Results

58 (81.7%) male and 13 (18.3%) female patients (mean age 29.7 ± 7.8 years) were included in the study. 2 (2.8%, 95% CI 0.3-9.8%) patients had a failure of DB-ACLr both occurred after a sports trauma. The IKDC subjective score was statically better in patients younger than 30 years. Tegner-Lysholm and IKDC subjective score were statistically better in professional athletes and in patients with isolated medial or lateral meniscus lesion instead of combined medial and lateral meniscus lesion.

Conclusion

DB-ACLr technique provides excellent clinical results at a long term follow-up. Low failure rate and high percentage of return to sports participation at the same pre-injury level was found in our cohort of patients.

Outcomes of isokinetic tests and functional assessment of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Transtibial versus single anatomic femoral tunnel technique

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of the transtibial and anatomical femoral single tunnel surgical techniques in ACL reconstruction.

Methods

A total of 30 patients, with 16 patients (15 males and 1 female; mean age: 27.2 ± 7.04) with anatomical femoral single-tunnel technique (AFT) and 14 (12 males and 2 females; mean age: 29.4 ± 8.82) with transtibial technique (TT) were included into the study. All patients were evaluated with isokinetic tests at an angular velocity of 60°/s and 180°/s and the IKDC and Lysholm tests were performed preoperatively and in third, sixth, and 12th months postoperatively. The results were compared between the groups. The mean follow-up time was 17.1 ± 6.48 months.

Results

Postoperative third month changes in extension parameters of peak torque (AFT: −93.286, TT: −61.500), peak work (AFT: −77.071, TT: −47.500), peak torque ext/kg (AFT: −1.182, TT: −0.773), peak work ext/kg (AFT: −0.982, TT: −0.604), peak work (AFT: −55.143 TT: −33.063) at an angular velocity of 60°/s and postoperative third month change in extension parameter of peak power (AFT: −86.786 TT: −54.875) at an angular velocity of 180°/s were found to be better in the transtibial group (p < 0.05) and postoperative sixth month peak torque (AFT: 1.429, TT: −5.688) value at an angular velocity of 60°/s was found to be less in the anatomical femoral single-tunnel group (p < 0.05). The IKDC (AFT: 94.671, TT: 90.025) (p < 0.05) and Lysholm (AFT: 96.714, TT: 92.375) (p < 0.05) scores of the anatomical femoral single-tunnel group were better than the transtibial group regarding to the postoperative final follow-up. There are positive intermediate correlations between preoperative IKDC and Lysholm scores with preoperative and postoperative some isokinetic test ratio (r = 0.539; p = 0.031), and preoperative peak power extension (r = 0.541; p = 0.030) at the both angular velocity of 60°/s and 180°/s in the transtibial group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regards to the Lachman, anterior drawer and pivot shift tests (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

There were differences in terms of isokinetic parameters in early outcomes but there was no statistical difference between isokinetic parameters at the end of 1st year between two groups. There were some correlations between IKDC and Lysholm scores with some isokinetic parameters.

Level of Evidence

Level III, Therapeutic Study.

Restoring tibiofemoral alignment during ACL reconstruction results in better knee biomechanics

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) aims to restore normal knee joint function, stability and biomechanics and in the long term avoid joint degeneration. The purpose of this study is to present the anatomic single bundle (SB) ACLR that emphasizes intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation that occurs after ACL injury. It was hypothesized that this technique leads to optimal outcomes and better restoration of pathological tibiofemoral joint movement that results from ACL deficiency (ACLD).

METHODS

Thirteen men with unilateral ACLD were prospectively evaluated before and at a mean follow-up of 14.9 (SD = 1.8) months after anatomic SB ACLR with bone patellar tendon bone autograft. The anatomic ACLR replicated the native ACL attachment site anatomy and graft orientation. Emphasis was placed on intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation by reducing anterior tibial translation (ATT) and internal tibial rotation. Function was measured with IKDC, Lysholm and the Tegner activity scale, ATT was measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer and tibial rotation (TR) kinematics were measured with 3Dmotion analysis during a high-demand pivoting task.

RESULTS

The results showed significantly higher TR of the ACL-deficient knee when compared to the intact knee prior to surgery (12.2° ± 3.7° and 10.7° ± 2.6° respectively, P = 0.014). Postoperatively, the ACLR knee showed significantly lower TR as compared to the ACL-deficient knee (9.6°±3.1°, P = 0.001) but no difference as compared to the control knee (n.s.). All functional scores were significantly improved and ATT was restored within normal values (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation that results after ACL injury is an important step during anatomic SB ACLR. The intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation along with the replication of native ACL anatomy results in restoration of rotational kinematics of ACLD patients to normal levels that are comparable to the control knee. These results indicate that the reestablishment of tibiofemoral alignment during ACLR may be an important step that facilitates normal knee kinematics postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cohort study.

Stress distribution is deviated around the aperture of the femoral tunnel in the anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Final tunnel location in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is unpredictable due to tunnel widening and/or transposition. The mechanical stress around the tunnel aperture seems to be a major factor but is not fully investigated. The purpose of this study was to measure the stress from the ACL graft around the tunnel aperture when the ACL graft tension reaches its peak.

METHODS

Six cadaveric knees were used. Single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed using a hamstrings graft. Both femoral and tibial tunnels were created at the centre of the original ACL footprint. A 7-mm-internal-diameter aluminium cylinder with pressure sensors was placed in the femoral tunnel. Hamstrings graft with a microtension sensor was inserted. After fixation, passive extension-flexion was performed while monitoring the tunnel aperture pressure and the graft tension simultaneously. The pressure on the femoral tunnel aperture when the ACL graft tension reach its peak was compared between four directions.

RESULTS

The ACL graft tension peaked (67 ± 49 N) at full extension (-5.8 ± 4.1°). Pressure at the femoral tunnel aperture was different between different directions (p < 0.01). Distal part had significantly larger pressure (1.7 ± 1.3 MPa) than the other directions (p < 0.01). Second largest pressure was carried in the anterior part (0.6 ± 0.5 MPa), followed by proximal and posterior parts (0.4 ± 0.3, 0.2 ± 0.2 MPa respectively).

CONCLUSION

The stress distribution at the femoral tunnel aperture is not equal in different directions, while the distal part dominantly bears the stress from the ACL graft. Surgeons should pay close attention to the distal edge of the femoral tunnel which should be inside the anatomic ACL footprint eventually.

Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up

BACKGROUND

Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes.

METHODS

This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group.

CONCLUSION

The DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up.

In situ force in the anterior cruciate ligament, the lateral collateral ligament, and the anterolateral capsule complex during a simulated pivot shift test

The role of the anterolateral capsule complex in knee rotatory stability remains controversial. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the in situ forces in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), the anterolateral capsule, the lateral collateral ligament (LCL), and the forces transmitted between each region of the anterolateral capsule in response to a simulated pivot shift test. A robotic testing system applied a simulated pivot shift test continuously from full extension to 90° of flexion to intact cadaveric knees (n = 7). To determine the magnitude of the in situ forces, kinematics of the intact knee were replayed in position control mode after the following procedures were performed: (i) ACL transection; (ii) capsule separation; (iii) anterolateral capsule transection; and (iii) LCL transection. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare in situ forces between each knee state (*p < 0.05). The in situ force in the ACL was significantly greater than the forces transmitted between each region of the anterolateral capsule at 5° and 15° of flexion but significantly lower at 60°, 75°, and 90° of flexion. This study demonstrated that the ACL is the primary rotatory stabilizer at low flexion angles during a simulated pivot shift test in the intact knee, but the anterolateral capsule plays an important secondary role at flexion angles greater than 60°. Furthermore, the contribution of the "anterolateral ligament" to rotatory knee stability in this study was negligible during a simulated pivot shift test. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:847-853, 2018.

Increased odds of patient-reported success at 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients without cartilage lesions: a cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register

PURPOSE

To investigate whether the surgical technique of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the visualization of anatomic surgical factors and the presence or absence of concomitant injuries at primary ACL reconstruction are able to predict patient-reported success and failure. The hypothesis of this study was that anatomic single-bundle surgical procedures would be predictive of patient-reported success.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register during the period of 1 January 2005 through 31 December 2014. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendons were included. Details on surgical technique were collected using an online questionnaire comprising essential anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction scoring checklist items, defined as the utilization of accessory medial portal drilling, anatomic tunnel placement, the visualization of insertion sites and pertinent landmarks. A univariate logistic regression model adjusted for age and gender was used to determine predictors of patient-reported success and failure, i.e. 20th and 80th percentile, respectively, in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), 2 years after ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

In the 6889 included patients, the surgical technique used for single-bundle ACL reconstruction did not predict the predefined patient-reported success or patient-reported failure in the KOOS₄. Patient-reported success was predicted by the absence of concomitant injury to the meniscus (OR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.72-0.92], p = 0.001) and articular cartilage (OR = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.61-0.81], p < 0.001). Patient-reported failure was predicted by the presence of a concomitant injury to the articular cartilage (OR = 1.27 [95% CI, 1.11-1.44], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgical techniques used in primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction did not predict the KOOS 2 years after the reconstruction. However, the absence of concomitant injuries at index surgery predicted patient-reported success in the KOOS. The results provide further evidence that concomitant injuries at ACL reconstruction affect subjective knee function and a detailed knowledge of the treatment of these concomitant injuries is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level III.

Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Extra-Articular Tenodesis: Why and When?

Residual rotational laxity following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been identified as significant concern in many patients, despite evolution of techniques. The expanding body of knowledge on the anatomy and biomechanics of the anterolateral soft tissue restraints in rotational control of the knee has reignited an interest in extra-articular reconstruction techniques for augmenting ACL reconstruction. Reconstruction techniques currently used can be broadly categorized as either lateral extra-articular tenodesis or reconstruction of the anterolateral ligament. In this article, we outline the relevant anatomy, biomechanics, and rationale behind the indications and technique of our current extra-articular augmentation procedure.

The Effect of Intraoperative Graft Coverage With Preserved Remnant Tissue on the Results of the Pivot-Shift Test After Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Quantitative Evaluations With an Electromagnetic Sensor System

BACKGROUND

Remnant tissue preservation may be important in improving graft healing after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, but it has yet to be established whether remnant tissue preservation improves the control of pivot-shift laxity.

HYPOTHESIS

The amount of ACL graft coverage with preserved remnant tissue improves the control of pivot-shift laxity, as qualitatively determined with an electromagnetic device.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The 3-dimensional kinematics were evaluated intraoperatively using an electromagnetic sensor system in 38 patients at the time of anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction with remnant tissue preservation and again at a minimum of 12 months postoperatively. The magnitude of the peak coupled anterior tibial translation (pCAT) and the maximal acceleration of posterior translation (APT) during the pivot-shift test were evaluated. The degree of graft coverage by remnant tissue was determined arthroscopically at the end of surgery, which was evaluated quantitatively using a scoring system (0-9 points). The relationship between the values during the pivot-shift test and preoperative and intraoperative factors were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) side-to-side difference of the pCAT (ΔpCAT) was significantly ( P < .0001) improved from 14.0 ± 5.0 mm to 2.6 ± 1.1 mm. Also, the mean side-to-side difference of the APT (ΔAPT) was significantly ( P < .0001) improved from 525.6 ± 99.7 mm/s² to 32.9 ± 23.6 mm/s². The mean initial graft coverage score was 5.3 ± 2.6. The correlation analysis demonstrated that the degree of initial graft coverage was significantly correlated with the ΔpCAT ( r = -0.517, P = .0007) and ΔAPT ( r = -0.532, P = .0005). The status of the reconstructed graft at second-look arthroscopic surgery showed no significant correlations with the degree of initial graft coverage or the results of the pivot-shift test.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that the preservation of ACL remnant tissue in anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction appears to improve the control of pivot-shift laxity at a minimum of 12 months postoperatively, as measured by an electromagnetic device. This improvement was significantly affected by the degree of intraoperative graft coverage with preserved remnant tissue.

Comparison of outcome after anatomic double-bundle and antero-medial portal non-anatomic single-bundle reconstruction in ACL-injured patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with non-anatomic single-bundle reconstruction.

METHODS

In a prospective consecutive series, 94 unselected patients [45 anatomic double-bundle (ADB) and 49 non-anatomic single-bundle (SB)] underwent ACL reconstruction involving hamstring tendon autograft, interference screw fixation on both the femoral and tibial side and drilling the femoral tunnel(s) through the antero-medial portal in both groups. In the ADB group, the remnants of the ACL were identified and the grafts were placed anatomically. In the SB group, traditional placement of the graft was performed in a less anatomic manner. Pre-operatively, the groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, time between injury and operation and associated injuries. One independent physiotherapist performed all the pre-operative and post-operative assessments.

RESULTS

The follow-up period was 26 (22-34) and 24 (23-30) months in the ADB and SB groups, respectively (p = 0.005). At follow-up, 78 % in the ADB group and 74 % in the SB group had a negative pivot-shift test (n.s.). The KT-1000 134N measurements were 2 (-5 to 10.5) and 2 (-4 to 7) mm in the ADB and SB groups, respectively (n.s.). At follow-up, the extension deficit was significantly larger in the ADB group than in the SB group (p = 0.001). The Tegner activity scale was significantly higher in the ADB group both pre-operatively and at follow-up (p = 0.03 and p = 0.004). In overall terms, both groups had improved significantly at the two-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In an unselected group of ACL-injured patients, anatomic double-bundle reconstruction did not result in better rotational or antero-posterior stability measurements than antero-medial portal non-anatomic single-bundle reconstruction at the two-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

No differences in subjective knee function between surgical techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 2-year follow-up: a cohort study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate how different techniques of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction affect subjective knee function via the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) evaluation 2 years after surgery. It was hypothesized that the surgical techniques of single-bundle ACL reconstruction would result in equivalent results with respect to subjective knee function 2 years after surgery.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register during the 10-year period of 1 January 2005 through 31 December 2014. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstrings tendon autograft were included. Details on surgical technique were collected using a web-based questionnaire comprised of essential AARSC items, including utilization of accessory medial portal drilling, anatomic tunnel placement, and visualization of insertion sites and landmarks. A repeated measures ANOVA and an additional linear mixed model analysis were used to investigate the effect of surgical technique on the KOOS₄ from the pre-operative period to 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 13,636 patients who had undergone single-bundle ACL reconstruction comprised the study group for this analysis. A repeated measures ANOVA determined that mean subjective knee function differed between the pre-operative time period and at 2-year follow-up (p < 0.001). No differences were found with respect to the interaction between KOOS₄ and surgical technique or gender. Additionally, the linear mixed model adjusted for age at reconstruction, gender, and concomitant injuries showed no difference between surgical techniques in KOOS₄ improvement from baseline to 2-year follow-up. However, KOOS₄ improved significantly in patients for all surgical techniques of single-bundle ACL reconstruction (p < 0.001); the largest improvement was seen between the pre-operative time period and at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Surgical techniques of primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction did not demonstrate differences in the improvement in baseline subjective knee function as measured with the KOOS₄ during the first 2 years after surgery. However, subjective knee function improved from pre-operative baseline to 2-year follow-up independently of surgical technique.

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior to single-bundle reconstruction in terms of revision frequency: a study of 22,460 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register

PURPOSE

Studies comparing single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions often include a combined analysis of anatomic and non-anatomic techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the revision rates between single- and double-bundle ACL reconstructions in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register with regard to surgical variables as determined by the anatomic ACL reconstruction scoring checklist (AARSC).

METHODS

Patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register who underwent either single- or double-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft during the period 2007-2014 were included. The follow-up period started with primary ACL reconstruction, and the outcome measure was set as revision surgery. An online questionnaire based on the items of the AARSC was used to determine the surgical technique implemented in the single-bundle procedures. These were organized into subgroups based on surgical variables, and the revision rates were compared with the double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated and adjusted for confounders by Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 22,460 patients were included in the study, of which 21,846 were single-bundle and 614 were double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Double-bundle ACL reconstruction had a revision frequency of 2.0% (n = 12) and single-bundle 3.2% (n = 689). Single-bundle reconstruction had an increased risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle [adjusted HR 1.98 (95% CI 1.12-3.51), p = 0.019]. The subgroup analysis showed a significantly increased risk of revision surgery in patients undergoing single-bundle with anatomic technique using transportal drilling [adjusted HR 2.51 (95% CI 1.39-4.54), p = 0.002] compared with double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Utilizing a more complete anatomic technique according to the AARSC lowered the hazard rate considerably when transportal drilling was performed but still resulted in significantly increased risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle ACL reconstruction [adjusted HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.04-3.38), p = 0.037].

CONCLUSIONS

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction is associated with a lower risk of revision surgery than single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Single-bundle procedures performed using transportal femoral drilling technique had significantly higher risk of revision surgery compared with double-bundle. However, a reference reconstruction with transportal drilling defined as a more complete anatomic reconstruction reduces the risk of revision surgery considerably.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Revision surgery in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 17,682 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between surgical variables and the risk of revision surgery after ACL reconstruction in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register.

METHODS

This cohort study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon were included. Follow-up started with primary ACL reconstruction and ended with ACL revision surgery or on 31 December, 2014, whichever occurred first. Details on surgical technique were collected using an online questionnaire. All group comparisons were made in relation to an "anatomic" reference group, comprised of essential AARSC items, defined as utilization of accessory medial portal drilling, anatomic tunnel placement, visualization of insertion sites and pertinent landmarks. Study end-point was revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 108 surgeons (61.7%) replied to the questionnaire. A total of 17,682 patients were included [n = 10,013 males (56.6%) and 7669 females (43.4%)]. The overall revision rate was 3.1%. Older age as well as cartilage injury evident at index surgery was associated with a decreased risk of revision surgery. The group using transtibial drilling and non-anatomic bone tunnel placement was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery [HR 0.694 (95% CI 0.490-0.984); P = 0.041] compared with the anatomic reference group. The anatomic reference group showed no difference in risk of revision surgery compared with the transtibial drilling groups with partial anatomic [HR 0.759 (95% CI 0.548-1.051), n.s.] and anatomic tunnel placement [HR 0.944 (95% CI 0.718-1.241), n.s.]. The anatomic reference group showed a decreased risk of revision surgery compared with the transportal drilling group with anatomic placement [HR 1.310 (95% CI 1.047-1.640); P = 0.018].

CONCLUSION

Non-anatomic bone tunnel placement via transtibial drilling resulted in the lowest risk of revision surgery after ACL reconstruction. The risk of revision surgery increased when using transportal drilling. Performing anatomic ACL reconstruction utilizing eight selected essential items from the AARSC lowered the risk of revision surgery associated with transportal drilling and anatomic bone tunnel placement. Detailed knowledge of surgical technique using the AARSC predicts the risk of ACL revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Single- or Double-Bundle Technique in the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction — Current Concepts and Review of the Literature

The treatment for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficient knee consists in its surgical reconstruction. There are several available and validated techniques, but there are still numerous questions to be answered concerning the best approach in terms of stability, functional outcome, and avoiding further damage in the knee. This paper sought to analyze the studies published in the literature comparing the outcomes of ACL restoration with single-bundle versus double-bundle techniques. The results demonstrate that even if biomechanical studies find an increased steadiness with double-bundle ACL reconstruction, there seems to be no clinical or functional benefit compared with single-bundle reconstruction.

Anatomic Tunnel Placement in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

The anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction concept has developed in part from renewed interest in the insertional anatomy of the ACL, using surgical techniques that can reproduce this anatomy reliably and accurately during surgical reconstruction. Several technical tools are available to help identify and place the tibial and femoral grafts anatomically, including arthroscopic anatomic landmarks, a malleable ruler device, and intraoperative fluoroscopy. The changes in technique for anatomic tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction follow recent biomechanical and kinematic data that demonstrate improved time zero characteristics. A better re-creation of native ACL kinematics and biomechanics is achieved with independent femoral drilling techniques that re-create a central footprint single-bundle ACL reconstruction or double-bundle reconstruction. However, to date, limited short-term and long-term clinical outcome data have been reported that support using either of these techniques rather than a transtibial drilling technique. This lack of clear clinical advantage for femoral independent and/or double-bundle techniques may arise because of the potentially offsetting biologic incorporation challenges of these grafts when placed using these techniques or could result from modifications made in traditional endoscopic transtibial techniques that allow improved femoral and tibial footprint restoration.

Comparison of Anatomic Double- and Single-Bundle Techniques for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hamstring Tendon Autografts: A Prospective Randomized Study With 5-Year Clinical and Radiographic Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcomes of the anatomic double-bundle (DB) and anatomic single-bundle (SB) techniques 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Since more effective restoration of rotational laxity is considered the main advantage of the DB technique, the pivot-shift test was the primary outcome variable of the study.

HYPOTHESIS

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction will result in a better outcome in terms of the pivot-shift test.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients (33 women, 72 men; median age, 27 years; range, 18-52 years) were randomized and underwent ACL reconstruction (DB group, n = 53; SB group, n = 52). All reconstructions were performed anatomically by identifying the ACL footprints, using the anteromedial portal for the femoral tunnel drilling, and utilizing interference screw for tibial and femoral fixation. A single blinded observer examined the patients preoperatively and at follow-up (median, 64 months; range, 55-75 months). Multiple subjective and objective clinical evaluation tests and radiographic assessments of osteoarthritis (OA) were performed using the Ahlbäck, Kellgren-Lawrence, and Fairbank grading systems at 6 weeks postoperatively and at the final follow-up evaluation.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, no differences were found between the study groups, apart from the preinjury Tegner activity level, which was lower in the DB group (SB: mean, 7.8 [range, 3-9]; DB: mean, 7.3 [range, 0-9]; P = .02). Eighty-seven patients (83%) were available for examination at the 5-year follow-up. Statistical differences could not be found between the groups in terms of the pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer laxity measurements, manual Lachman test, single-legged-hop test, square-hop test, range of motion, Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity scale, or Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Correspondingly, no differences were found between the groups regarding the presence of OA at follow-up. However, a significant increase of OA was found within the DB group at the 5-year follow-up. Both groups improved at follow-up compared with the preoperative assessment in terms of the laxity tests, hop tests, and scoring scales.

CONCLUSION

At the 5-year follow-up of an unselected group of patients, anatomic DB reconstruction was not superior to anatomic SB reconstruction in terms of the pivot-shift test.