Revision ACL reconstruction using autogenous patellar tendon graft

Good Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Low Rates of Return to Sports after Repeat Revision ACL Reconstruction

Repeat revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) is a rare, demanding procedure and, as such, has not been well studied. Most of the available literature shows improved functional outcomes compared with preoperative state but inferior results when compared with primary ACL-R, particularly regarding return to preinjury level of sports. The purpose of this study was to assess functional outcomes in patients who had undergone repeat revision ACL-R. The secondary aims were to register return to sports, associated meniscal and/or chondral lesions, and evaluate radiological anatomical parameters. Nine patients between 2011 and 2017 were evaluated, who had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Median age at repeat ACL-R was 32 years (interquartile range [IQR], 30-34 years) and the median follow-up was 27 months (IQR, 24-39 months). Data collected prior to surgery and at last follow-up included patient demographics, operative findings, physical examination findings including pivot shift and KT-1000 arthrometer measurement; Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores; and return to sports and level using the Tegner score. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subjective score and radiographic anatomical parameters were recorded at last follow-up. Mean IKDC and Lysholm score improvement was 25 points (confidence interval [CI] 12-37) and 25 points (CI 11-39), respectively (p < 0.001). The median postoperative KOOS score was pain: 93 (IQR, 64-96); symptoms: 94 (IQR, 83-97); activities of daily life: 96 (IQR, 90-100); sports: 75 (IQR, 50-90); and quality of life: 50 (IQR, 43-81). Postoperative median side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer difference was 2 mm (IQR, 1-8 mm). The median radiographic posterior tibial slope was 10 degrees (IQR, 9-10). One patient was considered a failure at 16 months postoperative. Only 44% (four out of nine) patients were able to return to their sports. None of these patients had a cartilage injury, while three out of five patients who did not return to their sports had International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society grade III or IV cartilage injury. Patients should be counseled on the challenging outcomes of repeat revision ACL-R. This is Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with the All-Soft Tissue Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Has Acceptable Early and Intermediate-Term Outcomes

PURPOSE

The purposes were to (1) examine early to intermediate-term clinical outcomes and complications of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using all-soft tissue quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts, and (2) compare quadriceps strength between patients who had hamstring versus patella tendon autografts in their previous reconstruction.

METHODS

One hundred patients (52 males/48 females; 22.6 ± 8.0 years) undergoing revision ACLR with all-soft tissue QT autografts were prospectively followed. All revision procedures were performed by a single surgeon, using a minimally invasive graft harvest technique and suspensory fixation. Subjective assessment of knee function was obtained before and after surgery with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey. Postoperative knee laxity and isokinetic quadriceps strength were collected at regular intervals. Strength was reported as limb symmetry index (LSI; surgical side divided by nonsurgical side). Complications including hematomas, postoperative loss of knee extension, and graft failures were recorded. To determine clinical significance (P ≤ .05), outcomes were compared using analysis of variance or paired samples t-tests.

RESULTS

The mean IKDC scores significantly improved (54.3 ± 13.0 vs 82.8 ± 13.8), with an average follow-up of 42.2 ± 21.2 months. There were no significant changes in knee laxity side-to-side differences: 6 weeks (1.2 ± 1.5 mm), 3 months (1.2 ± 1.8 mm), 6 months (1.4 ± 1.6 mm). Quadriceps LSIs significantly improved from 71.6% ± 19.3% at 6 months to 81.5% ± 19.3% at 12 months for 60°/s isokinetic testing and 76.6% ± 16.4% at 6 months to 83.9% ± 16.9% at 12 months for 180°/s testing. Graft harvest site hematomas developed in 2 patients, postoperative loss of knee extension in 4 patients, and graft failure in 11 patients. No significant differences in quadriceps or hamstrings LSIs were noted between patients with previous hamstring versus patella tendon autografts (P > .050).

CONCLUSION

Revision ACLR with all-soft tissue QT autografts has acceptable early and intermediate-term outcomes with reasonable complication rates (11/80 patients with follow-up). Secondary insult to the extensor mechanism via QT autograft harvest does not adversely affect strength after prior patellar tendon versus hamstring autograft.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, cases series subgroup analysis.

Re-revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Evaluation From the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry

PURPOSE

To identify the rate of re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) to estimate the influence of patient-related factors on the risk of re-revision ACLR. The secondary aim of the study was to report the intra-articular findings and patient-related factors at the time of revision ACLR and to compare these with the findings in a matched controlled group of primary ACLR.

METHODS

Patients with primary ACLR without a subsequent need of revision and patients with a revision ACLR identified in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from June 2004 through September 2016 were included. Using age at operation, sex, activity at injury, and year of ACLR as covariates, a propensity score matched control group of primary ACLR patients for the revision ACLR patients was identified. For the revision ACLR patients, re-revision ACLR rates at 1, 2, 5, and 8 years were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis; the hazard ratio for a re-revision ACLR was estimated using a multivariable Cox regression model.

RESULTS

The cumulative estimated proportion of patients undergoing a re-revision ACLR at 1, 2, 5, and 8 years after the original revision ACLR was 0.4%, 3.0%, 6.5%, and 9.0% respectively. There was no significant difference between the control and revision ACLR groups regarding cartilage injury (P = .72) or associated ligament injury (P = .17). Revision ACLR patients did have fewer meniscal injuries (P < .001). There were no intraoperative findings or surgical techniques identified as a predictor for a higher risk of re-revision ACLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a review of a large ligament reconstruction registry,one can expect 9% of patients to undergo a re-revision ALCR at 8 years of follow up. Revision ACLR did not have an increase in cartilage injuries or associated ligament injuries and had significantly fewer meniscal injuries compared with a primary ACLR control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstrings and Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Mid- to Long-Term Clinical and Radiological Study

PURPOSE

To present the mid- to long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with doubled gracilis and semitendinosus (DGST) autograft and a lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with DGST and LET by a single surgeon between January 1997 and December 2013 were included. Revision was indicated by ACL failure noted on magnetic resonance imaging, persistent clinical instability, or laxity on clinical exam. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at latest follow-up by an independent board-certified orthopaedic surgeon. Outcomes included Lachman and pivot shift tests, validated clinical and patient reported outcomes scores, and radiographic analysis. The presence of previous meniscectomy or chondral injury was recorded intraoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 118/132 potential patients (89.4%) was available for follow-up at a mean 10.6 years (3-19 years) postoperatively. Lachman and pivot shift examinations as well as the side-to-side difference on an KT-1000 arthrometer demonstrated significant improvement at latest follow-up (P < .05) versus preoperative evaluation. Severe degenerative disease was present in 25% of patients on radiograph and correlated with worsened clinical outcomes. Previous meniscectomy was the only risk factor analyzed that correlated with worsened radiographic grade. No patients had a graft tear based on clinical and/or magnetic resonance imaging evaluation, but 9 (7.6%) failed based on a side-to-side difference of >5 mm on the KT-1000, a grade ≥2+ on pivot shift, or report of continued instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision ACL reconstruction with DGST and LET at mid- to long-term follow-up provides continued improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes from preoperative assessment. Meniscectomy was the only factor related to worsened radiological grades and clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Does the type of graft affect the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? a meta-analysis of 32 studies

AIMS

Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis of the outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, comparing the use of different types of graft.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search was performed of Medline and Pubmed using the terms "Anterior Cruciate Ligament" and "ACL" combined with "revision", "re-operation" and "failure". Only studies that reported the outcome at a minimum follow-up of two years were included. Two authors reviewed the papers, and outcomes were subdivided into autograft and allograft. Autograft was subdivided into hamstring (HS) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB). Subjective and objective outcome measures were analysed and odds ratios with confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies used HS autografts, eight reported using BPTB autografts, two used quadriceps tendon autografts and eight used various types. Seven studies reported using allografts, while the two remaining used both BPTB autografts and allografts. Overall, 1192 patients with a mean age of 28.7 years (22.5 to 39) and a mean follow-up of 5.4 years (2.0 to 9.6) were treated with autografts, while 269 patients with a mean age of 28.4 years (25 to 34.6) and a mean follow-up of 4.0 years (2.3 to 6.0) were treated with allografts. Regarding allografts, irradiation with 2.5 mrad was used in two studies while the graft was not irradiated in the seven remaining studies. Reconstructions following the use of autografts had better outcomes than those using allograft with respect to laxity, measured by KT-1000/2000 (MEDmetric Corporation) and the rates of complications and re-operations. Those following the use of allografts had better mean Lysholm and Tegner activity scores compared with autografts. If irradiated allografts were excluded from the analysis, outcomes no longer differed between the use of autografts and allografts. Comparing the types of autograft, all outcomes were similar except for HS grafts which had better International Knee Documentation Committee scores compared with BPTB grafts.

CONCLUSION

Autografts had better outcomes than allografts in revision ACL reconstruction, with lower post-operative laxity and rates of complications and re-operations. However, after excluding irradiated allografts, outcomes were similar between autografts and allografts. Overall, the choice of graft at revision ACL reconstruction should be on an individual basis considering, for instance, the preferred technique of the surgeon, whether a combined reconstruction is required, the type of graft that was previously used, whether the tunnels are enlarged and the availability of allograft. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:714-23.

One-stage revision ACL reconstruction after primary ACL double bundle reconstruction: is bone-patella tendon-bone autograft reliable?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to assess the results of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction after the failure of primary ACL double bundle reconstruction (ACL-DBR).

METHODS

Twenty-two knees in 22 patients (group R) that underwent ACL revision surgery using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft after the failure of primary ACL-DBR were included in this study. Intraoperative findings and postoperative knee laxity and clinical outcomes in group R were assessed. Forty-four knees in 44 patients that were age- and gender- matched with group R and underwent primary ACL reconstruction using BTB autograft were used as a control group (group P).

RESULTS

The incidence of medial meniscus and cartilage injury in group R was significantly higher than those in group P (p < 0.05). At final follow-up, median Lysholm score was 90.5 (64-100) in group R and 94 (59-100) in group P, respectively. Fourteen patients (63.6%) in group R and 31 patients (70.5%) in group P were able to return to previously-played sports, respectively. There were no significant differences in KT-1000 outcomes (2.0 mm in group R and 1.4 mm in group P) or pivot shift test between the two groups. The rate of subsequent ACL injury was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision ACL reconstruction using BTB autograft after failed primary ACL-DBR provided almost compatible postoperative clinical outcomes and knee stability with primary ACL reconstruction using BTB autograft, while the incidence of medial meniscus and cartilage injury at revision surgery was higher.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

Return-to-Sport Outcomes After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery

BACKGROUND

There are limited and inconsistent data regarding return-to-sport outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

HYPOTHESIS

Return-to-sport rates will be lower after revision ACLR when compared with primary ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 136 eligible patients who had undergone their first revision ACLR between March 2006 and March 2010. Of these, 109 patients (80%) completed a sports activity survey at a mean 5-year follow-up (range, 3-7 years). Follow-up also included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Marx Activity Scale, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-quality of life (KOOS-QOL) form. Operative details were obtained from the clinical record.

RESULTS

After revision ACLR, 46% (95% CI, 37%-55%) of patients returned to their preinjury level of sport, compared with 50% (95% CI, 41%-59%) after the primary reconstruction in the same patients. Of the patients who were not able to return to their preinjury level of sport after primary reconstruction, 33% improved to the point that they were able to do so after revision. Younger patients were more likely to have returned to their same level of sport (58% vs 38%, P < .05), while the rate of return was the same between male and female patients. Those who returned to their preinjury level of sport scored higher Marx (P < .01), KOOS-QOL (P < .001), and IKDC scores (P < .01) than those who did not. Patients with <50% thickness articular cartilage lesions at revision surgery were more likely to have returned to their preinjury level (52% vs 31%, P < .05) and had significantly better Marx (P < .01), KOOS-QOL (P < .01), and IKDC scores (P < .01) at follow-up. The status of the menisci at the time of revision surgery was not associated with rates of return to sport, but patients with an intact medial meniscus had significantly higher KOOS-QOL (P < .05) scores at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Return-to-sport rates of patients after revision ACLR were similar to those after their primary surgery but were still lower than the reported rates of ACLR patients who did not need revision surgery. Greater chondral pathologic abnormalities at revision surgery were associated with reduced function at follow-up.

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

PURPOSE

An increasing number of patients undergo revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, with the intention of returning to sport being a major indication. The aim of this study is to assess the available evidence for clinical improvement and return to sport, to understand the real potential of this procedure in regaining functional activity, and to facilitate improved counselling of patients regarding the expected outcome after revision ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

The search was conducted on the PubMed database. Articles reporting clinical results for revision ACL reconstruction were included. A meta-analysis was performed on return to sport, and results were compared to the literature on primary ACL reconstruction. Other specific clinical outcomes (Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC Objective scores) were also included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 503 identified records, a total of 59 studies involving 5365 patients were included in the qualitative data synthesis. Only 31 articles reported the rate of return to sport. Whereas 73 % of good objective results and satisfactory subjective results were documented, 57 % of patients did not return to the same level of sport activity, significantly inferior to that of a primary procedure.

CONCLUSION

The real potential of revision ACL reconstruction should not be overestimated due to the low number of patients able to return to their previous activity level, significantly inferior with respect to that reported for primary ACL reconstruction. This finding will help physicians in the clinical practice providing realistic expectations to the patients. Future studies should focus on participation-based outcome measures such as return to sport and in strategies to improve the results in terms of return to previous activities after revision ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis including Level IV studies, Level IV.

Proximal Tibial Anterior Closing Wedge Osteotomy in Repeat Revision of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Physicians should consider an increased posterior tibial slope (PTS) as a risk factor for graft failure when proposing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) re-revision.

PURPOSE

To describe the surgical technique of combined ACL revision and proximal tibial anterior closing wedge osteotomy and to evaluate its clinical outcome in cases of recurrent graft failure with associated increased tibial slope.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2010, 5 combined ACL re-revisions with proximal tibial anterior closing wedge osteotomy were retrospectively evaluated after a mean 31.6 months' follow-up (range, 23-45 months). All patients reported subjective knee instability preoperatively and demonstrated increased laxity on physical examination. Intrinsic risk factors for graft failure (excessive tibial slope) were identified in all cases. Preoperative and postoperative functional assessments included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score along with the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale.

RESULTS

The mean Lysholm score was 46.2 preoperatively (range, 26-69) and 87.8 (range, 60-100) postoperatively. The mean IKDC subjective score was 39.5 (range, 21.8-64.4) before surgery and 79.1 (range, 48.3-98.9) at the last follow-up. The mean Tegner activity score was 7.4 (range, 5-9) before the latest ACL injury and 7.2 (range, 5-9) at the last follow-up. The mean PTS was 13.6° (range, 13°-14°) preoperatively and 9.2° (range, 8°-10°) postoperatively (P = .0005). The mean differential anterior laxity was 10.4 mm (range, 8-14 mm), and this significantly decreased to 2.8 mm (range, 2-4 mm) at the last follow-up. Using the Kellgren-Lawrence classification to evaluate the presence of arthritis, 1 patient was grade 1, 3 patients were grade 2, and 1 patient was grade 3.

CONCLUSION

Combined ACL re-revision with proximal tibial anterior closing wedge osteotomy restores knee stability and function with satisfactory clinical outcomes in patients who experience recurrent ACL ruptures with an associated increased PTS.

Inferior results after revision ACL reconstructions: a comparison with primary ACL reconstructions

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures are common, especially among young athletes, and such injuries may have considerable impact on both sport careers and everyday life. ACL reconstructions are successful for most patients, but some suffer from persistent giving-way symptoms and/or re-ruptures requiring revision surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results after revision ACL reconstructions and compare them with the results in a control group consisting of primary ACL reconstructions.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 56 patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction and 52 patients receiving primary ACL reconstructions. The follow-up evaluation included clinical examination, instrumented laxity testing, testing of muscle strength, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) and radiological grading of osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

The median time from the last ACL reconstruction to follow-up was 90 months in the revision ACL reconstruction group and 96 months in the primary ACL reconstruction group. The revision group had significantly inferior KOOS and Lysholm scores compared with the primary group. Patients in the revision group also showed greater laxity measured with the pivot shift test, a larger reduction in the Tegner activity score, reduced muscle strength in the injured knee, and more severe radiological osteoarthritis; however, no difference in anterior-posterior translation was found.

CONCLUSION

Inferior results were found on several of the testing parameters in the revision group compared with the primary group. Patients should receive this information prior to revision ACL reconstructions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Surgical and Biomechanical Perspectives on Osteoarthritis and the ACL Deficient Knee: A Critical Review of the Literature

This review was undertaken to better understand the debate regarding the issue of osteoarthritis associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, from a surgical and biomechanical standpoint. Much of the current debate focuses on contributory surgical factors and their relative roles in increasing or decreasing the risk of future osteoarthritis development, primarily highlighting the controversy over whether reconstructive surgery itself is necessarily protective. This review addresses the evolution of ACL reconstruction techniques over time, and with a view to thoroughly examine the role of surgery, outcome differences in procedural technique are reviewed, with a focus on open versus arthroscopic methods, graft choice and the use of a double versus single bundle reconstruction technique. Moreover, other potentially important contributory factors are identified and discussed, such as intrinsic biomechanical alterations sustained at the time of initial injury, and how these may have a more significant role with regard to future osteoarthritic changes in the knee than previously attributed.

Outcomes of repeat revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

As anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is performed increasingly in the United States, the rate of revision ACL reconstruction continues to rise. A paucity of literature exists with respect to repeat ACL revision surgery.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the functional outcomes of patients who had undergone at least 2 revision ACL reconstructions.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The records of all patients who had undergone repeat revision ACL reconstructions between 1998 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included patient demographics, operative findings, pre- and postoperative physical examination findings, radiographs, and Tegner, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients had undergone repeat revision ACL reconstruction during the study period. Mean age was 27 years (range, 18-57 years). Mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2-10 years). At the time of repeat revision surgery, new tunnels were drilled in 9 of 15 (60%) cases. Of those, 8 of 9 (89%) were drilled because femoral tunnels were deemed "too anterior." During repeat revision, 11 of 15 (73%) patients were noted to have a meniscal tear, and 9 of 15 (67%) had International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade 3 or 4 chondral lesions. Mean Lysholm score was 60 preoperatively and increased to 82 postoperatively (P < .001). Mean preoperative IKDC score was 59, which increased to 80 postoperatively (P < .001). Mean preoperative Tegner score was 6.0. Mean postoperative Tegner score was 4.5, with only 4 of 15 (27%) patients having returned to their prior activity level (P < .001). Two patients (13%) sustained a traumatic rerupture. Presence of grade 3 or 4 chondral lesions and body mass index greater than 28 at the time of repeat revision were associated with a "fair" or "poor" outcome by Lysholm score (P = .007 and P = .03, respectively) and IDKC subjective scoring (P = .04 and P = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Repeat revision ACL reconstruction may improve the functional outcomes of patients who have failed revision ACL reconstruction. Most patients do not return to prior activity level following repeat revision. Presence of grade 3 or 4 chondral lesions and body mass index greater than 28 were associated with worse outcomes.

A cross-sectional study comparing the rates of osteoarthritis, laxity, and quality of life in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of osteoarthritis, degree of laxity, and quality-of-life (QOL) scores in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study; 25 patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction with allografts were identified and compared with 27 randomly selected primary ACL reconstruction patients operated on in the same hospital in the same period with the same technique. The main outcome measure was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) radiographic osteoarthritis sum score, and secondary outcome measures were Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, IKDC functional outcome measures, anterior laxity, and QOL at follow-up.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 5.3 years for revision reconstruction patients and 5.1 years for primary reconstruction patients. Radiographic IKDC sum scores for osteoarthritis were found to be significantly worse in revision patients, with a median of 4, compared with primary patients, with a median of 1 (P = .016). Differences were found in meniscal injury (P = .02) and cartilage status (P < .001) before or at the index operation. Significantly worse outcomes were found in the following subscores of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: pain (median, 92 v 97; P = .032), symptom (median, 86 v 96; P = .015), activities of daily living (median, 94 v 100; P = .020), sport (median, 50 v 85; P = .006), and QOL (median, 56 v 81; P = .001). IKDC functional outcome measures were the same in both groups except for the pivot-shift test (P = .007). No differences were found in anterior drawer, Lachman, or KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) testing. Present-day health scores on the EQ-5D were worse for revision reconstruction patients (median, 70 v 80; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision reconstruction patients have more signs of osteoarthritis and worse QOL than primary reconstruction patients, even though they have comparable IKDC success rates and KT-1000 arthrometer laxity test results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Revision ACL reconstruction: influence of a lateral tenodesis

PURPOSE

The aims of this article were to report the objective results of revision ACL reconstruction and to assess the influence of an associated lateral extra-articular tenodesis on knee stability and IKDC score.

METHODS

This study focused on revision ACL reconstruction and was conducted over a 10-year period, from 1994 to 2003 with ten French orthopedic centers participating. The minimum follow-up required was 2 years. To be included, patients had to be evaluated at follow-up with the objective International Knee Documenting Committee (IKDC) scoring system. In 2006, 163 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The objective IKDC knee score improved significantly after revision ACL reconstruction, with 72% IKDC A + B (26% A). When a lateral tenodesis was performed, 80% had a negative pivot shift, versus 63% without (P = 0.03), but there was no significant difference in the IKDC score.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a significant improvement in the IKDC score after revision ACL reconstruction. The association of a lateral extra-articular tenodesis with the intra-articular graft increases knee stability after revision ACL reconstruction; however, this additional procedure does not significantly alter the IKDC score at follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Over-the-top double-bundle revision ACL reconstruction

Revision ACL presents many technical issues that are not seen in the primary ACL reconstruction. A variety of surgical techniques for revising ACL reconstruction have been described in the literature to address these concerns. The purpose of this article is to present a novel technique consisting in a non-anatomic double-bundle ACL revision reconstruction, using a fresh-frozen Achilles tendon allograft with soft tissue fixation. This technique is a valid treatment option when faced with a complex scenario such as ACL revision surgery.

Analysis of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction according to the combined injury, degenerative change, and MRI findings

The purposes of this study were to analyze the results of revision ACL reconstruction, and to determine the effects of pre-revision combined injuries, degenerative changes, and post-revision magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings on clinical results. Forty patients (41 operations) were enrolled in this study. Clinical results and stabilities were evaluated. Radiological results were evaluated using Fairbank scale. For the subgroup analysis, Fairbank scale and preoperative combined injuries were used. Follow-up MRIs were also available for 31(75.6%) patients and we searched for relations between MRI findings and clinical results. Significant improvements in subjective, objective scores (p<0.0001), and stability (p<0.0001) were observed between pre-revision surgery and final follow-up results. In the subgroup analysis according to the degenerative change, the mild group achieved better clinical results than the severe group (p=0.015 and 0.035, respectively). In the subgroup analysis according to the combined injuries, no significant difference was observed between 2 groups in terms of final follow-up Lysholm and IKDC subjective scores (p=0.083 and 0.085, respectively). No relation was found between clinical or stability results and MRI findings (p=0.26~0.99). Our results show that the severities of combined injuries were not correlated with clinical results, but the severities of degenerative changes were correlated with clinical results and that results were better in the no or mildly degenerated group. We also found that MRI is helpful for evaluating revision ACL, but that no relation was found between clinical or stability results and MRI findings of the graft after revision surgery.

Causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and influence of meniscectomies after revision

The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to analyze the causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and the influence of meniscectomies after revision. This study was conducted over a 12-year period, from 1994 to 2005 with ten French orthopaedic centers participating. Assessment included the objective International Knee Documenting Committee (IKDC) 2000 scoring system evaluation. Two hundred and ninety-three patients were available for statistics. Untreated laxity, femoral and tibial tunnel malposition, impingement, failure of fixation were assessed, new traumatism and infection were recorded. Meniscus surgery was evaluated before, during or after primary ACL reconstruction, and then during or after revision ACL surgery. The main cause for failure of ACL reconstruction was femoral tunnel malposition in 36% of the cases. Forty-four percent of the patients with an anterior femoral tunnel as a cause for failure of the primary surgery were IKDC A after revision versus 24% if the cause of failure was not the femoral tunnel (P = 0.05). A 70% meniscectomy rate was found in revision ACL reconstruction. Comparison between patients with a total meniscectomy (n = 56) and patients with preserved menisci (n = 65) revealed a better functional result and knee stability in the non-meniscectomized group (P = 0.04). This study shows that the anterior femoral tunnel malposition is the main cause for failure in ACL reconstruction. This reason for failure should be considered as a predictive factor of good result of revision ACL reconstruction. Total meniscectomy jeopardizes functional result and knee stability at follow-up.

Single-stage anterior cruciate ligament revision with bone-patellar tendon-bone: a case-control series of revision of failed synthetic anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical results of single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) after synthetic ligament failure.

METHODS

The subjects comprised 20 patients who underwent revision ACLR after synthetic ligament failure. All revisions were performed with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft, and bone tunnel expansion after removal of synthetic materials was treated with bone plugs sized and trimmed as necessary to fill the bone tunnels. Clinical results were assessed at a mean of 2.8 years postoperatively, followed by comparison with the results of 20 primary ACLRs selected as case-matched controls. Assessment included the Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation, instrumented laxity testing, and radiologic examination.

RESULTS

Bone tunnel enlargement to 11 mm in diameter or greater was found in 10 of 20 revision ACLRs. However, favorable anteroposterior stability was obtained at final follow-up (1.4 +/- 2.0 mm in revision ACLR group and 1.5 +/- 1.5 mm in primary ACLR group). The overall Lysholm score improved significantly from preoperatively to final follow-up, but the revision ACLR group showed significantly worse results for the pain parameter than the primary ACLR group. The final IKDC results also showed significant postoperative improvement, but the number of cases with grade C was significantly higher in the revision ACLR group than in the primary ACLR group, which was attributed to radiologically confirmed osteoarthritis in the revision ACLR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-stage revision ACLR with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft after synthetic ligament failure yielded favorable results in terms of IKDC grade, Lysholm score, and anteroposterior stability, despite enlarged bone tunnels after removal of synthetic material. Inferior results for the radiologic and pain parameters of the IKDC and Lysholm scores were attributed to osteoarthritic changes inherent to the revision ACLR group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic case-control study.

Synthetic grafts for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: 19-year outcome study

Artificial ligaments for ACL replacement have been widely used in the 1980s and early 1990s in orthopaedic surgery. Synthetic devices have been utilized either as a prosthetic material or as an augmentation for a biological ACL graft substitute. The initial enthusiasm surrounding the introduction of synthetic graft materials stemmed from their lack of donor morbidity, their abundant supply and significant strength of these devices. The disadvantages in long-term follow-up were found to be cross-infections, immunological responses, tunnels osteolysis, femural and tibial fractures, foreign-body synovitis and knee osteoarthritis. A total of 126 patients were treated with artificial ACL substitution with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) synthetic ligaments in our Institute between 1986 and 1990. Of the original group, 51 sportsmen aged 15 to 40 were followed-up at a mean of 19years (range 17.5 to 20.6years) after surgery. Assessment was made with KOOS and IKDC score, Tegner activity scale, clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometer, and X-ray evaluation. Of the 51 patients followed-up, 27.5% were found to have ruptured their PET ligaments and 100% presented degenerative osteoarthritis at the X-ray evaluation according to Ahlbäck radiological classification of arthritis. The objective evaluation showed functional impairment in 29.4% with an average reduction of 3 points in the Tegner activity scale. The osteoarthritis observed in all patients prompted us to avoid the diffusion of this surgical technique. Although in theory well-conceived, studies have yet to substantiate the function of these augmentation devices or to show clinical better results than those achieved with isolated autograft or allograft ACL substitutes.

Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective review of management and outcome of 10 patients with an average 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, no previous published study has focused on management and outcome of repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in terms of functional result and meniscus and articular cartilage status.

HYPOTHESIS

Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves knee stability, but with inferior results for functional outcome compared with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Meniscal tears and subsequent articular cartilage degeneration are more prevalent with successive revisions due to recurrent laxity.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2003 and November 2006, a consecutive series of 10 patients with an average age at 30 years (range, 17-48) were operated on for a repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (2 revisions after a primary reconstruction) with arthroscopic procedures. A clinical and a radiographic evaluation were performed to assess anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failures, outcome of revisions, and causes of failures. Meniscal tears and articular cartilage lesions were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average follow-up of the second revision was 38 months (range, 12-61). At latest follow-up, final International Knee Documentation Committee assessment was excellent or good in 7 cases. Postoperatively, only 2 patients recovered to the same sports activity level they had before their first anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Four had a lower level, and 4 discontinued sports activity. The postoperative average side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual difference was 1.3 +/- 1.9 mm. Nine patients had meniscal tears and 7 had articular cartilage lesions. Meniscal tears, meniscectomies, and articular cartilage degeneration increased after the second revision (P = .016, P = .0098, and P = .0197, respectively). Severe articular cartilage degeneration (International Cartilage Repair Society grade III and IV lesions) was found in patients with bad functional outcome (final International Knee Documentation Committee assessment C or D) (P = .0472). Incidence of articular cartilage degeneration was found to be more prevalent in cases of meniscal tears and partial meniscectomy at the same tibiofemoral compartment (P = .0157). Index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and first revision failures were caused by recurrent trauma (60% and 70%, respectively) or a surgical technical error with tunnel malpositioning (40% and 10%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Outcome of repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was excellent or good in 70% of the cases, although decreased after the second revision, in relation to the occurrence of meniscal tears and articular cartilage lesions. Meniscal and articular cartilage lesions were more frequent and more severe with recurrent laxity. The cause of failures was mainly recurrent trauma, followed by surgical technical errors.

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in patients over 50 years

The records of patients aged 50 years or over who underwent primary reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament between 1990 and 2002 were reviewed. There were 35 knees in 34 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients was 57 years (50 to 66) and the mean clinical follow-up was for 72 months (25 to 173). A total of 23 knees were reconstructed with patellar tendon allograft, and 12 with patellar tendon autograft. The mean pre-operative knee extension was 1 degrees (-5 degrees to 10 degrees) and flexion was 129 degrees (125 degrees to 150 degrees) and at follow-up these values were 0 degrees (-5 degrees to 5 degrees) and 135 degrees (120 degrees to 150 degrees), respectively. Pre-operatively there were 31 knees (89%) with a Lachman grade 2+ or 3+. Post-operatively, 33 knees (94%) were Lachman grade 0 or 1+. The mean pre- and post-operative International Knee Documentation Committee scores were 39 (23 to 72) and 90 (33 to 100) respectively. The mean pre- and post-operative Lysholm scores were 50 (18 to 68) and 92 (28 to 100) respectively and the mean University of California Los Angeles activity scores were 8.5 before injury (4 to 10), 4.3 (3 to 6) after injury and 8.3 (4 to 10) post-operatively. There were three graft failures (8.6%) requiring revision. We conclude that reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in carefully-selected patients aged 50 years or over can achieve similar results to those in younger patients, with no increased risk of complications.

Comparison of revision surgery with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and outcome of revision surgery between different graft materials

BACKGROUND

The number of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions is increasing rapidly; the number of failing grafts and need for revision surgery have also risen.

HYPOTHESIS

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction will produce similar results to those of primary reconstruction, and there may be different results according to graft materials.

STUDY DESIGN

Case control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Fifty-nine revision surgeries were performed at 1 institution between January 1997 and October 2005. Fifty-five patients (56 operations) were followed. The results of 117 patients (117 knees) treated with arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autograft from September 2001 to November 2002 were also evaluated. Clinical and stability results between primary and revision anterior cruciate reconstruction were compared. For the revision surgery, 21 (37.5%) knees had revision reconstruction with previously unharvested ipsilateral double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autograft. Twenty (35.7%) were bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft, and 15 (26.8%) were Achilles allograft. The details of the technique varied according to the original graft choice and the abnormality encountered. Concomitant procedures were necessary in 32 (57.1%) of 56 knees. Clinical and stability results according to the different graft materials were also compared.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in the scores for subjective, objective forms (P < .001), and stability (P < .001). However, the clinical results of revision surgery were inferior to primary reconstruction (P < .001), but as regards stability, the difference between primary and revision cases was not significant (P = .338). There was no difference in clinical and stability results in different groups of graft material (P = .160-.690).

CONCLUSION

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could improve clinical and stability results, but the clinical results were inferior to those of primary reconstruction. This study also demonstrated that the success of the operation did not depend on the choice of graft materials.

Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results in 107 patients

BACKGROUND

Although techniques and options for suitable graft substitutes for anterior cruciate ligament surgery continue to improve, failures occur because of many reasons. Errors in surgical techniques seem to be important reasons.

HYPOTHESIS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels may be the most important reason for these failures. Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction, using autografts, may yield acceptable outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 148 anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstructions performed in our hospital using autografts. One hundred and seven patients were followed up at a mean of 72.9 +/- 20.6 months. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Lysholm score, the Tegner rating system, the International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation form, and the KT-1000 arthrometer. Radiographs were evaluated for signs of osteoarthritis according to the Jaeger and Wirth classification.

RESULTS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels was the most important reason (63.5%) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. The average Lysholm score improved significantly at the follow-up (88.5 +/- 12.4 vs 51.5 +/- 24.9; P < .001). Moreover, the average Tegner activity score improved significantly compared with the activity score before revision surgery (6.3 +/- 1.8 vs 2.8 +/- 1.8; P < .001). The International Knee Documentation Committee score was A in 17 cases, B in 45, C in 37, and D in 8. Radiographic evaluation revealed that 33 patients had degenerative findings of grade I, 35 of grade II, 16 of grade III, and 2 of grade IV.

CONCLUSION

Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction provides satisfactory midterm results as far as stability and function of the knee are concerned. In spite of these favorable subjective and objective results, the radiological evaluation revealed a significant progression of osteoarthritis.

[Anterior cruciate ligament revision: analysis and results from a series of 74 cases]

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This was a retrospective series of patients who underwent revision ligamentoplasty of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). We wanted to assess the functional outcome after this type of surgery and search for potential prognostic factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The series included 74 patients, mean age 34 years (range 21-59 years). The initial ligamentoplasty was performed with a synthetic ligament (n=16), an autograft (n=57) or an allograft (n=1). Differential laxity (KT-1000 maximal manual) was 7 +/- 2.5 mm. Anterior drawer was measured on the stress x-rays in 20 degrees flexion: medial 8 +/- 4.7 mm, lateral 8.3 +/- 4.9 mm. Mean time to revision surgery was 78 months. Reconstruction was performed arthroscopically in 69 knees. The implant used for the revision reconstruction was an autograft: patellar tendon (n=42), quadriceps tendon (n=15), hamstring tendon (n=13), patellar tendon and quadriceps tendon (MacInJones) (n=3), fascia lata (n=1). A meniscal tear was noted in 24 knees and a cartilage lesion in 35.

RESULTS

Outcome was assessed at mean 21.2 months follow-up. The mean IKDC function score was 71.7 (range 21.8-100). 78% of patients considered their knee normal or nearly normal and 88% presented a positive Lachmann. Mean differential laxity measured with KT-1000 (maximal manual) was 2 +/- 1.7 mm. Stress x-rays revealed a mean differential laxity measured at 3.7 +/- 2.3 mm medially and 6.3 +/- 4.3 mm laterally. The presence of a meniscal lesion favored osteoarthritic degradation. Presence of chondral lesions altered the functional outcome significantly and limited resumption of sports activities. An initial repair using a synthetic ligament affected the functional outcome after revision surgery and favored or aggravated chondral lesions.

DISCUSSION

The clinical results we have obtained with revision ACL ligamentoplasty are comparable to previous series reported in the literature. The functional outcome is not as good as after first-intention repair, especially if the initial plasty was done with a synthetic ligament and the knee presented meniscal or cartilage damage.

Primary versus single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective matched-group analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a low level of evidence about clinical results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts.

HYPOTHESIS

Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction improves knee stability but shows inferior results for functional and subjective outcome and knee stability compared with primary reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Between October 1997 and July 2005, 166 single-stage or 2-stage revision ACL reconstructions were done using different graft types. One hundred twenty-four cases underwent a single-stage revision reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendon grafts. At the time of data analysis, 67 cases fulfilled the criteria of minimum 2-year follow-up. Five patients were lost to follow-up (follow-up rate, 91%). Four patients (6%) who experienced graft rupture were counted as failures but not subjected to further detailed analysis. Because of loss to follow-up and exclusion criteria (n = 12), 50 patients were included in the study. For a comparative matched-group analysis, patients with a primary hamstring tendon graft ACL reconstruction were selected out of a database with minimum 2 years' follow-up (N = 284). Patients were followed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, KT-1000 arthrometer testing, and additional functional tests.

RESULTS

Four of 62 available patients (6.5%) in the revision group experienced graft failure, which was comparable to 16 of 284 (5.6%) in the primary reconstruction group. When the 2 matched groups of 50 patients were further compared, postoperative IKDC results showed no significant differences between groups. The manual maximum KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was 2.1 +/- 1.6 mm for the revision group and 2.2 +/- 1.1 mm for the primary reconstruction group. The Lysholm score was significantly better in the primary reconstruction group (P = .014). The incidence of postoperative positive pivot-shift test results was not significantly different. The primary reconstruction group showed significantly less extension deficits. Functional testing revealed significantly better results for the primary reconstruction group for stair climbing, squatting, knee bending, and duck walk.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient series, primary ACL reconstruction showed significantly better results in Lysholm score, although the IKDC score and objective knee stability showed no significant difference between the groups. Thus, parameters other than measurable knee stability must be responsible for the inferior results of the revision reconstruction group.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

We reviewed 87 patients who underwent revision reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. The incidence of meniscal tears and degenerative change was assessed and related to the interval between failure of the primary graft and revision reconstruction. Patients were divided into two groups: early revision surgery within six months of graft failure, and delayed revision. Degenerative change was scored using the French Society of Arthroscopy system.

There was a significantly higher incidence of articular cartilage degeneration in the delayed group (Mann-Whitney U-test, 53.2% vs 24%, p < 0.01). No patient in the early group had advanced degenerative change, compared to 9.2% of patients in the delayed group. There was no significant difference (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.3) in the incidence of meniscal tears between the two groups.

We conclude that revision reconstruction should be carried out within six months of primary graft failure, in order to minimise the risk of degenerative change.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after 10 to 15 years: association between meniscectomy and osteoarthrosis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the stability and arthrosis of the knee 10 to 15 years after arthroscopic-assisted anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with patellar tendon graft.

METHODS

From July 1986 to March 1991, 82 patients underwent arthroscopic-assisted ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon graft. Of these, 62 returned for follow-up evaluation between November 2000 and April 2001. Four different physicians, blinded to each other's examination findings, evaluated the radiologic as well as surgical results according to the International Knee Documentation Committee criteria and the Lysholm knee scoring scale.

RESULTS

There were 47 male and 15 female patients. The mean period between injury and surgery was 16 months (range, 2 weeks to 8 years). Results of radiographs were compared with the finding of meniscal lesions during surgery and with International Knee Documentation Committee test results. A statistically significant association (P < .0001) was found between medial or lateral arthrosis of the knee and meniscal injury. In all patients the presence of tears in both menisci was associated with osteoarthrosis in both compartments (medial and lateral).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent arthroscopic-assisted ACL reconstruction with patellar tendon graft who also had medial or lateral meniscectomy (or both), arthrosis of the respective compartments developed by 10 to 15 years after reconstruction. Meniscectomy was also associated with poorer results on objective tests of knee function, even with a stable knee joint.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results using a quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft

BACKGROUND

The quadriceps tendon is a viable graft source for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To determine the functional results and graft failure rates in knees in which the patellar tendon had been previously harvested or was unavailable, expanded tunnels precluded the use of a semitendinosus-gracilis graft, or patients requested autogenous tissues instead of allografts for revision reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The authors observed 21 patients for a mean of 49 months postoperatively after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a quadriceps tendon graft. The results were determined by KT-2000 arthrometer testing, the Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and the International Knee Documentation Committee Rating System. Fifteen knees required a concurrent procedure, including reconstruction of posterolateral structures in 5 knees, meniscal repairs in 5 knees, and high tibial osteotomy in 2 knees.

RESULTS

Significant improvements occurred in symptoms (P < .0001), daily activities (P < .05), sports activities (P < .01), and the overall rating scores (P < .0001). Eighteen patients rated their knee condition as improved. Total mean anterior-posterior displacements decreased from 8.4 +/- 3.1 mm preoperatively to 2.0 +/- 2.3 mm at follow-up (P < .001). On the International Knee Documentation Committee knee ligament rating, 17 knees were graded as normal or nearly normal, 3 were graded as abnormal, and 1 was graded as severely abnormal.

CONCLUSION

The revision operation provided reasonable results in this group of complex knees. However, the functional and overall results were inferior to those reported for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Many knees (90%) had compounding problems of articular cartilage damage, meniscectomy, varus malalignment, or additional ligamentous injury that most likely affected the results.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cause of recurrent pathologic instability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery and the effectiveness of revision reconstruction using a quadriceps tendon autograft using a 2-incision technique.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective follow-up study.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2001, 31 patients underwent ACL revision reconstruction because of recurrent pathologic instability during sports or daily activities. Twenty-eight patients were reviewed after a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 3.3 to 5.6 years). The mean age at revision surgery was 27 years (range, 18 to 41 years). The average time from primary procedure to revision surgery was 26 months (range, 9 to 45 months). A clinical, functional, and radiographic evaluation was performed. Also magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scanning was performed. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scales were used. A KT-1000 arthrometer measurement (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) by an experienced physician was made.

RESULTS

Of the failures, 79% had radiographic evidence of malposition of their tunnels. In only 6 cases (21%) was the radiologic anatomy of tunnel placement judged to be correct on both the femoral and tibial side. The MRI or CT showed, in 6 cases, a too-centrally placed femoral tunnel. After revision surgery, the position of tunnels was corrected. A significant improvement of Lachman and pivot-shift phenomenon was observed. In particular, 17 patients had a negative Lachman test, and 11 patients had a grade I Lachman with a firm end point. Preoperatively, the pivot-shift test was positive in all cases, and at last follow-up in 7 patients (25%) a grade 1+ was found. Postoperatively, KT-1000 testing showed a mean manual maximum translation of 8.6 mm (SD, 2.34) for the affected knee; 97% of patients had a maximum manual side-to-side translation <5 mm. At the final postoperative evaluation, 26 patients (93%) graded their knees as normal or nearly normal according to the IKDC score. The mean Lysholm score was 93.6 (SD, 8.77) and the mean Tegner activity score was 6.1 (SD, 1.37). No patient required further revision. Five patients (18%) complained of hypersensitive scars from the reconstructive surgery that made kneeling difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

There were satisfactory results after ACL revision surgery using quadriceps tendon and a 2-incision technique at a minimum 3 years' follow-up; 93% of patients returned to sports activities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series, no control group.

Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The ideal graft for use in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction should have structural and biomechanical properties similar to those of the native ligament, permit secure fixation and rapid biologic incorporation, and limit donor site morbidity. Many options have been clinically successful, but the ideal graft remains controversial. Graft choice depends on surgeon experience and preference, tissue availability, patient activity level, comorbidities, prior surgery, and patient preference. Patellar tendon autograft, the most widely used graft source, appears to be associated with an increased incidence of anterior knee pain compared with hamstring autograft. Use of hamstring autograft is increasing. Quadriceps tendon autograft is less popular but has shown excellent clinical results with low morbidity. Improved sterilization techniques have led to increased safety and availability of allograft, although allografts have a slower rate of incorporation than do most types of autograft. No graft has clearly been shown to provide a faster return to play. However, in general, patellar tendon autografts are preferable for high-performance athletes, and hamstring autografts and allografts have some relative advantages for lower-demand individuals. No current indications exist for synthetic ligaments.