Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport

Correlation between Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury Score at 6 Months after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Mid-Term Functional Test Results: An Observational Study at 5-Year Follow-Up

Background/Objectives: Evaluations allowing patients to return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) should be multimodal, including a psychological evaluation. The goal of this study was to determine if there is a correlation between the ACL-return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) score at 6 months post-ACLR and mid-term functional results. Methods: A total of 498 patients were assessed 6 months after primary ACLR using a composite test including isokinetics, hops, and ACL-RSI. A minimum of 3 years of follow-up was necessary. At the last follow-up, each patient completed clinical and functional evaluations, including the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Tegner Activity Scale, Self Knee Value (SKV), and ACL-RSI score. The results were compared overall and item by item. Results: At the last follow-up, the mean SKV, Tegner, IKDC, and ACL-RSI scores were 86.8 ± 14.3%, 6 ± 2.1, 77 ± 11.9%, and 68.8 ± 25.7%, respectively. A significant correlation existed between the 6-month ACL-RSI score and each functional test (respectively, ρ = 0.189 p < 0.001; ρ = 0.174 p < 0.001; ρ = 0.237 p < 0.001). The ACL-RSI score was significantly higher than at 6 months after surgery (p < 0.001). Over half (59.2%) of the cohort returned to an equal or greater level of activity, and there was a significant correlation between the 6-month ACL-RSI score and post-surgery level of activity. Conclusions: Patients with better ACL-RSI scores at 6 months post-ACLR have better functional results in the medium term and are more likely to RTS. Our results show a correlation between psychological factors at 6 months, measured through the ACL-RSI score, and activity level at mid-term follow-up. This study underlines the relationship between RTS and psychological effects, and the importance of ACLR rehabilitation to focus on decreasing apprehension and fear.

Combined Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Results in Better Knee Stability and More Satisfactory Subjective Outcomes in Non-Athlete Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background: Consensus has not yet been reached regarding combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ALLR) with revisional anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR). We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients who underwent isolated RACLR and those who underwent RACLR combined with ALLR. Methods: Between June 2010 and June 2021, 49 patients who underwent RACLR were retrospectively reviewed over a 24-month follow-up. Patients were categorized into the isolated RACLR (n = 37, group 1) or combined ALLR group (n = 12, group 2). Clinical outcomes were evaluated with several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for each PROM. The side-to-side difference (SSD) of the anterior instability was measured. The pivot-shift test was performed. Results: Baseline characteristics showed no differences between the groups. PROMs showed no significant differences between the groups at the 2-year follow-up. Group 2 was superior to group 1 in the MCID achievement rate for Lysholm knee and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores at 24 months postoperatively. At the final follow-up, the proportion of IKDC grade A in SSD for anterior laxity was higher in group 2 than in group 1 (58.3% versus [vs.] 18.3%, p = 0.009), and the proportion of pivot-shift grade 0 was also higher in group 2 (66.7% vs. 27.0%, p = 0.013). The "near return to activity" rate was also higher in group 2 than in group 1 (83.3% vs. 45.9%, p = 0.043). Conclusions: Combining ALLR with RACLR in non-athletes results in a higher proportion of patients with less mechanical graft failure and satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Associated Procedures

Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common yet devastating complication due to inferior clinical outcomes associated with revision ACLR. Identifying the cause and associated risk factors for failure is the most important consideration during preoperative planning. Special attention to tunnel quality, concomitant injuries, and modifiable risk factors will help determine the optimal approach and staging for revision ACLR. Additional procedures including lateral extra-articular tenodesis and osteotomy may be considered for at-risk populations. The purpose of this review is to explore causes of ACLR failure, clinical indications and appropriate patient evaluation, and technical considerations when performing revision ACLR.

Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Decrease Graft Failure in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction When Combined With Quadriceps or Patellar Tendon Grafts

PURPOSE

To compare return-to-sport (RTS) rates, graft failure rates, and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) with additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) versus isolated R-ACLR.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the medical records of patients who underwent R-ACLR with or without a modified Lemaire LET procedure was performed. Seventy-four patients with at least 2 years of follow-up who had high-grade positive pivot-shift test findings were included. Concomitant procedures such as meniscectomy and meniscal repair were collected, along with any complications and/or graft failure. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form score were collected. The ability to RTS was defined as fully, partially, or not returned.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 39 underwent isolated R-ACLR (mean age ± standard deviation, 29.2 ± 12.2 years) whereas 35 underwent an additional LET procedure (mean age, 24.6 ± 7.4 years). The mean length of follow-up in the R-ACLR group was 56.6 ± 26.5 months compared with 44.3 ± 17.6 months in the R-ACLR-LET group (P = .02) (range, 24-120 months). Patient-reported outcome measures were higher in the R-ACLR-LET group, with the KOOS Activities of Daily Living (93.5 ± 2.0 vs 97.2 ± 1.6, P = .03) and KOOS Sport (63.0 ± 3.6 vs 74.3 ± 3.8, P = .05) subdomain scores reaching the level of statistical significance. No differences were found in the other KOOS subdomain scores or the International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Failure rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.8% for R-ACLR vs 11.4% for R-ACLR-LET, P = .99). There were 13 patients (72.2%) in the R-ACLR group and 14 patients (60.8%) in the R-ACLR-LET group who did not RTS.

CONCLUSIONS

R-ACLR with additional LET showed similar failure and RTS rates to isolated R-ACLR after failed ACLR. The R-ACLR-LET group showed better functional results with significantly higher KOOS subdomain scores for activities of daily living, as well as sports and recreation. However, this study was unable to recommend the modified Lemaire LET procedure to be routinely used in R-ACLR patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Insufficient Evidence for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Utilizing Suture Tape Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 1-Year Follow-up

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of clinical studies to directly compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with versus without suture tape (ST) augmentation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies directly comparing outcomes of ACLR with versus without ST augmentation with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The search terms used were anterior cruciate ligament suture tape. Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rates, return to sport (RTS), anteroposterior (AP) laxity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

Five studies (all Level III) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 246 patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation (SA group) and 282 patients undergoing ACLR without augmentation (control group). Patient age ranged from 14.9 to 29.7 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 24.0 to 48.6 months. The mean body mass index ranged from 25.3 to 26.3 kg/m2 and the overall percentage of males ranged from 43.4% to 69.0%. Overall, the graft failure rate ranged from 1.0% to 25.0% in the SA group and 8.0% to 20.0% in the control group. Among the studies that reported RTS rates, the rate ranged from 69.2% to 88.9% in the SA group and 51.5% to 87.5% in the control group. Among all PROs, 2 studies found a significant difference in the Tegner score favoring the SA group. Otherwise, no significant differences were found between groups in terms of PROs. No significant differences in AP laxity were found between groups within any particular study. There was heterogeneity between studies regarding surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation protocols, and reported PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation may experience favorable clinical outcomes compared with ACLR alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.

Comparison of Revision ACL Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Augmented With Allograft Versus Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft With Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis

Background

Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the conventional techniques in the revision setting especially after a primary hamstring tendon graft. The use of the iliotibial band (ITB) augmented with allograft (AG) is an encouraging graft alternative for ACLR in terms of clinical and biomechanical data in the literature.

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of BTB graft with lateral extra-articular tenodesis, modified Lemaire (BTB-LET), and an ITB graft augmented with hamstring AG (ITB-AG) in the setting of revision ACLR.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Descriptive data and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected from patients who underwent revision ACLR with either the BTB-LET or ITB-AG technique between 2012 and 2020 and who had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The clinical outcomes were assessed by the Lysholm, Tegner, Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Return to sports, complications, and revisions were also analyzed.

Results

A total of 167 patients were included, with 106 patients in the BTB-LET group and 61 patients in the ITB-AG group. There were no significant group differences in sociodemographic characteristics; however, the mean follow-up was significantly longer in the BTB-LET compared with the ITB-AG group (52.0 vs 38.8 months, respectively; P = .0001). There were no significant differences in postoperative outcome scores; however, patients in the ITB-AG group had a higher rate of return to competitive pivoting sports (32.8% vs 17.9%; P = .0288) and a higher overall rate of return to preinjury sport (63.9% vs 47.2%; P = .0365). Complications, including revisions for meniscal or chondral lesions and retears (8 [8.3%] in the BTB-LET group and 2 [4.0%] in the ITB-AG group), were not significantly different. All retears were due to sports-related accidents.

Conclusion

In this study, ITB-AG was not different from BTB-LET in terms of functional outcomes scores but allowed better return to sport rate. Performing ITB-AG reconstruction in the setting of revision ACLR appears to be safe, effective, and associated with a satisfying return-to-sports rate.

Rotational stability can be enhanced in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the over-the-top augmentation technique compared to single bundle technique

PURPOSE

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is technically challenging due to mispositioned tunnels, bone loss, and tunnel enlargement, which may compromise graft fixation and result in failure. To obtain firm graft fixation and strength in one stage, we utilized an over-the-top augmentation technique using an Achilles tendon allograft in revision ACL reconstruction (OA-ACLR). This study compared OA-ACLR with single-bundle ACL reconstruction (SB-ACLR). We hypothesized that OA-ACLR would enhance the postoperative knee joint rotational stability.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 47 patients who underwent revisional OA-ACLR and 48 who underwent primary SB-ACLR with minimum follow-up of 6 months. Knee instability was evaluated with the anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift tests preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Side-to-side differences were compared with the non-affected side at the final follow-up. Function was evaluated using the IKDC subjective and Lysholm knee scores preoperatively and at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ in terms of sex, age, BMI, and etiology. There were no significant differences in concomitant surgical procedures, such as meniscectomy and meniscus repair, between the two groups (p = 0.335, > 0.99). Both groups significantly improved in the anterior drawer, Lachman, pivot shift tests, and IKDC and Lysholm knee scores after surgery (all p < 0.001). The OA-ACLR group showed significantly higher rotational stability in the pivot shift test than the SB-ACLR group (p = 0.017). The postoperative side-to-side difference, the IKDC and Lysholm scores showed no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.34, 0.301, 0.438).

CONCLUSIONS

OA-ACLR showed enhanced rotational stability with pivot shift test compared to SB-ACLR. It may be considered a useful alternative for revision ACL reconstruction.

Relationship between graft failure following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and hamstring autograft diameter

With the increase in the number of individuals participating in sports, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are also increasing gradually and the number of patients requiring surgical treatment is increasing in parallel. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the need for revision surgery and graft diameter following primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring autografts. The secondary aim of the study was to clarify relationships between anthropometric characteristics and graft diameter. Patients who underwent ACLR with hamstring autografts were included in this retrospective study. The age, body mass index, height, and weight of all patients were recorded preoperatively and the diameters of the grafts were recorded during surgery. The relationship between revision rate and graft diameter and the relationships between anthropometric measurements and graft diameter were investigated for these patients at least one year after surgery. This study included 58 people with graft diameters of ≤7 mm and 261 people with graft diameters of >7 mm. A statistically significant difference was found between the graft diameters of the group that needed revision surgery and the group that did not (p<0.001). A positive relationship was also found between the patient's height and graft diameter (r=0.168). In this study, it was found that the risk of ACL revision surgery increased by 5.5 times among patients with graft diameters of ≤7 mm. The positive relationship between the patient's height and graft diameter can make a significant difference in terms of the need for revision surgery.

Outcome analysis of infrapatellar fat pad partial resection or preservation in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The infrapatellar fat pad (IPFP) is one of the structures surrounding the knee joint that obscures exposure in minimally arthroscopy anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Most surgeons excise the partial fat pad for better exposure of the knee. However, whether removal of IPFP in ACLR remained inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes of IPFP preservation or resection in patients with primary hamstring-graft ACLR. A total of 104 patients were assigned to receive either IPFP-R (n = 55) or IPFP-P (n = 49). There were no significant preoperative differences between the two groups. The anterior knee pain (AKP) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in the two groups both recovered compared with those at baseline, but the IPFP-P group recovered more significantly at 3-, 6-, 12-month, and 3-, 6-month of follow-up, respectively. When assessing the KOOS subclasses using minimum perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI), patients with IPFP-R failed to make significant improvement at 3 months in the symptoms, pain and sports subsets of the KOOS. Knee-related complications were not significantly different between the two groups, while the resection group had a higher incidence. These results suggested that ACLR with primary hamstring grafts can achieve good effects whether performed with IPFP resection or preservation; however, the improvements in anterior knee pain and knee joint functions are better for the patients with IPFP preservation. Therefore, surgeons should avoid the resection of IPFP as much as possible while fully exposing the wild view to ensure the ACLR.

The 25-year experience of over-the-top ACL reconstruction plus extra-articular lateral tenodesis with hamstring tendon grafts: the story so far

This article presents with an evidence based approach, the kinematical rationale, biological evidence and the long term results of the "Over-The-Top" anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with lateral plasty technique. This surgery was developed more than 25 years ago at the Rizzoli Institute by professor Marcacci and Zaffagnini and it is still widely performed in many orthopedic center worldwide.

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Revision and Primary ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis With 3-5 Years of Follow-up

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies designed by matching related factors to compare clinical outcomes and return to sport (RTS) between patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) and primary ACLR (P-ACLR).

PURPOSE

(1) To compare the outcomes between R-ACLR and P-ACLR in a matched-pair analysis with 3- to 5-year follow-up and (2) to evaluate patient-reported factors for not returning to preinjury-level sport.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent R-ACLR between September 2016 and November 2018 were propensity matched by age, sex, body mass index, passive anterior tibial subluxation, and generalized hypermobility in a 1:1 ratio to patients who underwent P-ACLR during the same period. By combining in person follow-up at 2 years postoperatively and telemedicine interview at the final follow-up (January 2022), knee stability and clinical scores were compared, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner. Status of RTS was requested, specifically whether the patient returned to preinjury level of sport. Patient-reported reasons for not returning were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 63 matched pairs in the present study. Knee stability was similar in terms of KT-2000 arthrometer, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test results between the groups at 2 years of follow-up. At the final follow-up, no significant difference was found between groups for postoperative clinical scores (IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm) (P > .05). There was a significant difference in total RTS: 53 (84.1%) in the P-ACLR cohort and 41 (65.1%) in the R-ACLR cohort (P = .014). No significant difference was shown in terms of RTS at the same level: 35 (55.6%) in P-ACLR and 31 (49.2%) in R-ACLR (P = .476). Significantly more patients showed fear of reinjury: 26 of 32 (81.3%) in the R-ACLR group as compared with 15 of 28 (53.5%) in the P-ACLR group (P < .021).

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR resulted in similar clinical scores (IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm) but significantly lower RTS versus P-ACLR at 3 to 5 years of follow-up. Fear of reinjury was the most common factor that caused sport changes in patients with R-ACLR.

Meniscal and Articular Cartilage Predictors of Outcome After Revision ACL Reconstruction: A 6-Year Follow-up Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient's outcome at 6-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation (P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores (P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years.

CONCLUSION

Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

Allografts and lateral extra-articular tenodesis for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: enhanced rotational stability and improved functional outcomes

PURPOSE

Multiple studies have shown higher failure rate and patient-reported outcomes to be significantly worse following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructive (ACLR) surgery, especially using allografts. One of the reasons being rotational instability. Because of this, augmentation with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) is often considered. Good short-term results in regards to functional and perceived scores and low complication rate can be expected in revision ACLR using allografts in combination with LET.

METHODS

Between 2014 and 2021, 46 patients were registered for revision ACLR using allografts and extra-articular augmentation (modified Lemaire) and included in this prospective study. Patients' demographic and clinical data were collected preoperatively, postoperatively, and during the follow-up period of 12 months.

RESULTS

Patient-reported functional outcomes were statistically significant for IKDC, Lysholm, and SF-12 physical scale (p < 0.05). Tegner score showed a decreased number of patients who were able to return to sport at their previous level (p = 0.001). Stability examination tests (Lachman and pivot-shift) showed significant improvements. Concomitant lesions were present in 76.1% of patients. Ten patients (21.7%) presented major complications, including six cases of anteroposterior instability, three cases of knee pain and one graft re-rupture.

CONCLUSION

Revision procedures are inherently challenging with a high number of associated chondral and meniscus lesions. However, good short-term functional outcomes and enhanced rotational stability with an acceptable complication rate can be expected in most cases where revision ACLR using allografts is augmented with LET.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective; Case series; Level of evidence IV.

ACL autograft reconstruction revisions with tendon allografts: Possibilities and outcomes. A one-year follow-up of 39 patients

BACKGROUND

The number of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions is steadily rising in France. Re-tear rates of up to 25% have been reported and graft selection remains a notable challenge. Allografts, although rarely used in France, can be a viable option. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate the benefits of ACL revision with allografts, by determining subjective scores (IKDC score and KOOS), measuring laxity, and evaluating the rate of return to sports.

HYPOTHESIS

Tendon allografts are reliable and can be used in France for ACL reconstruction revision.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study including 39 patients managed in two centres between 2004 and 2016 and followed up for at least a year. Patients were eligible if they had undergone tendon allograft reconstruction for ACL revision with or without rupture of a peripheral plane. We excluded underage patients and patients with a history of ligament injury in the contralateral knee. Mean age was 32 years. The allografts were extensor mechanisms, anterior or posterior tibial tendons, fascia lata tendons, hamstring tendons, and a short fibular tendon. They were obtained from French and Belgian tissue banks. They were used for the reconstruction of 39 ACLs and 11 collateral ligaments. The IKDC score and KOOS were determined in all patients. Laximetry was performed in 31 patients by an independent examiner.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 3.5 years. Arthroscopic release was required in one patient, and 2 patients experienced re-tears. No deep surgical site infections were recorded. The subjective IKDC score and the KOOS improved significantly, from 53.6 to 80.7 and from 60.4 to 83.2, respectively. Mean postoperative differential laxity was 1.4mm (KT 1000) and 1.6mm (GNRB®). Of the 3 patients who were professional athletes, 2 had returned to sports at the same level one year later, and among the recreational athletes, 54% had resumed their previous sporting activities.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of complex ligament reconstruction revision, tendon allografts are reliable and can be used in France.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective cohort study.

Psychological, physical and social factors influence decision to return to sport after revision ACL reconstruction with BPTB graft

PURPOSE

There is limited evidence in literature regarding the patient-reported factors that influence their return to sport (RTS) in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The medium-term results of a prospective consecutive cohort of patients undergoing single- and two-stage revision ACLR with bone patellar tendon bone graft (BPTB) and patient-reported factors that influence their decision to return to sport are presented in this study.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients were included in this prospective study. Single- or two-stage revision with BPTB graft was performed based on pre-operative planning. Iliac crest bone graft was used. Pre-operative and follow-up Lysholm and Tegner activity scores and RTS, level of sport and patient-reported factors affecting RTS were recorded. The mean follow-up was 9 years (SD 2.7 years).

RESULTS

Single-stage revision ACLR was performed in 61 patients. In 11 patients (15%), revision ACLR was performed in two stages. There was a significant improvement in Lysholm score from mean 51.1 to 86.7 (p < 0.001). The incidence of re-rupture in this cohort was 0%. The median Tegner score was 6 (range 2-9). Twenty-five patients (34.7%) did not return to any sport at final follow-up. Twenty-nine (40.2%) patients returned to their pre-injury level of sport. Fear of reinjury (79%, p < 0.001) and persistent knee symptoms (35.8%, p = 0.03) were the most common factors limiting RTS in non-returners.

CONCLUSION

Psychological and social factors may have an influence on RTS in addition to physical factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and outcomes with different autografts in a population with kneeling customs

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate, compare the mid-term functional outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using different autografts and assess the cause of failure of primary ACLR in an Omani population with kneeling customs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with failed primary ACLR who underwent revision ACLR using autografts were included in this retrospective study. The cause of primary ACLR failure and the functional outcome was assessed using the Tegner-Lyholm knee score and compared among bone patella tendon-bone (BPTB), quadriceps tendon (QT), semitendinosus gracilis (STG) autografts used.

RESULTS

One hundred two patients (102 male) were included in the study with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Thirty-one patients underwent revision with BPTB, 34 with STG and 19 with QT autografts. Majority of the patients (70.23%) achieved good-to-excellent functional outcome based on their Tegner-Lysholm scores. The functional outcome of different autografts was comparable to each other based on Kruskal-Wallis test. The causes of primary ACLR failure were failure due to trauma in 58.33% of patients, technical failure in 22.61% of patients, and nontraumatic failure in 19.04% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The functional outcome of revision ACLR in this Middle Eastern Asian Omani population was good-to-excellent, with the patients experiencing no difficulty in performing activities of daily living, including kneeling activities. The outcome of different autografts, BTPB, QT, STSG is similar in high knee flexion patients with no autograft found to be superior. The findings of this study add to the literature on functional outcomes after primary and revision ACLR in a customary kneeling population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Association Between Graft Choice and 6-Year Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the MARS Cohort

BACKGROUND

Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome.

HYPOTHESIS

In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores (P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized (P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts (P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts (P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft (P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87).

CONCLUSION

BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.

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.

Predictive Factors for Hamstring Autograft Diameter in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Multiple studies found hamstring tendon (HT) autograft diameter to be a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure. This study aimed to determine which preoperative measurements are associated with HT autograft diameter in ACL reconstruction by directly comparing patient characteristics and cross-sectional area (CSA) measurement of the semitendinosus and gracilis tendon on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Fifty-three patients with a primary ACL reconstruction with a four-stranded HT autograft were included in this study. Preoperatively we recorded length, weight, thigh circumference, gender, age, preinjury Tegner activity score, and CSA of the semitendinosus and gracilis tendon on MRI. Total CSA on MRI, weight, height, gender, and thigh circumference were all significantly correlated with HT autograft diameter (p < 0.05). A multiple linear regression model with CSA measurement of the HTs on MRI, weight, and height showed the most explained variance of HT autograft diameter (adjusted R ² = 44%). A regression equation was derived for an estimation of the expected intraoperative HT autograft diameter: 1.2508 + 0.0400 × total CSA (mm²) + 0.0100 × weight (kg) + 0.0296 × length (cm). The Bland and Altman analysis indicated a 95% limit of agreement of ± 1.14 mm and an error correlation of r = 0.47. Smaller CSA of the semitendinosus and gracilis tendon on MRI, shorter stature, lower weight, smaller thigh circumference, and female gender are associated with a smaller four-stranded HT autograft diameter in ACL reconstruction. Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that the combination of MRI CSA measurement, weight, and height is the strongest predictor.

Repair versus reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a study protocol for a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

For active patients with a tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) who would like to return to active level of sports, the current surgical gold standard is reconstruction of the ACL. Recently, there has been renewed interest in repairing the ACL in selected patients with a proximally torn ligament. Repair of the ligament has (potential) advantages over reconstruction of the ligament such as decreased surgical morbidity, faster return of range of motion, and potentially decreased awareness of the knee. Studies comparing both treatments in a prospective randomized method are currently lacking.

Methods

This study is a multicenter prospective block randomized controlled trial. A total of 74 patients with acute proximal isolated ACL tears will be assigned in a 1:1 allocation ratio to either (I) ACL repair using cortical button fixation and additional suture augmentation or (II) ACL reconstruction using an all-inside autologous hamstring graft technique. The primary objective is to assess if ACL repair is non-inferior to ACL reconstruction regarding the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score at two-years postoperatively. The secondary objectives are to assess if ACL repair is non-inferior with regards to (I) other patient-reported outcomes measures (i.e. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm score, Forgotten Joint Score, patient satisfaction and pain), (II) objective outcome measures (i.e. failure of repair or graft defined as rerupture or symptomatic instability, reoperation, contralateral injury, and stability using the objective IKDC score and Rollimeter/KT-2000), (III) return to sports assessed by Tegner activity score and the ACL-Return to Sports Index at two-year follow-up, and (IV) long-term osteoarthritis at 10-year follow-up.

Discussion

Over the last decade there has been a resurgence of interest in repair of proximally torn ACLs. Several cohort studies have shown encouraging short-term and mid-term results using these techniques, but prospective randomized studies are lacking. Therefore, this randomized controlled trial has been designed to assess whether ACL repair is at least equivalent to the current gold standard of ACL reconstruction in both subjective and objective outcome scores.

Trial registration

Registered at Netherlands Trial Register (NL9072) on 25th of November 2020.

The REVision Using Imaging to Guide Staging and Evaluation (REVISE) in ACL Reconstruction Classification

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) procedures are increasing in incidence and possess markedly inferior clinical outcomes (76% satisfaction) and return-to-sports (57%) rates than their primary counterparts. Given their complexity, a universal language is required to identify and communicate the technical challenges faced with revision procedures and guide treatment strategies. The proposed REV: ision using I: maging to guide S: taging and E: valuation (REVISE) ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) Classification can serve as a foundation for this universal language that is feasible and practical with acceptable inter-rater agreement. A focus group of sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons was assembled to develop a classification to assess femoral/tibial tunnel "usability" (placement, widening, overlap) and guide the revision reconstruction strategy (one-stage vs. two-stage) post-failed ACL reconstruction. Twelve board-certified sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons independently applied the classification to the de-identified computed tomographic (CT) scan data of 10 patients, randomly selected, who failed ACL reconstruction. An interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated (with 95% confidence intervals) to assess agreement among reviewers concerning the three major classifications of the proposed system. Across surgeons, and on an individual patient basis, there was high internal validity and observed agreement on treatment strategy (one-stage vs. two-stage revision). Reliability testing of the classification using CT scan data demonstrated an ICC (95% confidence interval) of 0.92 (0.80-0.98) suggesting "substantial" agreement between the surgeons across all patients for all elements of the classification. The proposed REVISE ACL Classification, which employs CT scan analysis to both identify technical issues and guide revision ACL treatment strategy (one- or two-stage), constitutes a feasible and practical system with high internal validity, high observed agreement, and substantial inter-rater agreement. Adoption of this classification, both clinically and in research, will help provide a universal language for orthopaedic surgeons to discuss these complex clinical presentations and help standardize an approach to diagnosis and treatment to improve patient outcomes. The Level of Evidence for this study is 3.

ACL reconstruction in the professional or elite athlete: state of the art

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are on the rise at all levels of sport, including elite athletics. ACL injury can have implications on the athlete's sport longevity, as well as other long-term consequences, such as the development of future knee osteoarthritis. In the elite athlete, ACL injury can also have ramifications in terms of contract/scholastic obligations, sponsorships and revenue-generating potential. Although the goal of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is to return any athlete to the same preinjury level of sport, management of ACL injuries in the elite athlete come with the additional challenge of returning him or her to an extremely high level of physical performance. Despite outcome studies after ACLR in elite athletes showing a high return-to-sport rate, these studies also show that very few athletes are able to return to sport at the same level of performance. They also show that those athletes who undergo ACLR have careers that are more short-lived in comparison to those without injury. Thus, returning an elite athlete to 'near peak' performance may not be good enough for the athletic demands of elite-level sports. A possible explanation for the variability in outcomes is the great diversity seen in the management of ACL injuries in the elite athlete in terms of rehabilitation, graft choices, portal drilling and reconstruction techniques. Recently, the advent of anatomical, individualised ACLR has shown improved results in ACLR outcomes. However, larger-scale studies with long-term follow-ups are needed to better understand the outcomes of modern ACLR techniques-particularly with the rise of quadriceps tendon as an autograft choice and the addition of lateral extra-articular tenodesis procedures. The purpose of this article was thus to provide an up-to-date state-of-the-art review in the management of ACL injuries in the elite athlete.

All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Augmentation Using the Native Anterior Cruciate Ligament Remnant by Suture Approximation

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture remains a debilitating orthopaedic pathology with a substantial economic and psychological burden on patients, especially athletes. The purpose of ACL reconstruction is to attain maximum joint stability and functionality, allowing patients to resume their previous level of activity. Several graft options and techniques are available for ACL reconstruction. The all-inside remnant-preservation technique is a minimally invasive approach aiming for improved proprioception, better graft integration, and increased graft strength via ACL augmentation by suture approximation with an optimal anatomic reconstruction. ACL augmentation is associated with a decreased risk of rerupture. Moreover, enhancement of knee proprioception via the presented technique allows an early return to activity by patients because weight bearing (with a brace) can be initiated as early as day 1 postoperatively. Patients can resume running activities by 2 months postoperatively and return to pivot sports by 3 months postoperatively. Despite this surgical procedure being technically demanding, it is associated with improved clinical outcomes and functional capacities. Patients are also found to better tolerate the postoperative rehabilitation protocol.

Revision ACL Reconstruction: Principles and Practice

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) surgeries is increasing and so is the number of revision surgeries for a failed ACLR. The spectrum of ACL failure includes symptoms of recurrent instability, pain, and/or stiffness.

DISCUSSION

Factors contributing to ACL failure may be classified as patient-related, surgeon-related, and biological factors. Of these, tunnel malposition and recurrent trauma are the most common causes. Detailed patient assessment, imaging, and studying details of the index surgery are critical prior to planning revision surgery. Infection has to be ruled out prior to planning any reconstructive surgical procedure. Osseous malalignment in the coronal or sagittal planes would also need correction along with or prior to revision ACL surgery. Revision ACL reconstruction maybe performed as a one-stage or two-stage procedure. Severe tunnel dilatation, infection, or arthrofibrosis necessitates a two-stage approach. Autografts are preferred for revision ACL due their lesser re-tear rates and better outcomes. Associated meniscus tears and cartilage injuries are more common in revision than in primary surgery and need to be managed appropriately. Extra-articular reconstruction for controlling anterolateral instability is frequently required as well.

CONCLUSION

Revision ACL reconstruction is a complex undertaking due to limited graft options, compromised anatomy and high frequency of associated injuries. Patient expectations must be tempered because functional outcomes and return to pre-injury sports are inferior to a primary surgery.

Compliance in post-operative rehabilitation is a key factor for return to sport after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

To assess the rate of return to sport (RTS) following revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) in a rehabilitation-based cohort of patients. A secondary goal of the study was to evaluate the association between compliance in post-operative rehabilitation and RTS rate.

METHODS

The study cohort included 79 sport-active patients (62 males, 17 females, 30.0 ± 10.2 years old) who underwent revision ACLR surgery and followed the same functional-oriented rehabilitation protocol. Patients were evaluated using a RTS survey: return to any kind of sport participation, return to the same pre-injury sport, return to the same sport at the same pre-injury level. With regards to compliance in post-operative rehabilitation, patients were then grouped in (1) Fully Compliant (FC), (2) Moderately Compliant (MC), (3) Scarcely Compliant (SC), and (4) Non-Compliant (NC).

RESULTS

At an average follow-up of 29 ± 12 months, 86% of the patients returned to some kind of sport activity, 62% returned to the same pre-injury sport activity and 59% returned to the same pre-injury level of sport activity. While no surgical aspects were correlated with RTS, higher BMI was found to have a negative influence (p = 0.033). Regardless of the type of sport, compliance significantly affected RTS at the same pre-injury level (p = 0.006): 86% in FC, 67% in MC, 50% in SC, and 45% in NC. For each compliance goal achieved, the probability of RTS increased by 68% (OR = 1.68; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

RTS at the same pre-injury level after revision ACLR is challenging. A higher compliance in rehabilitation significantly increases the chances of RTS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Autologous Bone Graft Versus Silicate-Substituted Calcium Phosphate in the Treatment of Tunnel Defects in 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study With a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years

PURPOSE

To compare and evaluate knee laxity and functional outcomes between autologous bone graft and silicate-substituted calcium phosphate (Si-CaP) in the treatment of tunnel defects in 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2012 and 2015 with a total of 40 patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR. The tunnels were filled with autologous iliac crest cancellous bone graft in 20 patients (control group) and with Si-CaP in the other 20 patients (intervention group). After a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, functional outcomes were assessed by KT-1000 arthrometry (side-to-side [STS] difference), the Tegner score, the Lysholm score, and the International Knee Documentation Committee score.

RESULTS

A total of 37 patients (follow-up rate, 92.5%) with an average age of 31 years were followed up for 3.4 years (range, 2.2-5.5 years). The KT-1000 measurement did not show any STS difference between the bone graft group (0.9 ± 1.5 mm) and the Si-CaP group (0.7 ± 2.0 mm) (P = .731). One patient in the intervention group (5%) had an STS difference greater than 5 mm. Both groups showed significant improvements in the Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee score from preoperative assessment to final follow-up (P ≤ .002), without any difference between the 2 groups (P ≥ .396). Complications requiring revision occurred in 4 control patients (22%) and in 2 patients in the intervention group (11%) (P = .660). No complications in relation to Si-CaP were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalent knee laxity and clinical function outcomes were noted 3 years after surgery in both groups of patients. Si-CaP bone substitute is therefore a safe alternative to autologous bone graft for 2-stage ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Risk Factors for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Frequency With Which Patients Change Surgeons

Background:

Revision surgery is a known complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), but the proportion of patients who seek a different surgeon for their revision procedure is unknown.

Purpose:

To determine the rate and risk factors for revision ACLR in New Zealand and to find the proportion of patients undergoing revision ACLR who see a different surgeon compared with their primary procedure as well as the factors that may influence this decision.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Data from New Zealand’s single government insurer, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), were analyzed. All primary ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014 were evaluated, and revision ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, were evaluated to allow for a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Cases undergoing subsequent revision were divided into those with the same or a different surgeon compared with the primary procedure. Risk factors for revision and change of surgeons were assessed, including age, sex, time from injury to surgery, time between primary and revision procedures, surgeon volume, and ethnicity.

Results:

A total of 15,212 primary ACLR procedures were recorded in 14,926 patients. The mean patient age was 29.2 years, and 61% were male patients. There were 676 subsequent revision procedures and 510 contralateral procedures during the study period, resulting in a 5-year survival rate of 95.5% for the ACL graft and 96.5% for the contralateral ACL. Risk factors for revision surgery included male sex, age <20 years, and <1 year from injury to surgery. Of the revision procedures, 44.5% (n = 301) were performed by a different surgeon compared with primary ACLR. For primary ACLR procedures performed by low-volume surgeons, 75.0% of patients requiring revision ACLR changed surgeons, compared with 21.5% for high-volume surgeons (≤10 vs >50 primary ACLR/y; hazard ratio, 10.70 [95% CI, 6.01-19.05]; P < .001). Other factors associated with change of surgeons included older age, longer time between primary and revision surgery, and Asian and Maori ethnicities.

Conclusion:

A significant proportion of patients change surgeons when requiring revision ACLR. In the absence of formal follow-up systems such as registries, surgeons, particularly those with a low volume of ACLRs, may underestimate their personal revision rate.

Low rate of return to pre-injury sport level in athletes after cartilage surgery: a 10-year follow-up study

PURPOSE

Although articular surface is frequently damaged in athletes, results in terms of return to sport and level of activity after cartilage surgery remain rather unpredictable and poorly documented. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome in terms of rate and level of return to sport in a group of competitive athletes who underwent matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT), as well as the impact on their athletic career.

METHODS

Thirty-one male patients (mean age 22.6 ± 6.3 years) p racticing sport at competitive level, affected by focal chondral/osteochondral lesions of the distal femur, were enrolled and treated with arthroscopic hyaluronan-based MACT. Patients were evaluated prospectively at 1-year intervals with the IKDC subjective, Tegner, and EuroQol VAS scores during their pre-operative visit and subsequent follow-ups for up to 10 years. Return to sport in terms of level, time and maintenance of the activity level was documented, together with surgical or clinical failures.

RESULTS

A marked improvement in all scores was found: IKDC increased from 40.3 ± 13.4 to 81.7 ± 14.4 (p < 0.0005) at 12 months; a further improvement was observed at 2 years (89.5 ± 11.3; p = 0.008), then results were stable for up to 10 years (87.3 ± 13.6). The analysis of return to sport documented that 64.5% of patients were able to return at a competitive level, and 58.1% performed at the same pre-injury level, with activity rates decreasing over time. The rate of patients returning to competitive level was 84% in those without previous surgery (vs. 33% who had undergone previous surgery), 87% for those with traumatic lesions (vs. 33% and 50% for degenerative and OCD lesions, respectively), and 92.3% in younger patients (age < 20 years). Among these factors, multivariate analysis demonstrated that previous surgery was the single most influencing factor for returning to the same sport level (p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

These long-term results showed that chondrocyte-based regenerative approach has some limitations in terms of sport-related outcomes. The level of high functional knee restoration needed for such high-demanding activity level can be challenging to achieve, especially in patients with a more compromised joint homeostasis. Return to sport rate varies significantly according to specific patient and lesion characteristics and best results are obtained in young patients with traumatic lesions without previous surgery, which should be considered when treating athletes affected by cartilage lesions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Outcome After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the current literature related to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision in terms of surgical aspects, graft choices, concomitant injuries, patient-reported outcome, return to sport, and objective measurement outcome.

RECENT FINDINGS

An ACL rupture is a common knee injury, and the number of primary ACL reconstructions is increasing, implying a subsequent increase of ACL revisions in the future. It is widely accepted that an ACL revision is surgically challenging with a myriad of graft options to choose from. In many cases, simultaneous injuries to the index limb including meniscal and chondral lesions, respectively, are observed in the setting of a secondary ACL injury. Furthermore, the general understanding is that an ACL revision results in inferior outcome compared with a primary ACL reconstruction. Surgical treatment of an ACL revision can be performed as one-stage or two-stage procedure depending on, for example, the presence of limb malalignments, concomitant injuries, and tunnel widening. Nonirradiated allografts and autologous patella tendon, hamstring tendon, and quadriceps tendon are feasible options for ACL revision. Concomitant injuries to the affected knee such as intraarticular chondral lesions are more common in the setting of an ACL revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction while a lower presence of concomitant meniscal pathology is reported at ACL revision. Patients undergoing ACL revision have lower clinical and patient-reported outcome and lower rates of return to sport when compared with primary ACL surgery cases. However, long-term follow-ups with large study cohorts evaluating outcome of ACL revision are limited. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings of this review.

Relationship Between Sports Participation After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision cohorts continually report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires than primary ACL cohorts at similar time points after surgery. It is unclear how these outcomes are associated with physical activity after physician clearance for return to recreational or competitive sports after ACL revision surgery.

HYPOTHESES

Participants who return to either multiple sports or a singular sport after revision ACL surgery will report decreased knee symptoms, increased activity level, and improved knee function as measured by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and compared with no sports participation. Multisport participation as compared with singular sport participation will result in similar increased PROMs and activity level.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 clinical sites. At the time of revision, baseline data collected included the following: demographics, surgical characteristics, previous knee treatment and PROMs, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, Marx activity score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). A series of multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale scores at 2 years after revision surgery by sports participation category, controlling for known significant covariates.

RESULTS

Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (986 of 1205) of the original cohort. Patients who reported not participating in sports after revision surgery had lower median PROMs both at baseline and at 2 years as compared with patients who participated in either a single sport or multiple sports. Significant differences were found in the change of scores among groups on the IKDC (P < .0001), KOOS-Symptoms (P = .01), KOOS-Sports and Recreation (P = .04), and KOOS-Quality of Life (P < .0001). Patients with no sports participation were 2.0 to 5.7 times more likely than multiple-sport participants to report significantly lower PROMs, depending on the specific outcome measure assessed, and 1.8 to 3.8 times more likely than single-sport participants (except for WOMAC-Stiffness, P = .18), after controlling for known covariates.

CONCLUSION

Participation in either a single sport or multiple sports in the 2 years after ACL revision surgery was found to be significantly associated with higher PROMs across multiple validated self-reported assessment tools. During follow-up appointments, surgeons should continue to expect that patients who report returning to physical activity after surgery will self-report better functional outcomes, regardless of baseline activity levels.

Identifying candidates for arthroscopic primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament: A case-control study

INTRODUCTION

There has been a recent resurgence of interest in arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. Patient selection is critical but not much is currently known on what predicts the possibility of repair. Goal of this study was therefore to assess predictive factors for the possibility of arthroscopic primary ACL repair.

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control study, all patients undergoing ACL surgery in a ten-year interval were included. Patients were treated with primary repair if there was a proximal tear and good tissue quality, or otherwise underwent ACL reconstruction. Collected data were age, gender, BMI, injury-to-surgery delay, injury mechanism and concomitant injuries. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to find cutoff values, and all significant dependent variables were used in multivariate logistic analysis to assess independent predictors for the possibility of primary repair.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-one patients were included, of which in 158 patients (44%) primary repair was possible. Multivariate analysis (R² = 0.340, p < 0.001) showed that age > 35 years (Odds ratio [OR] 4.2, 95% CI 2.4-7.5,p < 0.001), surgery within 28 days (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.9-5.7, p < 0.001), and BMI <26 (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.3,p = 0.029) were predictive for the possibility of primary repair, and lateral meniscus injury presence decreased the likelihood of repair (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

In this large cohort study, it was noted that 44% of patients had repairable ACL tears. Primary repair was more likely to be possible in older patients, patients with lower BMI and when surgery was performed within four weeks of injury.

Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction: a clinical review

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains a challenge, especially optimising outcome for patients with a compromised knee where previous autogenous tissue has been used for reconstruction. Allograft tissue has become a recognized choice of graft for revision surgery but questions remain over the risks and benefits of such an option. Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction with no higher risk of infection and equivalent failure rates compared to autografts provided that the tissue is not irradiated, or any irradiation is minimal. Best scenarios for use of allografts include revision surgery where further use of autografts could lead to high donor site morbidity, complex instability situations where additional structures may need reconstruction, and in those with clinical and radiologic signs of autologous tendon degeneration. A surgeon needs to be able to select the best option for the challenging knee facing revision ACL reconstruction, and in the light of current data, allograft tissue can be considered a suitable option to this purpose.Level of evidence IV.

Outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction secondary to reamer-irrigator-aspirator harvested bone grafting

INTRODUCTION

Patients with widened or misplaced tunnels may require bone grafting prior to revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Utilising reamer-irrigator-aspirator (RIA) harvested bone from the femur showed promising filling rates. Nevertheless, the procedure has neither been validated in a larger population nor been assessed with regards to radiological and clinical outcome of the subsequently conducted revision ACL reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate tunnel filling rates, positioning of the revision tunnels and outcome parameters of such two-staged revision ACL reconstructions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 15 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this case series. CT scans were analysed before and after autologous RIA harvested bone grafting. Tunnel volumes and filling rates were calculated based on manual segmentation of axial CT scans. Revision ACL reconstruction was carried out after a mean interval of 6.2 months (±3.7) and positioning of the revision tunnels was assessed by plane radiographs. The mean follow-up was 19.8 months (±8.4) for objective evaluation and 37.1 months (±15.4) for patient reported outcomes. The clinical outcome was assessed by the quantification of the anterior tibial translation, the IKDC objective score, the Tegner activity scale and the Lysholm score.

RESULTS

Initial CT scans revealed mean tunnel volumes of 3.8cm³ (±2.7) femoral and 6.1cm³ (±2.4) tibial. Filling rates of 76.1% (±12.4) femoral and 87.4% (±5.9) tibial were achieved. Postoperative radiographs revealed significantly improved tunnel positioning with anatomical placement in all but one case at the femur and in all cases at the tibia. At follow up, patients showed significantly improved anterior tibial translations with residual side-to-side differences of 1.7 mm (±0.8) and significantly improved IKDC objective scores. Furthermore, significantly higher values were achieved on the Tegner activity scale (5.3 ± 1.4 vs. 2.8 ± 0.5) and the Lysholm score (85.4 ± 7.9 vs. 62.5 ± 10.5) compared to the preoperative status.

CONCLUSION

Autologous RIA harvested bone grafting ensures sufficient bone stock consolidation allowing for anatomical tunnel placement of the subsequently conducted revision ACL reconstruction. The two-staged procedure reliably restores stability and provides satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Thus, RIA harvested bone grafting is an eligible alternative to autologous iliac crest or allogenic bone grafting.

Over-the-top ACL reconstruction yields comparable outcomes to traditional ACL reconstruction in primary and revision settings: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To assess clinical outcomes of over-the-top (OTT) ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in skeletally mature patients, where physeal sparing is not a consideration. The hypothesis is that OTT will produce successful yet inferior outcomes compared to anatomic ACL approaches in both primary and revision settings.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched two online databases (EMBASE and MEDLINE) from inception to October 2017 for literature on OTT ACLR in skeletally mature patients. The systematic screening process was completed in duplicate, independently, and based on predetermined criteria. An expert in the field was consulted to resolve disagreements for full-text screening. Quality assessment of included papers was performed independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

From 3148 initial studies, 16 eligible studies (three RCTs and 13 case series) satisfied inclusion criteria. Three focused on the revision setting. The mean age of patients undergoing primary reconstruction was 26.9 ± 3.6, with 21.3% female patients and 31.4 ± 1.2 (26.1% female) in revision settings. Of primary studies reporting return to sport (n = 151), 69% of patients returned to pre-injury sports participation, with a total 94% returning to any sports activity. In revision settings (n = 48), 52.1% of patients returned to pre-injury sports participation, 25.2% returned to a lower level and 12.5% ceased sporting activity. Primary reconstruction studies reported a mean post-operative Tegner score of 6.5 ± 0.5 (n = 181) and mean KOOS of 82.8 ± 8.1 (n = 96). Primary studies reported a total 13 graft failures (3.7%), seven of which were re-ruptures (2.0%). The revision failure rate was 8.4% (four patients).

CONCLUSION

Clinically important outcomes for OTT ACLR are comparable to literature figures for traditional all-inside, transtibial and/or anteromedial portal drilling techniques. This holds true in revision settings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Clinical Outcomes of Isolated Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction or in Combination With Anatomic Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Although the cause of rotational instability after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is multifactorial, the rationale of adding an extra-articular procedure is based on its ability to restrict rotational instability.

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction on revision ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 87 patients who underwent revision ACLR between March 2011 and July 2014 with a follow-up of more than 3 years were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into the isolated revision ACLR group (group I, n = 45, from March 2011 to January 2013) or the revision ACLR in combination with ALL reconstruction group (group C, n = 42, from February 2013 to July 2014). Subjective knee assessments including the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale were used. Clinical and functional tests were performed before surgery and at ≥6 months after surgery. All tests were usually completed at 36 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration for groups I and C were 41.5 ± 8.2 and 38.2 ± 6.9 months, respectively ( P = .451). The subjective IKDC score, Tegner score, and ACL-RSI score were significantly better in group C compared with those in group I at the last follow-up (84.3 ± 18.5 vs 75.9 ± 19.2, 7.0 ± 0.8 vs 6.3 ± 0.7, and 69.5 ± 25.4 vs 51.9 ± 23.1, respectively), although they were not significantly different between the 2 groups at 12 months after surgery (79.2 ± 18.8 vs 76.7 ± 17.2, 6.7 ± 0.7 vs 6.5 ± 0.9, and 50.2 ± 24.6 vs 49.9 ± 25.1, respectively). There were no significant differences in KT-2000 arthrometer, isokinetic extensor strength, single-legged hop for distance, co-contraction test, or carioca test results between the 2 groups at the last follow-up ( P = .304, .068, .125, .056, and .066, respectively). Preoperatively, 43 (95.6%) patients in group I and 40 (95.2%) patients in group C had a grade 2 or 3 pivot shift ( P = .387). Postoperatively, 23 (53.5%) patients in group I and 38 (90.5%) patients in group C had a negative pivot shift ( P < .001). Group C showed a higher rate of return to the same level of sports activity than group I (57.1% vs 25.6%, respectively; P = .008), although there was no significant difference in the rate of return to any sports activity at the last follow-up (88.4% in group I vs 88.1% in group C; P = .713).

CONCLUSION

Revision ACLR in combination with ALL reconstruction significantly reduced rotational laxity and showed a higher rate of return to the same level of sports activity than revision ACLR alone, although there were no significant differences in anterior laxity or functional test results between the 2 groups.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Nonathlete Population

BACKGROUND

There is considerable literature about revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in athletes vut there is little published evidence about the same in the nonathletes. The injury itself may remain underdiagnosed and untreated in nonsports persons. This study highlights the high incidence of ACL injury in the nonathletic patient cohort, revision rates, and the outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

856 nonathletic patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were asked on phone whether they had undergone revision surgery and whether they had symptoms severe enough to seek reintervention. Clinical assessment and preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scoring were used to followup patients who underwent revision intervention.

RESULTS

Clinically, symptomatic revision rate was 5.9% (51 out of 856 patients), and 33 out of these 856 patients (3.9%) underwent revision ACL reconstruction. The reasons for revision were rupture of the previous graft in 21 and laxity (incompetence) of the graft in 12 patients. The mean preoperative and postoperative IKDC scores were 44.1 and 69.8, respectively, and the improvement was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The IKDC score following revision ACL reconstruction was significantly better in those patients who underwent revision <1 year following the onset of recurrent symptoms (P = 0.015). Meniscal tears were present in 47.6%, and chondral injuries were seen in 33.3% of patients. The tibial tunnel positioning was abnormal in 70% of patients. Femoral tunnel positioning was aberrant in all the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The revision rate of primary ACL reconstruction of 5.9% in nonathletes and revision ACL reconstruction rate of 3.9% are similar to the reported revision rates of 2.9%-5.8% in athletic patients. Similar to athletes, suboptimal tunnel placement is the major contributor to failure in nonathletes also.

Outcomes after bone grafting in patients with and without ACL revision surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Current literature is lacking of data regarding functional outcomes in patients following bone tunnel grafting with or without revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome in patients with (RACL) or without revision ACL reconstruction (OBG) following bone grafting.

METHODS

Fifty-nine patients (18 female, 41 male) who underwent bone grafting due to recurrent, symptomatic ACL deficiency following ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. In 44 patients (mean age: 30,5 ± 8,5 years) a staged revision ACL reconstruction (RACL) was performed after bone grafting. 10 patients (mean age: 33.2 ± 10.3 years) refused to have ACL revision surgery after bone grafting (OBG). Outcome measures included instrumented laxity testing, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale.

RESULTS

After mean period of 33,9 ± 17.0 months, 54 patients were available for follow up examination. In the RACL group, the Lysholm score was 77,2 ± 15,5 (range 35-100), the mean IKDC subjective knee score was 69,0 ± 13,4 (range 39,1-97,7) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,1 ± 1,5 (range, 1-9). Similarly, in the OBG group the mean Lysholm score was 72,90 ± 18,7 (range 50-100), the mean IKDC subjective score was 69,3 ± 20,0 (range 44,1-100) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,6 ± 1,2 (range, 3-6). No significant difference was observed between the two groups. Knee laxity measurements were elevated without revision ACL surgery, however the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Bone tunnel grafting with or without second stage ACL revision surgery showed no significant difference in functional outcome score. Thus, in case of revision ACL instability careful patient selection is necessary and expectations should be discussed openly with the patients.

Arthroscopic primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament: what the radiologist needs to know

Recently, there has been a renewed interest in primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in preoperative patient selection and in postoperative ligament assessment. Knowledge of the imaging factors that make patients candidates for primary ACL repair, namely proximal tear location and good tissue quality, can help radiologists provide information that is meaningful for surgical decision making. Furthermore, an understanding of the surgical techniques can prevent misinterpretation of the postoperative MRI. This article reviews preoperative MRI characterization of ACL injuries, techniques of arthroscopic primary ACL repair surgery and examples of postoperative MRI findings.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes in Younger Patients: Medial Meniscal Pathology and High Rates of Return to Sport Are Associated With Third ACL Injuries

BACKGROUND

There are limited data evaluating the outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery in younger patients despite recent reports that the rates of graft rupture are higher in young cohorts.

PURPOSE

To explore the outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction surgery in younger patients with the specific aims of determining the rates of third ACL injury and whether knee pathology at the time of revision surgery and return to sport were associated with further injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 151 consecutive patients who were aged 25 years or younger at the time of their first revision ACL reconstruction. The number of subsequent ACL injuries (graft rerupture or contralateral injury to the native ACL) was determined at a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years (range, 2-9 years). Surgical details were recorded, along with a range of sport participation outcomes. Contingency tables were used to assess the associations between subsequent ACL injury and return to sport, knee pathology, and the drilling of new femoral or tibial tunnels at revision surgery.

RESULTS

The follow-up rate was 85% (128/151). Graft reruptures occurred in 20 patients (16%) at a mean time of 2 years after revision surgery. Contralateral ACL injuries occurred in 15 patients (12%) at a mean time of 3.9 years. The total number of patients who had a third ACL injury was 35 (27%). There was a significant association between having medial meniscal pathology and sustaining a graft rerupture ( P = .03), but there was no association between graft rerupture and using the same tunnels from the primary procedure at revision surgery. After revision reconstruction, 68% of patients (95% CI, 55%-71%) returned to their preinjury level of sport, compared with 83% (95% CI, 69%-84%) after primary reconstruction in the same patients. Those who had a third ACL injury had a significantly higher rate of return to preinjury sport (83%) after the revision procedure than did the group that did not have further ACL injuries (62%, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Younger patients are at significant risk of having multiple ACL injuries. The high rate of third ACL injuries presents a significant issue for future knee health in these young athletes. Medial meniscal pathology and returning to high-risk sport are factors that are significantly associated with the high multiple ACL injury rate in the young.

Medial meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in inferior mid-term patient-reported outcomes

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are frequently not isolated injuries and damage to the menisci and articular cartilage surfaces is common. The concomitant presence of meniscal and chondral damage has the potential to influence patient outcomes following ACL reconstruction surgery and especially following revision ACL reconstruction where these findings are more common. However, study results regarding the mid-term outcome have been inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to compare mid-term patient-reported outcomes and return to sport in patients with and without meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction surgery.

METHODS

A cohort of 180 patients (131 males, 49 female) with a mean age of 25.3 (SD 7.8) years participated at an average follow-up time of 4.6 (SD 1.3) years after revision ACL reconstruction surgery. All patients completed the IKDC Subjective, Marx Activity, KOOS-Quality of Life (QOL) and Single Numerical Assessment (SANE) scores. In addition, patients were asked to indicate the highest level of sport to which they had returned following their revision surgery. Any further injuries to either knee were also documented. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had medial or lateral meniscal pathology at the time of revision surgery; and whether or not they had > 50% depth chondral damage (ICRS 3 or 4). All outcomes were compared between these groupings.

RESULTS

Patients with medial meniscal pathology had significantly lower Marx, KOOS-QOL and SANE scores than patients without. There were no differences in any outcome score between patients with and without lateral meniscal pathology. Patients with ICRS 3 or 4 chondral pathology had significantly lower scores on all patient-reported outcomes as well as a lower rate of return to the same level of pre-injury sport.

CONCLUSION

The presence of more severe chondral damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has a negative impact on functional outcomes, activity levels and return to sport rates. In addition, the presence of medial meniscal pathology was associated with significantly lower functional and quality of life scores than patients without pathology. These findings provide important clinically relevant data on the outcomes following revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant chondral and meniscal injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Patient and surgical characteristics that affect revision risk in dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of the anterior cruciate ligament

PURPOSE

Failure of dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) that requires revision surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has not been studied. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of revision ACL surgery, and the patient characteristics and surgery-related factors that are associated with an increased risk of ACL revision after DIS.

METHODS

This study analysed a prospective, consecutively documented single-centre case series using standardized case report forms over a 2.5-year follow-up period. The primary endpoint was revision ACL surgery. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to examine the revision-free survival time, and a multiple logistic regression model of potential risk factors including age, sex, BMI, smoking status, previous contralateral ACL injury, Tegner activity score, interval to surgery, rupture pattern, hardware removal, and postoperative side-to-side difference in knee laxity. Relative risk was calculated for subgroups of significant risk factors.

RESULTS

In total, 381 patients (195 male) with a mean age of 33 ± 12 years were included in the analysis. The incidence of revision ACL surgery was 30/381 (7.9%). Younger age (p = 0.001), higher Tegner activity score (p = 0.003), and increased knee laxity (p = 0.015) were significantly associated with revision ACL surgery. The increased relative risk for patients who were less than 24 years old, participated in activities at a Tegner level >5 points, or had >2 mm of side-to-side difference in knee laxity was 1.6, 3.7, and 2.3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Young age, high level of sport activity, and high knee laxity observed in follow-up examinations increased the likelihood for revision surgery after DIS. Patients undergoing DIS should be informed of their potentially increased risk for therapy failure and carefully monitored during recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

Double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective in rescuing failed primary reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of a pair of cruciate ligaments in the human knee and is critical for knee stability, as it limits anterior tibial translation on the femur, restrains rotation and resists varus and valgus joint forces. The present study aimed to assess the effect of double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in improving the subjective and objective functions and re-introducing patients to physical activity after primary ACL reconstruction had failed. A total of 34 patients who underwent double-bundle ACL revision surgeries were included in the present retrospective study. Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scores as well as KT-2000 arthrometry measures were obtained pre- and post-operatively. The follow-up time was at least 2 years. The results indicated that the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores as well as KT-2000 flexion scores were significantly improved after revision ACL reconstruction. All patients resumed to performing physical exercise activities after revision surgeries, 65% of whom reached pre-injury levels. In conclusion, these results demonstrated that double-bundle revision ACL reconstruction was consistently effective in rescuing failed primary ACL reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise.

Injury Recurrence Among High School Athletes in the United States: A Decade of Patterns and Trends, 2005-2006 Through 2015-2016

Background

As participation in high school athletics increases, so does the number of adolescents experiencing sports-related injury. Understanding injury patterns is an important component to developing and evaluating prevention and rehabilitation programs.

Purpose

To analyze recurrent injury rates and patterns among high school athletes, to compare recurrent injuries with new injuries, and to evaluate injury trends over time.

Study Design

Descriptive epidemiology study.

Methods

High school sports injury data on 24 sports were collected from 2005-2006 through 2015-2016 via the High School RIO (Reporting Information Online) surveillance system. Injury rates were calculated as number of injuries per 10,000 athletic exposures (AEs). Injury rate ratios and injury proportion ratios (IPRs) were calculated to compare differences among subgroups.

Results

Overall, 78,005 injuries were sustained during 40,195,806 AEs, for an injury rate of 19.41 per 10,000 AEs. Of these, 69,821 (89.5%) were new injuries, and 8184 (10.5%) were recurrent. The ankle was the most commonly injured body part among recurrent injuries, while the head/face was the most common body part that sustained new injuries. Ligament sprains were more often recurrent, while concussions were more commonly diagnosed as new, although concussions represented 16.7% of recurrent injuries. Trends for recurrent injuries over time were relatively stable. The proportion of athletes who had >3 weeks of time loss or medical disqualification (15.8% vs 13.3%; IPR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13-1.26) or who voluntarily withdrew from sport (2.5% vs 1.1%; IPR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.00-2.73) was significantly greater for recurrent injuries than new injuries. Furthermore, a greater proportion of recurrent injuries resulted in surgery (8.1% vs 6.0%; IPR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.24-1.46).

Conclusion

Although only 10.5% of all injuries were recurrent, they more frequently resulted in missing >3 weeks of playing time and were more often managed surgically when compared with new injuries. The rate of recurrent injuries has not increased over the past decade.

Combined Intra- and Extra-Articular Technique in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose  The aim of the study was to evaluate the “over the top” (OTT) nonanatomical technique for revision of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods  Twenty-four patients with a mean age of 31.9 ± 11.2 years underwent revision of ACL reconstruction using OTT technique. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, Tegner score, Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sport (SPORTS) score, Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) scale, and KT-1000 evaluation were recorded at a mean follow-up of 30.7 ± 18.9 months.

Results  Postoperatively, the IKDC objective total score significantly improved ( p  = 0.0046). The KOOS, Lysholm, and Tegner scores also improved, but the results were not statistically significant (62.4 vs. 72.6, 6.5 vs. 75.8, and 4.1 vs. 6.0, respectively). The subjective IKDC evaluation score improved from an average of 51.1 points to 63.7 points at the last follow-up ( p  = 0.0027). The RTP prevalence was 81.8%, with 44.4% of the patients returning to the same preinjury level. According to the SPORTS score, 16.6% of patients played sport without limitations in activity and performance. The average ACL-RSI score was 52.1 ± 27.0. No major complications were reported. A total of 21.5% of patients underwent surgical removal of staples. The failure prevalence was 14.3% and the cumulative survivorship, calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, was equal to 70% at 60 months of follow-up.

Conclusion  The OTT technique in the revision ACL reconstruction provided improvement in objective and subjective scores, good RTP prevalence, and acceptable rate of complication and failure. One of the advantages was the possibility to avoid the femoral tunnel.

Level of Evidence  Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Do cartilage lesions affect the clinical outcome of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review

PURPOSE

To document the available evidence on the influence of cartilage lesions on the results of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery and their management to optimize the final outcome.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on the PubMed database on articles dealing with cartilage lesions detected at the time of ACL reconstruction, by looking both for their influence on the clinical outcome and the results of their treatment. Reports on clinical, radiological, or second-look outcomes at any follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were preclinical studies, reviews, or studies not reporting clinical, radiological, or second-look outcome after primary ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included for the final analysis. Twenty-seven focused on the influence of cartilage lesions on clinical outcome after ACL reconstruction in 47,837 patients. In total, 21/27 articles showed a correlation with a poorer outcome in terms of subjective, objective, and radiographic findings. Lesion location and depth influenced final results. Only 9.0 % of these defects were treated in the analysed studies, and only 10 manuscripts of overall low level evaluated the results of combined cartilage-ACL treatments.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the literature supports the clinical relevance of cartilage lesions which are correlated with a poorer outcome after ACL reconstruction. Nonetheless, a large amount of chondral defects are actually not addressed, also considering the poor evidence for the benefits provided by cartilage treatments. In fact, only a few studies specifically focused on how to manage cartilage lesions found during ACL reconstruction and there is a lack of indications for the most appropriate treatment approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

Certain factors under the control of the surgeon at the time of revision surgery can both negatively and positively affect outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline demographics, intraoperative surgical technique and joint disorders, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating scale) completed before surgery. Patients were followed up for 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, and a variety of previous and current surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 1205 patients (697 male [58%]) met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled. The median age was 26 years, and the median time since their last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (989/1205). Both previous and current surgical factors were found to be significant contributors toward poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years. Having undergone previous arthrotomy (nonarthroscopic open approach) for ACL reconstruction compared with the 1-incision technique resulted in significantly poorer outcomes for the 2-year IKDC ( P = .037; odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.05-5.88) and KOOS pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life (QOL) subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 2.38-4.35; 95% CI, 1.03-10.00). The use of a metal interference screw for current femoral fixation resulted in significantly better outcomes for the 2-year KOOS symptoms, pain, and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 1.70-1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.33) as well as WOMAC stiffness subscale ( P = .041; OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.02-3.03). Not performing notchplasty at revision significantly improved 2-year outcomes for the IKDC ( P = .013; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.40-1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93), and WOMAC stiffness and ADL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.41-1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05). Factors before revision ACL reconstruction that increased the risk of poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years included lower baseline outcome scores, a lower Marx activity score at the time of revision, a higher BMI, female sex, and a shorter time since the patient's last ACL reconstruction. Prior femoral fixation, prior femoral tunnel aperture position, and knee flexion angle at the time of revision graft fixation were not found to affect 2-year outcomes in this revision cohort.

CONCLUSION

There are certain surgical variables that the physician can control at the time of revision ACL reconstruction that can modify clinical outcomes at 2 years. Whenever possible, opting for an anteromedial portal or transtibial surgical exposure, choosing a metal interference screw for femoral fixation, and not performing notchplasty are associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes.