Partial meniscectomy adversely affects return-to-sport outcome after anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Partial Meniscectomy Yields Comparable Outcomes and Failure Rates to Meniscal Repair for Horizontal Cleavage Tears, with Fewer Complication Rates but Greater Progression of Degenerative Changes

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes, failure rates, surgical complications, and postoperative radiographic changes following partial meniscectomy versus meniscal repair for horizontal cleavage tears (HCTs).

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Scopus, PubMed, and Embase computerized databases. Clinical studies evaluating partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair for HCTs were included. Demographic characteristics, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, failure rates, complications, and radiographic assessments were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies comprising of 833 patients with HCT were included, of which 562 patients (67.5%) were treated with partial meniscectomy and 271 (32.5%) with meniscal repair. Both types of treatments reported improved clinical outcomes, including IKDC, Lysholm, KOOS, and Tegner scores. Failure rates were reported to range between 0 to 15% following partial meniscectomy, and between 0 to 17.6% following repair; and complications were 7.5% after partial meniscectomy, and between 3.8 to 21.4% following meniscal repair. Patients undergoing meniscectomy demonstrated progression of degenerative changes on radiographic assessments.

CONCLUSION

Repair of HCTs in the appropriately indicated patient can result in similar patient outcomes and failure rates compared to partial meniscectomy. However, especially in patients aged 42 years and younger, a greater complication rate can be expected with repair, while a greater degree of ipsilateral compartment degeneration is seen after partial meniscectomy.

Better Safe Than Sorry? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis on Time to Return to Sport After ACL Reconstruction as a Risk Factor for Second ACL Injury

OBJECTIVE: To compare the time to return to sport (RTS) between patients who did and did not suffer a second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after ACL reconstruction. DESIGN: Etiology systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, AMED, and PEDro databases were searched in August 2021 and again in November 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical studies reporting time to RTS after ACL reconstruction and second ACL injury were eligible. DATA SYNTHESIS: We pooled continuous data (time [months] and proportions [%]), with random-effects meta-analyses. Pooled estimates were summarized in forest plots. A qualitative data synthesis was also performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis and 33 in the qualitative synthesis. Pooled incidence of second ACL injury was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 21.6). Patients who suffered a second ACL injury returned to sport significantly earlier (25 days; 95% CI: 9.5, 40.4) than those who did not suffer another injury. There was no difference in time to RTS for professional athletes who suffered a second ACL injury and those who did not. The certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: There was very low-certainty evidence that patients who suffered a second ACL injury had returned to sport 25 days earlier than patients who did not have another injury. For professional athletes, there was no difference in time to RTS between athletes who suffered a second ACL injury and athletes who did not. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-15. Epub 30 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11977.

Return to Sports: A Risky Business? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors for Graft Rupture Following ACL Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The risk of sustaining a graft rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is high. Contributing risk factors are, however, still not clearly identified.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify and quantify risk factors for graft rupture after ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020140129) based on PRISMA guidelines was performed. MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to September 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies addressing risk factors for graft rupture after ACLR in males/females of all ages were considered. Meta-analyses using a random effect model (effect measure: odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]) were performed. The GRADE tool was used to assess evidence quality.

RESULTS

Following full-text screening of 310 relevant papers, 117 were eventually included, incorporating up to 133,000 individuals in each meta-analysis. Higher Tegner activity level (≥ 7 vs < 7) at primary injury (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.69-9.04), increased tibial slope (degrees) (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.26-3.86), lower psychological readiness to return to sport (RTS) (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.32-3.61), early surgery (< 12 vs ≥ 12 months) (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.58-2.22), RTS (pre-injury level) (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.21-2.91) and family history of ACL injury (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.31) were all associated with increased odds of graft rupture. Higher age (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.59), female sex (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.98), fewer self-reported knee symptoms pre-reconstruction (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95) and concomitant cartilage injuries (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79) instead decreased the odds. Meta-analysis revealed no association between body mass index, smoking, joint laxity, RTS time, knee kinematics, muscle strength or hop performance and graft rupture.

CONCLUSION

Conspicuous risk factors for graft rupture were mainly sports and hereditary related. Few studies investigated function-related modifiable factors or included sports exposure data.

Harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism for revision ACL reconstruction does not delay return of quadriceps function

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether harvesting a second graft from the ipsilateral extensor mechanism adversely affects clinical outcomes in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 34 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with either quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft or bone-tendon-bone (BTB) autograft was conducted. Patients with two grafts (BTB+QT) from the extensor mechanism were matched based on age, laterality, and sex to patients who had primary reconstruction with hamstring (HS) autograft followed by revision with either BTB or QT autograft (HS+QT/BTB). Return of quadriceps function was assessed with time to return to jogging in a standardized rehab protocol or time to regain 80% quadriceps strength. Secondary outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Marx scores at 12-month follow-up and return to sport.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in return to jogging or 80% quadriceps strength (HS 149.5 ± 38.2 days, BTB+QT 131.7 ± 40.1 days, n.s.), number able to return to sport (HS 62%, BTB+QT 93%, n.s.), months to return to sport (HS 10.6 ± 1.4, BTB+QT 10.5 ± 2.3, n.s.), return to pre-injury level of competition (HS 62%, BTB+QT 73%, n.s.), or IKDC (HS 77.2 ± 16.4, BTB+QT 74.8 ± 23.9, n.s.) and Marx scores (HS 9.2 ± 5.3, BTB+QT 8.0 ± 3.7, n.s.) at one-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of the present study was that outcomes for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a second extensor mechanism autograft were comparable to those seen for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with extensor mechanism autograft after primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. By better understanding the consequences of harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism, surgeons can better decide what graft to use in revision ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Low percentage of patients passed the 'Back in Action' test battery 9 months after bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is recommended in patients who intend to return to high-level sports. However, there is only a 55-80% return to pre-injury level of sports after ACL reconstruction, with a re-injury rate up to 20%. The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of patients passing the Back in Action (BIA) test 9 months after primary bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) ACL reconstruction, and evaluate the association between passing the BIA test and patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs).

Methods

Patients underwent the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. In total 103 patients were included. Passing the BIA test (PASSED-group) was defined as a normal or higher score at all sub-tests with limb symmetry index (LSI) ≥90% for the dominant leg and LSI >80% for the non-dominant leg. Patients who did not meet these criteria were defined as the FAILED-group. PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury.

Results

Eighteen patients (17.5%) passed the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. PROMs were not statistically significant different between the PASSED- and FAILED-group.

Conclusion

Low percentage of patients passed the BIA test 9 months after BPTB ACL reconstruction. Although current PROMs cut-off values were met, the BIA test results show persistent functional deficits. Therefore, the BIA test could be of additional value in the decision-making process regarding return to sport (RTS). This study highlights the need for additional rehabilitation as RTS in a condition of incomplete recovery may increase the risk of re-injury.

Level of evidence

II.

Delayed Surgery, Low Presurgery Activity, and Poor Preoperative IKDC Scores Are Correlated with Lower Rates of Return to Sports after ACL Reconstruction in an Asian Population

There is limited literature regarding the early postsurgical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in Asian populations, particularly in the rates of return to sports. We aimed to quantify early clinical outcomes for ACL reconstruction, determine the predictive value of surgeon- and patient-reported outcomes on the rate of return to sports in the early postoperative period, and identify factors predictive of return to sports. We analyzed the data of 55 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction at our tertiary medical center from 2015 to 2016. All patients underwent transportal ACL reconstruction and a standardized post-ACL reconstruction rehabilitation protocol. Patients with concurrent meniscal injury and repair were included. Patients were evaluated at the 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative periods. Surgeon- and patient-reported outcome scores were collected at each follow-up through a systematic questionnaire designed to determine the patient's level of return to sport and reasons for not returning. Surgeon- and patient-reported outcome measures improved significantly over the 2-year postoperative period (p < 0.001). Overall rate of return to sports was 58.2%. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective (p = 0.02), symptomatic (p = 0.001), composite (p = 0.005), Tegner (p < 0.001) and Lysholm (p = 0.049) scores at 2-year follow-up were significantly worse in patients who failed to return to sports. Earliest difference in scores manifested at 3-month postsurgery (p = 0.011). IKDC grade-D patients were 18.1 times less likely to return to sports (p = 0.035). Delayed surgery (p = 0.01) and presurgery inactivity (p = 0.023) were negatively predictive of return to sports. The rate of return to sport is consistent with the literature analyzing other ethnic populations. Both surgeon- and patient-reported outcome scores at 2-year postsurgery exhibited significant differences between those who did and did not return to sports. Patients should be advised to seek surgical treatment as soon as possible and stay active preoperatively to maximize return to sports.

Minimizing the risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in athletes. A narrative review of the current evidence

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most common sport-related injuries and the request for ACL reconstructions is increasing nowadays. Unfortunately, ACL graft failures are reported in up to 34.2% in athletes, representing a traumatic and career-threatening event. It can be convenient to understand the various risk factors for ACL failure, in order to properly inform the patients about the expected outcomes and to minimize the chance of poor results. In literature, a multitude of studies have been performed on the failure risks after ACL reconstruction, but the huge amount of data may generate much confusion.The aim of this review is to resume the data collected from literature on the risk of graft failure after ACL reconstruction in athletes, focusing on the following three key points: individuate the predisposing factors to ACL reconstruction failure, analyze surgical aspects which may have significant impact on outcomes, highlight the current criteria regarding safe return to sport after ACL reconstruction.

Aseptic Revision and Reoperation Risks After Meniscectomy at the Time of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

An intact meniscus is considered a secondary stabilizer of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While loss of the meniscus can increase forces on the anterior cruciate ligament graft after reconstruction, it is unclear whether this increased loading affects the success of the graft after ACLR.

PURPOSE

To identify the risk of subsequent knee surgery when meniscectomy, either partial or total, is performed at the time of index ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We conducted a matched cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Registry. Patients were identified who had a primary ACLR performed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016, with up to 12 years of follow-up. The study sample comprised patients with ACLR who had a lateral meniscectomy (n = 2581), medial meniscectomy (n = 1802), or lateral and medial meniscectomies (n = 666). For each meniscectomy subgroup, patients with ACLR alone were matched to patients with a meniscectomy on a number of patient and procedure characteristics. After the application of matching, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, while competing risks regression was used to evaluate the risk of cause-specific ipsilateral reoperation between meniscectomy and ACLR alone. Analysis was performed for each meniscectomy subgroup.

RESULTS

After the application of matching, we failed to observe a difference in aseptic revision risk for patients with ACLR and a meniscectomy-lateral (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02), medial (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.70-1.29), or both (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-2.04)-as compared with ACLR alone. When compared with patients who had ACLR alone, patients with a lateral meniscectomy had a higher risk for subsequent lateral meniscectomy (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.18-3.02; P = .008), and those with a medial meniscectomy had a lower risk for manipulation under anesthesia (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .041).

CONCLUSION

No difference in aseptic revision risk was observed for patients undergoing primary ACLR between groups with and without meniscectomy at the time of index surgery. Partial lateral meniscectomy at the time of index ACLR did associate with a higher risk of subsequent lateral meniscectomy.

The Contribution of Partial Meniscectomy to Preoperative Laxity and Laxity After Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: In Vivo Kinematics With Navigation

BACKGROUND

Limited in vivo kinematic information exists on the effect of clinical-based partial medial and lateral meniscectomy in the context of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

In patients with ACL deficiency, partial medial meniscus removal increases the anteroposterior (AP) laxity with compared with those with intact menisci, while partial lateral meniscus removal increases dynamic laxity. In addition, greater postoperative laxity would be identified in patients with partial medial meniscectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 164 patients with ACL tears were included in the present study and divided into 4 groups according to the meniscus treatment they underwent: patients with partial lateral meniscectomy (LM group), patients with partial medial meniscectomy (MM group), patients with partial medial and lateral meniscectomy (MLM group), and patients with intact menisci who did not undergo any meniscus treatment (IM group). A further division in 2 new homogeneous groups was made based on the surgical technique: 46 had an isolated single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction (ACL group), while 13 underwent a combined single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction and partial medial meniscectomy (MM-ACL group). Standard clinical laxities (AP translation at 30° of knee flexion, AP translation at 90° of knee flexion) and pivot-shift (PS) tests were quantified before and after surgery by means of a surgical navigation system dedicated to kinematic assessment. The PS test was quantified through 3 different parameters: the anterior displacement of the lateral tibial compartment (lateral AP); the posterior acceleration of the lateral AP during tibial reduction (posterior acceleration); and finally, the area included by the lateral AP translation with respect to the flexion/extension angle (area).

RESULTS

In the ACL-deficient status, the MM group showed a significantly greater tibial translation compared with the IM group (P < .0001 for AP displacement at 30° [AP30] and 90° [AP90] of flexion) and the LM group (P = .002 for AP30 and P < .0001 for AP90). In the PS test, the area of LM group was significantly larger (57%; P = .0175) than the one of the IM group. After ACL reconstruction, AP translation at 30° was restored, while the AP90 remained significantly greater at 1.3 mm (P = .0262) in the MM-ACL group compared with those with intact menisci.

CONCLUSION

Before ACL reconstruction, partial medial meniscectomy increased AP laxity at 30° and 90° and lateral meniscectomy increased dynamic PS laxity with respect to intact menisci. Anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction decreased laxities, but a residual anterior translation of 1.3 mm at 90° remained in patients with partial medial meniscectomy, with respect to those with intact menisci.