Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft

Graft Failure and Contralateral ACL Injuries After Primary ACL Reconstruction: An Analysis of Risk Factors Using Interpretable Machine Learning

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) can be successful in restoring knee stability. However, secondary ACL injury, either through graft failure or contralateral injury, is a known complication and can significantly impact the ability of a patient to return successfully to previous activities.

Purpose

To develop and internally validate an interpretable machine learning model to quantify the risk of graft failure and contralateral ACL injury in a longitudinal cohort treated with ACLR.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

An established geographic database of >600,000 patients was used to identify patients with a diagnosis of ACL rupture between 1990 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Medical records were reviewed for relevant patient information and 4 candidate machine learning algorithms were evaluated for prediction of graft failure and contralateral ACL injury in patients after ACLR as identified either on magnetic resonance imaging or via arthroscopy. Performance of the algorithms was assessed through discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis. Model interpretability was enhanced utilizing global variable importance plots and partial dependence curves.

Results

A total of 1497 patients met inclusion criteria. Among them, 140 (9.4%) had graft failure and 128 (8.6%) had a contralateral ACL injury after index surgery at a median follow-up of 140.7 months (interquartile range, 77.2-219.2 months). The best performing models achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.70 for prediction of graft failure and 0.67 for prediction of contralateral ACL injury, outperforming a logistic regression fitted on the identical feature set. Notable predictors for increased risk of graft failure included younger age at injury, body mass index (BMI) <30, return to sports <13 months, initial time to surgery >75 days, utilization of allograft, femoral/tibial fixation with suspension/expansion devices, concomitant collateral ligament injury, and active or former smoking history. Predictors of contralateral ACL injury included greater preoperative pain, younger age at initial injury, BMI <30, active smoking history, initial time to surgery >75 days, history of contralateral knee arthroscopies, and involvement in contact sports.

Conclusion

Less than 18% of all patients who undergo ACLR should be expected to sustain either a graft failure or contralateral ACL injury. Machine learning models outperformed logistic regression and identified greater preoperative pain, younger age, BMI <30, earlier return to higher activity, and time to surgical intervention >75 days as common risk factors for both graft failure as well as contralateral ACL injury after ACLR. Surgeon-modifiable risk factors for graft failure included allograft and femoral/tibial fixation with a suspension/expansion combination.

Outcomes of RigidFix Cross Pin Fixation in Femoral and Tibial Tunnel for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

There is no clear consensus so far on which fixation method is most favorable for the tibial tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the outcome of RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel and to explore the advantages of RigidFix applied both in the femoral and tibial tunnel with hamstring tendon graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 53 patients (male/female, 45/8) who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons between January 2013 and December 2017 at our institute. The participants in group A (n = 36) received anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with RigidFix cross pins fixation in both femoral and tibial tunnels, while those in group B (n = 17) with RigidFix cross pins fixation in the femoral tunnel and Interference screw fixation in the tibial tunnel. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form 2000 (IKDC2000) score, Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity score and the side-to-side difference were compared at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. The graft diameter, number of strands in graft and the average diameter of each strand were also compared between the two groups. The categorical parameters were analyzed by chi-square test and the continuous variables conforming to a normal distribution were analyzed by Student's t-test.

RESULTS

At 2 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.61 ± 0.55), side-to-side difference (1.50 ± 0.58) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (88.81 ± 3.88), Tegner activity score (6.14 ± 0.60) in group A were significantly higher than that in group B. At 5 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.64 ± 0.68), side-to-side difference (1.73 ± 0.63) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (89.09 ± 3.85), Tegner activity score (6.58 ± 0.94) in group A were slso significantly higher than that in group B. There was statistical difference in the change of the side-to-side difference between the two groups (group A vs. B, 0.22 ± 0.08 vs. 0.34 ± 0.11, p < 0.001). There were also statistical differences in the graft diameter (group A vs. B, 7.83 ± 0.74 vs. 7.41 ± 0.51, p = 0,038), number of strands in graft (5.67 ± 0.72 vs. 4.00 ± 0.00, p < 0.001) and the average diameter of each strand (1.41 ± 0.22 vs. 1.85 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can achieve better 5-year results when compared with the interference screw, and the hamstring tendon can be folded into a thicker graft when RigidFix cross pins were applied in both femoral and tibial tunnels.

Metal interference screw fixation combinations show high revision rates in primary hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Different fixation methods in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have been associated with different revision rates, specifically in the early postoperative period. However, most previous research has either grouped together different fixation types or evaluated femoral-sided fixation or tibial-sided fixation separately. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine ACL revision rates for specific combinations of femoral and tibial fixation methods within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry (SNKLR).

METHODS

Patients that underwent primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR between 2005 and 2018 in the SNKLR were included. The collected data included patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI]), activity at time of injury, surgical information (concomitant injuries, time from injury to surgery, fixation types at the femur and tibia), and subsequent revision ACLR. Revision rate within 2 years of the index procedure was chosen, as ACLR fixation is most likely to contribute to ACLR revision within the first 2 years, during graft maturation.

RESULTS

Of the 23,238 included patients undergoing primary hamstring ACLR, 581 (2.5%) underwent revision ACLR within 2 years of the index procedure. Among the combinations used for > 300 patients, the femoral metal interference screw/tibial metal interference screw fixation combination had the highest revision rate followed by metal interference screw/resorbable screw and Endobutton/AO screw fixation combinations, with respective revision rates of 4.0, 3.0, and 3.0%. The lowest revision rate within 2 years of ACLR was found in the Endobutton/metal interference screw with backup Osteosuture fixation combination, used in 433 cases, with a failure rate of 0.9%.

CONCLUSION

Different early ACL revision rates were found across different combinations of femoral and tibial fixation devices within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR. Metal interference screw fixation, particularly when performed on both the femoral and tibial sides, most frequently resulted in revision ACLR. These findings may be helpful for surgeons in selecting appropriate fixation devices for hamstring ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Absorbable implants in sport medicine and arthroscopic surgery: A narrative review of recent development

Over the past two decades, advances in arthroscopic and minimally invasive surgical techniques have led to significant growth in sports medicine surgery. Implants such as suture anchors, interference screws, and endo-buttons are commonly used in these procedures. However, traditional implants made of metal or inert materials are not absorbable, leading to complications that affect treatment outcomes. To address this issue, absorbable materials with excellent mechanical properties, good biocompatibility, and controlled degradation rates have been developed and applied in clinical practice. These materials include absorbable polymers, absorbable bioceramics, and absorbable metals. In this paper, we will provide a comprehensive summary of these absorbable materials from the perspective of clinicians, and discuss their clinical applications and related research in sport medicine.

Various Definitions of Failure Are Used in Studies of Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

To conduct a literature review to assess the definitions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure used throughout the orthopaedic literature.

Methods

A systematic search of Embase, Ovid Medline, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science was conducted by a university librarian to identity level I-IV clinical studies on ACLR failure. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent ACLR and included a definition of failure of ACLR. Patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repairs, animal/cadaver studies, review studies, non-English language articles, and non-full text articles were excluded. Failure data were extracted from each study and categorized. Other data that were extracted included follow-up time after ACLR, failure reoperation rate, and failure reoperation procedure. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data.

Results

Out of 2,775 studies, 104 (3.75%) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. The most common definition of ACLR failure included the use of a physical examination, specifically Lachman's test (21/104 [20.2%]), anterior laxity assessment, or a Pivot-Shift test (24/104 [35.2%]) or undergoing or requiring revision ACLR (39/104 [37.5%]). Although some studies used quantitative tests or imaging to help define "failure," others simply defined it as graft rerupture that was otherwise not defined (22/104 [22.5%]). Other common definitions included: the use of imaging (magnetic resonance imaging/radiographs) to confirm graft re-rupture (37/104 [35.6%]), patient-reported outcomes (recurrent instability)/patient reported outcomes measures (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Tegner) (18/104 [17.3%]), and the use of an arthrometer (KT-1000/2000, Rollimeter, or Kneelax) (17/104 [16.3%]). The least common definitions included graft failure or rerupture confirmed by arthroscopy (13/104 [12.5%]) and nonrevision surgery (2/104 [1.0%]). The failure rate of this procedure ranged from 0% to 100% depending on the definition of "failure."

Conclusion

In this study, we found that a variety of definitions of failure are used among studies published in the orthopaedic literature. The most common criteria for failure of ACLR were the results of physical examination tests (35%), the need for undergoing a revision ACLR (36%), and the use of imaging to diagnose the failure (34%). About 17% of studies included in this review used patient-reported outcomes, specifically recurrent instability, or PROMs (IKDC, KOOS, Tegner) in their assessment of failure of ACLR. The least used definitions of "failure" of ACLR included nonrevision ACLR surgery (2%). Although some studies used similar tests or categories in their definition of failure, there were a variety of score and grade cutoff points between them.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Machine learning can accurately predict risk factors for all-cause reoperation after ACLR: creating a clinical tool to improve patient counseling and outcomes

PURPOSE

Identifying predictive factors for all-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could inform clinical decision making and improve risk mitigation. The primary purposes of this study are to (1) determine the incidence of all-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, (2) identify predictors of reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using machine learning methodology, and (3) compare the predictive capacity of the machine learning methods to that of traditional logistic regression.

METHODS

A longitudinal geographical database was utilized to identify patients with a diagnosis of new anterior cruciate ligament injury. Eight machine learning models were appraised on their ability to predict all-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Model performance was evaluated via area under the receiver operating characteristics curve. To explore modeling interpretability and radiomic feature influence on the predictions, we utilized a game-theory-based method through SHapley Additive exPlanations.

RESULTS

A total of 1400 patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a mean postoperative follow-up of 9 years. Two-hundred and eighteen (16%) patients experienced a reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, of which 6% of these were revision ACL reconstruction. SHapley Additive exPlanations plots identified the following risk factors as predictive for all-cause reoperation: diagnosis of systemic inflammatory disease, distal tear location, concomitant medial collateral ligament repair, higher visual analog scale pain score prior to surgery, hamstring autograft, tibial fixation via radial expansion device, younger age at initial injury, and concomitant meniscal repair. Pertinent negatives, when compared to previous studies, included sex and timing of surgery. XGBoost was the best-performing model (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.77) and outperformed logistic regression in this regard.

CONCLUSIONS

All-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction occurred at a rate of 16%. Machine learning models outperformed traditional statistics and identified diagnosis of systemic inflammatory disease, distal tear location, concomitant medial collateral ligament repair, higher visual analog scale pain score prior to surgery, hamstring autograft, tibial fixation via radial expansion device, younger age at initial injury, and concomitant meniscal repair as predictive risk factors for reoperation. Pertinent negatives, when compared to previous studies, included sex and timing of surgery. These models will allow surgeons to tabulate individualized risk for future reoperation for patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

ACL surgical trends evolve in the last five years for young European surgeons: results of the survey among the U45 ESSKA members

PURPOSE

Although the outcomes of ACL reconstruction are generally satisfying, there are several patients who do not regain their pre-injury sporting level and suffer persistent symptoms. Orthopaedic practice has evolved significantly over the last five years to address these drawbacks. The aim of the present survey was to analyze the changes in the approach to ACL reconstruction among a population of young ESSKA surgeons dedicated to ACL surgery.

METHODS

The survey was uploaded on the ESSKA website and was accessible to members under the age of 45. The ESSKA society has 1035 U45 members involved in multiple aspects of Orthopaedic practice. One hundred and forty questionnaires were returned. Several aspects of ACL surgery were investigated at baseline and 5 years prior. They included general details such as the volume of ACL reconstructions per surgeon per year, the graft choice in cases of low and high demanding patients, the technique for femoral tunnel drilling and the preferred device for femoral fixation. The approach to the management of damage to peripheral structures, as well as meniscal ramp and root tears were also investigated.

RESULTS

Hamstrings and quadrupled semitendinosus were the preferred graft choice in low-demanding patients (92.9%) while quadriceps tendon is gaining popularity in contact sport practitioners (from 4.3 to 10.7%). The percentage of surgeons using femoral screws had decreased from 37.9 to 29.3 while the percentage of those who used buttons increased from 52.9 to 69.3%. Extra-articular procedures (antero-lateral ligament (ALL) or lateral tenodesis have become popular. The percentage of surgeons who perform an additional peripheral reconstruction rose from 28.5 to 71.5%. Of those who perform the meniscal repair more than 50% of patients rose from 14.3 to 27.9%. Similarly, the percentage of surgeons who performed a medial meniscus ramp lesion repair rose from 29.4 to 54.7%. While the percentage of those who choose to perform a transtibial pull-out repair of lateral meniscus root tears significantly rose from 17.9 to 59.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey among under 45 years old ESSKA surgeons yields some notable findings. The new evidence on the impact of injuries on peripheral structures and menisci is stimulating surgeons towards a more anatomic approach if identified at the time of ACL reconstruction. This evidence will probably influence future research and decision-making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Postless Tape Augmentation for Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction

Suture or tape augmentation for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been described as a technique to increase biomechanical strength and potentially improve clinical outcomes. However, the suture or tape used for augmentation usually requires independent tibial fixation from the ACL graft in the form of an anchor or post. This may introduce the potential for graft and augment tension mismatch, while increasing surgical cost. We present our technique for ACL reconstruction with postless tape augmentation. The ACL graft and tape are fixed at the same tension with interference fixation using a single tibial sheath and screw construct, which allows for ACL augmentation without the need for an additional post or implant.

Suspensory Versus Interference Tibial Fixation of Hamstring Tendon Autografts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the New Zealand ACL Registry

BACKGROUND

The hamstring tendon is frequently used to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), but there is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of fixation. Registry studies have shown that the type of femoral fixation device can influence the risk of revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR), but it is unclear whether the type of tibial fixation has an effect. In New Zealand, over 95% of hamstring tendon grafts are fixed with an adjustable loop suspensory device on the femoral side, with variable usage between suspensory and interference devices, with or without a sheath, on the tibial side.

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between the type of tibial fixation device and the risk of revision ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort Study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Prospective data recorded in the New Zealand ACL Registry were analyzed. Only primary ACLRs performed with a hamstring tendon autograft fixed with a suspensory device on the femoral side were included. A Cox regression survival analysis with adjustment for patient factors was performed to analyze the effects of the type of tibial fixation device, the number of graft strands, and graft diameter on the risk of revision.

RESULTS

A total of 6145 primary ACLRs performed between 2014 and 2019 were analyzed. A total of 59.6% of hamstring tendon autografts were fixed with a suspensory device on the tibial side (n = 3662), 17.6% with an interference screw with a sheath (n = 1079), and 22.8% with an interference screw without a sheath (n = 1404). When compared with suspensory devices, a higher revision risk was observed when using an interference screw with a sheath (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; P = .009) and without a sheath (adjusted HR, 1.81; P = .044). The number of graft strands and a graft diameter of ≥8 mm were associated with the rate of revision on the univariate analysis; however, after adjusting for confounding variables on the multivariate analysis, they did not significantly influence the risk of revision.

CONCLUSION

In this study of hamstring tendon autografts fixed with an adjustable loop suspensory device on the femoral side during primary ACLR, the use of an interference screw, with or without a sheath, on the tibial side resulted in a higher revision rate when compared with a suspensory device.

Independent Versus Transtibial Drilling in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Background:

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed with different techniques for independent and transtibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnels, but there is still no consensus on which approach leads to the best outcome.

Purpose:

To assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted on July 1, 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The influence of different femoral drilling techniques was analyzed through a meta-analysis in terms of patient-reported outcome measure scores, risk of complications, range of motion limitations, graft failure, and differential laxity. Subanalyses were performed to compare the different independent drilling techniques considered. Linear metaregression was performed to evaluate if the year of study publication influenced the results. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines.

Results:

A total of 22 randomized controlled trials including 1658 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm score were higher with the independent drilling approach (mean difference [MD], 1.24 [P = .02] and 0.55 [P = .005], respectively). No difference was documented in terms of the risk of reinjury, but independent drilling led to reduced KT-1000 arthrometer–assessed anterior tibial translation (MD, 0.23; P = .01) and a higher probability of a negative postoperative pivot-shift test finding (risk ratio, 1.13; P = .04). There were no significant differences in IKDC objective or Tegner scores. A P value of .07 was found for the association between the year of the study and IKDC objective scores.

Conclusion:

Independent femoral tunnel drilling provided better results than the TT approach, although the difference was not clinically significant. No difference was observed in the risk of reinjury. Increasingly better results were seen among surgical procedures performed in more recent years. Among the independent drilling options, the anteromedial portal technique seemed to provide the most favorable outcomes. The lack of clinically significant differences and the promising outcomes reported with new modified TT techniques suggest the importance of correct placement, rather than the tunnel drilling approach, to optimize the results of ACL reconstruction.

Hamstrings substitution via anteromedial portal with optional anterolateral ligament reconstruction is the preferred surgical technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a survey among ESSKA members

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to report on a worldwide web-based survey among the ESSKA community developed to investigate current recommendations regarding ACL reconstruction surgical procedures.

METHODS

All contacts in the official mailing list of the ESSKA were contacted to investigate preferences regarding graft type, anterolateral ligament reconstruction, femoral tunnel drilling technique, single-bundle vs double-bundle technique, femoral and tibial fixation methods.

RESULTS

Eight-hundred and twenty responses were analyzed. Hamstrings autograft was the graft of choice in male patients for 634 (79%) and in female patients for 674 (84%) responders, while its preference for ACL reconstruction in professional athletes was for 401 (50%). 480 (63%) surgeons surveyed would include anterolateral ligament reconstruction only if diagnosed and remaining instability after ACL surgery or revision. 598 (75%) respondents were in favor of anteromedial portal for femoral tunnel drilling. The most popular femoral fixation technique was found to be cortical suspension (500-66%), while a compression system was preferred on the tibial side by 537 (71% of the sample).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey study found that HT autograft, single-bundle reconstruction, anteromedial portal for femoral tunnel drilling, cortical suspension systems for femoral fixation and compression systems for tibial fixation represent the current standard of ACLR in a large community of orthopedic surgeons. The present study performed with surgeons who are members of the ESSKA community will help to comprehend the actual ACLR worldwide practice patterns. Due to low response rate, these results should be interpreted with caution and not to be intended to represent the state of the art of ESSKA community.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft

INTRODUCTION

Results of iterative ACL reconstructions are lower than after primary reconstructions. Our aim was to report the results of a retrospective series of revision using pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft. The hypothesis was that the results were satisfactory and comparable to the literature.

METHODS

The study period was from January 2012 to December 2014. Fourteen patients (average age 26) were included. A fascia lata graft was used 12 times for primary reconstruction. Trauma was the cause of failure 12 times. The time interval between primary reconstruction and revision was 6.2 years. Preoperative scores used were LYSHOLM, TEGNER and IKDC. Sagittal stability was measured using the KT-1000 device. X-rays and MRI were performed to confirm the diagnosis, look for preoperative osteoarthritis and evaluate the position of the bony tunnels (Bernard and Hertel). Bone tunnels were in a proper position 14 times.

RESULTS

At 45-month follow-up, improvement of objective IKDC score was significant (85.7% A/B, p < 0.0002) as well as subjective IKDC score (85.5, p < 0.0004). A significant improvement was established for the LYSHOLM score (91.8, p = 0.001) using the Wilcoxon test. The average LYSHOLM score was 92% (p > 0.5), and the average TEGNER score was 5.5 (p = 0.003). The Lachman test found a hard stop in all patients. The pivot shift test was negative for 78.5% of the cases. The laxity measurement found 12 cases with less than 3 mm. One persistent distal hypoesthesia at 2-year follow-up was observed.

CONCLUSION

The hypothesis was confirmed. This series differs by the cause of failure, which was essentially traumatic, and the initial predominance of a fascia lata graft. These results remain to be confirmed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, level IV.

Revision Risk of Soft Tissue Allograft Versus Hybrid Graft After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

When a harvested hamstring autograft is deemed by the surgeon to be of inadequate diameter, the options include using the small graft, using another autograft from a different site, augmenting with an allograft (hybrid graft), using a different configuration of the graft (eg, 5- or 6-stranded), or abandoning the autograft and using allograft alone. A small graft diameter is associated with a higher revision risk, and using another autograft site includes added harvest-site morbidity; therefore, use of a hybrid graft or an allograft alone may be appealing alternative options. Revision risk for hybrid graft compared with soft tissue allograft is not known.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the risk for aseptic revision surgery after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a soft tissue allograft compared with ACLR using a hybrid graft in patients 25 years and younger.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data from a health care system's ACLR registry were used to identify primary isolated unilateral ACLRs between 2009 and 2016 using either a hybrid graft (hamstring autograft with soft tissue allograft) or a soft tissue allograft alone. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate risk for aseptic revision after ACLR according to graft used after adjustment for age, allograft processing, tunnel drilling technique, and region where the primary ACLR was performed.

RESULTS

The cohort included 2080 ACLR procedures; a hybrid graft was used for 479 (23.0%) ACLRs. Median follow-up time was 3.4 years (interquartile range, 1.8-5.1 years). The crude 2-year aseptic revision probability was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-6.7%) for soft tissue allograft ACLR and 3.8% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.4%) for hybrid graft ACLR. After adjustment for covariates, soft tissue allograft ACLR had a higher risk of aseptic revision during follow-up compared with hybrid graft ACLR (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.21-3.31; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

Soft tissue allografts had a 2-fold higher risk of aseptic revision compared with hybrid graft after ACLR. Future studies evaluating the indications for using hybrid grafts and the optimal hybrid graft diameter is needed.