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

Quadriceps tendon autograft has similar clinical outcomes when compared to hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts for revision ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Research regarding revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) with quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RACLR with QT and compare its patient outcomes to RACLR with hamstring tendon (HT) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts.

METHODS

Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search for studies using QT in RACLR was performed within PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL from database date of inception through December 26, 2022. Primary outcomes sought included: failure rate, Lysholm scores, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, IKDC grades, arthrometric knee side-to-side differences (STSD), pivot shift grade, donor site morbidity, return to sport, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included consisting of 606 RACLR: 349 QT, 169 HT, and 88 BTB. Overall failure rates were 7.6% QT, 13.3% HT, and 8.7% BTB. Mean weighted Lysholm scores were 85.8 ± 3.8 QT, 82.5 ± 3.8 HT and 86.6 ± 4.5 BTB. IKDC average scores were 82.3 ± 1.6 QT, 80.1 ± 1.7 HT, and 81.7 ± 5.5BTB. Combined rates of IKDC A/B grades were 88.4% and 80.0% for QT and HT, respectively. VAS average scores were 0.9 ± 1.1 QT, 1.4 ± 0.2 HT, and 0.7 ± 0.8 for BTB. Side-to-side difference was reported for QT and HT with average values of 1.7 ± 0.6 mm and 2.1 ± 0.5 mm, respectively. Grade 0 or 1 pivot shifts were reported in 96.2% of QT patients and 91.3% of HT. Donor site morbidity, only reported for QT and HT, was 14.6 ± 9.7% and 23.6 ± 14.1%, respectively. QT resulted in a mean Tegner score of 5.9 ± 1.5 versus HT 5.7 ± 1.5. Rate of return to pivoting sports was 38.0% QT, 48.6% HT, and 76.9% BTB. Across all outcomes, there was no significant difference when comparing QT to HT, QT to BTB, and QT compared to HT and BTB combined.

CONCLUSIONS

RACLR with QT yields satisfactory patient reported outcomes, satisfactory improvement in knee laxity, expected return to sport rates, and has an overall 7.6% failure rate. Outcomes are comparative to those of HT and BTB making it an acceptable graft choice for RACLR. Surgeons should consider using QT autograft for RACLR, especially when other autografts are unavailable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Role of Quadriceps Tendon Autograft in Primary and Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

» The quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft is becoming increasingly popular in both primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).» The biomechanical properties of the QT are similar to those of the native ACL, the hamstring tendon (HT), and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts.» QT autograft allows surgeons to be flexible with their graft size and reconstruction technique.» The QT autograft performs in a similar fashion to the BTB and HT autografts, with excellent patient-reported outcomes, consistent postoperative knee stability, and low rates of postoperative complications including graft failure and donor site morbidity.» There are emerging data that the QT autograft is a viable option in revision ACLR.

Evaluation of Autografts Used in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Terms of Tensile Strength

Introduction Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries increase the likelihood of chronic knee problems in later years, including early onset osteoarthritis. Therefore, ACL treatment is important in preventing knee problems from developing. The treatment of choice for ACL tears is surgery (ACL reconstruction), and the most popular tendons for ACL reconstruction are the patellar tendon, hamstring tendon (semitendinosus and gracilis tendons), and bone-patellar tendon-bone. The present study compares the tensile strength of autografts used in ACL reconstruction to identify the optimum autograft for ACL in terms of mechanical properties. Methods Cadavers were dissected, and the Achilles tendons, quadriceps tendons, hamstring tendons (semitendinosus and gracilis tendons), patellar tendon grafts, and ACLs were harvested. Tensile tests of each tendon graft were performed using a Shimadzu Autograph AG-IS 100 kN tester (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). Results The mean difference in tensile strength between ACL and other grafts was lowest for the quadriceps in both males and females (p ˂ 0.001), meaning that ACL and quadriceps grafts are more compatible than other tendon grafts in terms of tensile strength. Conclusion The present study found the lowest mean difference in tensile strength to be between the ACL and the quadriceps tendon, suggesting that the use of the quadriceps tendon in ACL reconstruction will yield more positive outcomes.

No difference in patient reported outcomes, laxity, and failure rate after revision ACL reconstruction with quadriceps tendon compared to hamstring tendon graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to synthesize and quantitatively assess the outcomes of ACL Revision using a quadriceps tendon (QT) graft and to compare them with those of ACL Revisions performed with hamstring tendons (HT) graft.

METHODS

A comprehensive search based on the PRISMA protocol was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception until February 2022. Clinical studies reporting the outcomes of ACL Revision with QT autograft were included. Subjective and Objective IKDC, Tegner activity level, Lysholm knee score, KOOS score, VAS for pain, knee laxity (KT-1000/2000 arthrometer, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test), and graft failure were assessed. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed and a quality assessment of the included studies was carried out with the MINORS score.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the selection criteria and were included in the systematic review for the qualitative synthesis of data. A pooled mean of all the variables was provided for the 7 studies, while 3 studies included a control group of ACL Revision with HT and were included in a meta-analysis. A total of 420 participants with a mean age of 28.9 ± 10.5 years and a mean postoperative follow-up of 39.3 ± 16.4 months were assessed. Of these, 277 patients underwent ACL Revision with QT and 143 patients underwent ACL Revision with HT. In the QT group, average graft failure was 9.8% compared to 17.4% in the HT group. KOOS Sport and pivot-shift test showed better postoperative outcomes in QT than HT, although it was not statistically significant (p = 0.052).

CONCLUSION

The QT autograft was associated with an improved trend of rotatory laxity, PROMs and failure rate compared to HT autograft after revision ACL reconstruction. The QT autograft for revision ACL reconstruction is supported by the current literature. It is a viable graft that should be considered for both primary and revision ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Failure modes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The reason for graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is multifactorial. Controversies remain regarding the predominant factor and incidence of failure aetiology in the literature. This review aimed to provide a meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the relative proportion of various failure modes among patients with ACLR failure.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases were searched for literature on ACLR failure or revision from 1975 to 2021. Data related to causes for ACLR surgical failure were extracted, and a random effects model was used to pool the results, which incorporates potential heterogeneity. Failure modes were compared between different populations, research methods, graft types, femoral portal techniques, and fixation methods by subgroup analysis or linear regression. Funnel plots were used to identify publication bias and small-study effects.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies were analyzed, including 33 cohort studies and six registry-based studies reporting 6578 failures. The results showed that among patients with ACLR failure or revision, traumatic reinjury was the most common failure mode with a rate of 40% (95% CI: 35-44%), followed by technical error (34%, 95% CI: 28-42%) and biological failure (11%, 95% CI: 7-15%). Femoral tunnel malposition was the most common cause of the technical error (29%, 95% CI: 18-41%), with more than two times higher occurrence than tibial tunnel malposition (11%, 95% CI: 6-16%). Traumatic reinjury was the most common factor for ACLR failure in European populations and in recent studies, while technical errors were more common in Asian populations, earlier studies, and surgery performed using the transtibial (TT) portal technique. Biological factors were more likely to result in ACLR failure in hamstring (HT) autografts compared to bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts.

CONCLUSION

Trauma is the most important factor leading to surgical failure or revision following ACLR. Technical error is also an important contributing factor, with femoral tunnel malposition being the leading cause of error resulting in failure.

Prevalence and Incidence of Chondral and Meniscal Lesions in Patients Undergoing Primary and Subsequent Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of 213 Patients From the SANTI Group

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown a higher prevalence of meniscal and chondral lesions at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) compared with primary ACLR procedures. However, studies that follow the development of meniscal and chondral status through primary and subsequent R-ACLR are scarce.

PURPOSE

To compare the prevalence of meniscal and chondral injuries in patients undergoing primary ACLR and subsequent R-ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ACLR and subsequently needed R-ACLR between January 2009 and February 2018 in a single center were included. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 59.7 months. The mean age was 22 years at primary ACLR and 26.1 years at the time of revision. The proportion of meniscal tears was higher at the time of R-ACLR compared with the time of primary reconstruction (70.0% vs 44.6%, respectively; P < .001). Similarly, the prevalence of chondral lesions was significantly higher at the time of revision versus the primary reconstruction (15.5% vs 7.0%, respectively; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR is associated with a higher rate of concomitant meniscal and chondral lesions than primary ACLR.

[Mid-to-long term clinical outcomes and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament revision]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the mid-to-long term clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery and to analyze their predictors.

METHODS

The medical records of 235 patients undergoing ACL revision surgery between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2015 at Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital were reviewed. Data were collected including demographic information, information related to revision surgery (time and cause of graft failure, date of revision surgery, surgical technique, combined injuries and management, etc.), as well as information related to primary ACL reconstruction (time, cause and mechanism of first-time ACL rupture, date of primary ACL reconstruction, surgical technique, combined injuries and management, etc.). Patients were followed up at least 2 years after revision surgery for clinical outcomes [Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee score]. Post-revision surgeries on the involved knee and the contralateral knee joint were also documented. Multivariate regression model was used to analyze the predictors of clinical outcomes after ACL revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 166 (70.63%) patients were followed up at a mean of (4.44±2.40) years (2.03-14.63 years). Clinical outcomes improved significantly at the last follow-up from pre-operative level, with the Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores improving from 70.51±21.25, 3.39±1.77, 63.78±15.04 to 88.64±14.36, 4.67±1.739, 80.23±13.31 (P < 0.05), respectively. Three (1.81%) patients experienced infection while 39 (23.49%) patients underwent surgery after revision surgery during the follow-up. Compared with that those occurred during sports, graft failure that occurred during daily activities or due to surgical technical errors that led to poorer clinical outcomes, with the Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores of 9.90 (95%CI: 1.49-18.31), 1.41 (95%CI: 0.10-2.72), 10.35 (95%CI: 0.17-20.54), and 8.53 (95%CI: 1.31-15.75), 1.28 (95%CI: 0.14-2.43), 9.39 (95%CI: 1.03-17.74) lower, respectively. Compared with antero-medial portal, transtibial technique for placement of the femoral bone tunnel showed poorer Lysholm scores of 11.18 (95%CI: 4.73-17.63, P=0.001). Concurrent repair of medial meniscus yielded higher IKDC scores of 11.06 (95%CI: 1.21-20.92, P=0.029) than those with intact medical meniscus. Other factors showed no significant effect.

CONCLUSION

ACL revision surgery is able to restore knee stability and improve knee function. Graft failure caused by sports, concurrent repair of medical meniscus and antero-medial portal technique predicts better outcomes after revision surgery.

The 50 Most Cited Articles in the Indications, Risk Factors, Techniques, and Outcomes of ACL Revision Surgery

The rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) retear remains high and revision ACL reconstruction has worse outcomes compared with primaries. To make advances in this area, a strong understanding of influential research is necessary. One method for systematically evaluating the literature is by citation analysis. This article aims to establish and evaluate "classic" articles. With consideration of these articles, this article also aims to evaluate gaps in the field and determine where future research should be directed. The general approach for data collection and analysis consisted of planning objectives, employing a defined strategy, reviewing search results using a multistep and multiauthor approach with specific screening criteria, and analyzing data. The collective number of citations for all publications within the list was 5,203 with an average of 104 citations per publication. "Biomechanical Measures during Landing and Postural Stability Predict Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Return to Sport" by Paterno et al contained both the highest number of total citations and the highest number of citations per year, with 403 total citations and 43.9 citations per year. The most recurring level of evidence were level II (n = 18) and level III (n = 17). "Clinical Outcomes" was the most common article type (n = 20) followed by "Risk Factors" (n = 10). The American Journal of Sports Medicine had the highest recorded Cite Factor with over 50% of the articles (n = 27) published. The most productive authors included R.W. Wright (n = 6), S.D. Barber-Westin (n = 5), F.R. Noyes (n = 5), and K.P. Spindler (n = 5). Historically, influential studies have been published in the realms of clinical outcome and risk factor identification. It has been established that revision ACL reconstruction has worse outcomes and more high-level studies are needed. Additionally, prospective studies that apply the knowledge for current known risk factor mitigation are needed to determine if graft tear rates can be lowered.

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.

Comparing Knee Laxity After Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Quadriceps Tendon Versus Semitendinosus Tendon Graft

Background:

The choice of graft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is still under discussion. The hamstrings are currently the most used grafts for primary ACL reconstruction in Europe. However, increased interest has arisen in the quadriceps tendon (QT) as an alternative autologous graft option for primary ACL reconstruction.

Purpose:

To evaluate knee stability and the subjective outcome after ACL reconstruction using either autologous QT graft in implant-free femoral press-fit fixation technique or semitendinosus tendon (ST) graft.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

We evaluated 50 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction, including 25 patients who received autologous ipsilateral QT graft (QT group) and 25 patients who received the ipsilateral ST graft (ST group). The follow-up for this prospective comparative study was at least 2 years after surgery, comprising KT-1000 arthrometer testing, pivot-shift test, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, and rerupture rate.

Results:

The mean patient age was 31.72 years (9 women, 16 men) in the QT group and 32.08 years (13 women, 12 men) in the ST group. The mean ± standard deviation postoperative side-to-side difference assessed using KT-1000 arthrometer was 1.56 ± 1.56 mm for the QT group and 1.64 ± 1.41 mm for the ST group, with no significant difference. No significant difference was found on any of the KOOS subscale scores (P = .694) or the Lysholm score (P = .682). No rerupture or positive pivot-shift test occurred during follow-up. No difference was found in donor-site morbidity between the study groups.

Conclusion:

Clinical outcomes were not significantly different between QT and ST grafts in the current study. Thus, the QT may serve as a good alternative graft for primary ACL reconstruction.

The outcomes of quadriceps tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent athletes: a retrospective case series

BACKGROUND

Multiple graft options exist for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in an adolescent athlete. Patellar tendon harvest can lead to anterior knee pain, while hamstring tendon harvest can affect knee flexion strength and alter mechanics. Allograft is less desirable in pediatric patients due to the higher failure rate and slight risk of disease transmission. Quadriceps tendon autograft has rarely been reported for adolescent ACL reconstruction in the USA, but is an excellent option due to its large size, low donor site morbidity, and versatility. The purpose of this study is to report the outcomes of adolescents who have undergone ACL reconstruction using quadriceps tendon autograft.

METHODS

Twenty-two ACL reconstructions using the quadriceps autograft were performed on 21 pediatric patients by the senior author between 2010 and 2017. The patient's demographics, injury characteristics, imaging, physical examination findings, operative findings, outcomes and sports were recorded.

RESULTS

The average age at the time of surgery was 15 years. Two patients had open physes; the remainder had closing physes. 64% of patients had additional meniscal tears and 76% had bony contusions. The average duration of follow-up was 2.8 years (range 2-5 years). At final follow-up, there were no angular deformities or leg length discrepancies. The average quadriceps atrophy of the operative leg was 4 mm. The average Lysholm score was 98. 86% of patients returned to sports. No patients had re-rupture of their operative ACL. No incidences of infections, numbness, or anterior knee pain were reported. Two patients had a second arthroscopy for re-injury, revealing new meniscal tears but intact ACL grafts.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of quadriceps tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction in adolescent patients allows reliable return to sport with minimal complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

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

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

Does Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes to Primary ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

More revisionary reconstruction procedures are required following failing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, which are often regarded as a technique challenge with very limited goals. This study will be performed to compare the outcomes between groups of primary and revision knee reconstruction. Two observers conducted the literature retrieval from the platforms of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies which compared knee function and stability between primary and revisionary reconstructions were included. The data was synthesized by meta‐analysis with fixed‐ or random‐effects models as appropriate. A total of 10 eligible studies were included with 954 subjects in the primary group and 378 in the revision group. The International Knee Documentation Committee International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subscores, side‐to‐side difference, and Lysholm score were demonstrated to be significantly improved at final follow‐up in both groups, while Tegner score was not. The overall IKDC, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Lysholm scores were significantly inferior in the revision group compared to the primary group. However, knee laxity according to side‐to‐side difference was demonstrated to be similar between the two groups. Revision ACL reconstruction (RACLR) could provide patients with excellent restoration of knee outcomes compared to the status before revision. Also, while knee function in the revision group was inferior to the primary group, knee stability was equivalent between the two groups at the final follow‐up.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction After Primary Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Case Series of 40 Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the surgical methods according to the status of tunnels at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to evaluate clinical outcomes of revision ACLR in patients who underwent primary ACLR with the anatomic 4-tunnel double-bundle (DB) technique.

METHODS

A total of 487 patients who underwent primary anatomic DB ACLR from April 2010 to July 2016 were retrospectively reviewed, and among those knees, the patients who underwent revision ACLR were included in the study. The patients with concomitant posterior cruciate ligament injuries were excluded. Forty patients (40 knees) were identified and enrolled. The surgical methods were reviewed. The range of motion, objective laxity using KT-2000, Lysholm score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, and Tegner score after revision ACLR were compared with those after primary ACLR in the same patient using paired t-test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

The timing of reinjury after primary ACLR and mean interval between primary and revision ACLR were 18 months (range 1.5-80 months) and 24 months (range 4-82 months), respectively. Among 40 patients, 38 patients (95%) underwent 1-stage revision with the DB technique using pre-existing tunnels without compromised positioning of the grafts, and the other 2 patients (5%) underwent 2-stage revision. The postrevision range of motion, KT-2000, Lysholm score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, and Tegner score were 137 ± 7°, 2.4 ± 1.2 mm, 91.4 ± 5.8, 98.9 ± 2.2, 78.6 ± 11.5, and 5.5 ± 1.2, respectively, and did not show any differences from those after primary ACLR.

CONCLUSIONS

In the revision setting after primary anatomic DB ACLR, most of the cases could be managed with 1-stage revision with DB technique using pre-existing tunnels, and the objective laxity and clinical scores after revision DB ACLR were comparable with those after primary DB ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Autograft for anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery : Lateral extra-articular tenodesis in skeletally mature patients under 25 years of age

BACKGROUND

Lateral extra-articular procedures in association with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can act as a protection against undesired loads occurring in the early postoperative phase. The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively review the clinical outcome of contralateral hamstring tendon autografts with extra-articular tenodesis for ACL revision surgery in skeletally mature patients under 25 years of age, specifically with respect to patient satisfaction, return to preinjury activity level and postoperative functional outcome.

METHODS

In this study 9 patients (<25 years old at surgery) who underwent ACL revision surgery using contralateral hamstring tendon autografts and extra-articular tenodesis were contacted and retrospectively reviewed at an average follow-up of 3.6 years (range 2-7 years). The Tegner activity scale, Lysholm knee score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire were used. Objective evaluation included range of motion, Lachmann test, pivot-shift test and KT-1000 instrumented laxity testing.

RESULTS

No cases of re-rupture were observed. The Lysholm knee score as well as the IKDC score improved at follow-up reaching a mean value of 87.9 and 85.6, respectively, with a statistically significant improvement compared to preoperative status (p < 0.001). In terms of knee stability anterior tibial translation has changed from a preoperative mean value of 5.4 mm to a postoperative value of 2.9 mm, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). No subjective loss of motion or strength of the contralateral knee, rotational injuries following tendon harvesting or significant morbidity at follow-up were reported.

CONCLUSION

Revision ACL reconstruction with contralateral hamstrings and associated extra-articular tenodesis provides satisfying subjective outcomes and restores knee stability in skeletally mature patients under 25 years of age.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

 IV.

Outcome After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Nonathlete Population

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Increased medial and lateral tibial posterior slopes are independent risk factors for graft failure following ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

To analyze the contribution of increased lateral (LTPS) and medial tibial slopes (MTPS) as independent risk factors of graft failure following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-seven patients with graft failure after ACL reconstruction who underwent revision surgery between 2009 and 2014 were enrolled and matched to a control group of 69 patients with primary anatomic successful ACL reconstruction. Patients were matched based on age, sex, date of primary surgery and graft type. LTPS and MTPS were measured on MRI in a blinded fashion. Tibial and femoral tunnel positions were determined on CT scans. Independent t test was used to compare the MTPS and LTPS between subgroups. Risks of graft failure associated with an increasing MTPS and LTPS were analyzed using binary logistic analysis.

RESULTS

The means of LTPS (7.3°) and MTPS (6.7°) in the graft failure group were found to be significantly greater than in the control group (4.6° and 4.1°, respectively; p = < 0.001). Non-anatomic and anatomic tunnel positions were found in 42 cases (73.7%) and 15 cases (26.3%), respectively. There were no significant differences in MTPS or LTPS between patients with anatomic and non-anatomic tunnel positions within the graft failure group. An increase of the MTPS of 1° was associated with an 1.24 times increased likelihood of exhibiting graft failure [95% CI 1.07-1.43] (p = 0.003) and an increase of the LTPS of 1° was associated with an 1.17 times increased likelihood of exhibiting graft failure [95% CI 1.04-1.31] (p = 0.009). The increased risk was most evident in patients with a lateral tibial posterior slope of ≥ 10°.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased LTPS and MTPS are independent risk factors for graft failure following ACL reconstruction regardless whether tunnel position is anatomic or non-anatomic. This information may be helpful to clinicians when considering slope correction in selected revision ACL reconstruction procedures.

Single-stage versus two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Importance

Despite advances in surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitation, long-term anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture rate remains high. The increasing number of primary ACL reconstructions in an ageing population will lead to increasing revision reconstructions. Revision cases may have higher failure rates and worse patient-reported outcomes compared with primaries. While two-stage revisions may be indicated in certain complex cases, whether this is comparatively equivalent or even superior to revisions done in a single stage would assist preoperative planning.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review was to analyse and compare patient-reported outcomes and failure rate of single-stage versus two-stage revision ACL reconstruction.

Evidence review

Using PubMed, MEDLINE Complete and Ovid MEDLINE databases, a review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines to identify level I–IV outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.

Findings

Three studies reported outcomes of two-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 61.6 months, while 21 studies reported single-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 47.4 months. Pooled rate of two-stage revisions was 3.1% compared with 6.8% in single-stage (p=0.068). Clinical failure was reported in 5.1% of 79 two-stage patients compared with 13.8% of 533 single-stage patients (p<0.05). Within the single-stage cohort, there was a greater clinical failure rate (+8.7%, p<0.05) for patients with less than 48 months follow-up. Those with > 48 months follow-up had a higher rerupture rate (+5%, p<0.05) and a significantly greater sum of squared deviations (p<0.05) compared with those with < 48 months follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes have demonstrated two-stage revision patients with higher IKDC A and B scores than single-stage.

Conclusions and relevance

Although two-stage revisions may be performed in more complex cases, there are limited short-term data available regarding their outcomes. Two-stage revisions demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes and lower rate of revision surgery and clinical failure compared with single-stage revisions. Studies with shorter follow-up (24–48 months) showed higher clinical failure rates. Those with longer follow-up (>48 months) showed higher graft rerupture rates. The decision to perform staged reconstruction should made on whether adequate tunnel placement and fixation can be established in a single setting.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Differences between traumatic and non-traumatic causes of ACL revision surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and classify causes for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure. It was hypothesized that specific technical and biological reconstruction aspects would differ when comparing traumatic and non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients who experienced ACL reconstruction failure and underwent revision between 2009 and 2014 were analyzed. Based on a systematic failure analysis, including evaluation of technical information on primary ACL reconstruction and radiological assessment of tunnel positions, causes were classified into traumatic and non-traumatic mechanisms of failure; non-traumatic mechanisms were further sub-divided into technical and biologic causes. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and chi-squared tests were performed to determine differences between groups based on various factors including graft choice, fixation technique, technique of femoral tunnel positioning, tunnel malpositioning, and time to revision.

RESULTS

Non-traumatic, i.e., technical, and traumatic mechanisms of ACL reconstruction failure were found in 64.5 and 29.1% of patients, respectively. Biological failure was found only in 6.4% of patients. Non-anatomical femoral tunnel positioning was found the most common cause (83.1%) for technical reconstruction failure followed by non-anatomical tibial tunnel positioning (45.1%). There were strong correlations between non-traumatic technical failure and femoral tunnel malpositioning, transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques, femoral transfixation techniques as well as earlier graft failure (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Technical causes, particularly tunnel malpositioning, were significantly correlated with increased incidence of non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failure. Transtibial femoral tunnel positioning techniques and femoral transfixation techniques, showed an increased incidence of non-traumatic, earlier graft failure.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Anterior cruciate ligament revision with Achilles tendon allograft in young athletes

BACKGROUND

Return to sport after revision ACL reconstruction is a controversial topic, several studies reported the results of different techniques and graft in sportsman, presenting an incredibly wide range of return to the same pre-injury activity level, from 0% to 100%. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and return to sport rate in young athletes after non anatomic double-bundle revision ACL reconstruction with Achilles allograft.

HYPOTHESIS

The present revision technique was effective in terms of stability, return to sport and functional outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All the athletes undergone Revision ACL reconstruction with non-irradiated Achilles tendon allograft with a non-anatomical double-bundle technique were included in the study. A split Achilles tendon allograft was used to reproduce the anteromedial (AM) bundle using the over-the-top position, while the posterolateral (PL) bundle was reconstructed through a femoral tunnel located in the anatomical PL footprint. Sport activity, knee function with Lysholm score, knee laxity and re-injury or re-operations were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six athletes (23 males, three females) with a mean age of 23.4±3.6 years were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 6.0±1.6 years. Overall 69% of patients returned to sport both at elite (44%) or county level (56%) after a mean 6.7±1.5 (3-9 range) months. The mean Lysholm score showed a significant improvement from 64.4±8.1 at pre-operative status to 83.8±11.3 at final follow-up (P<.0001). Seven patients (30%) were rated as excellent, nine (39%) as good, five (22%) as fair and 2 (9%) as poor. Three patients (12%) experienced a further graft rupture after a mean 2.6 years, (3.5 months-48 months range) and two had >5mm side-to-side difference at KT-1000. Therefore, the overall survival rate at mean six years follow-up was 81%.

CONCLUSION

The ACL revision with a double-bundle technique using Achilles tendon allograft was successful in 81% of athletes at six years mean follow-up.

TYPE OF STUDY AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, level IV.

Clinical Outcomes in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine overall objective graft failure rate, failure rate by graft type (allograft vs autograft reconstruction), instrumented laxity, and patient outcome scores following revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were collected for all studies meeting the study inclusion criteria, but lower-level studies (level III/IV) were not pooled for quantitative synthesis due to high levels of heterogeneity in these study populations.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. The primary outcome reported was graft failure. A meta-analysis comparing rate of failure by graft type was conducted using a random effects model. Studies also reported patient clinical outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS) and graft laxity.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 3,021 patients (56% male, 44% female) with an average age of 30 ± 4 years and mean follow-up time of 57 months were included. The overall objective failure rate was 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-12.3%). Mean instrumented laxity as side-to-side difference was 2.5 mm (95% CI, 1.9-3.1 mm). Mean IKDC subjective score was 76.99 (95% CI, 76.64-77.34), mean KOOS symptoms score was 76.73 (95% CI, 75.85-77.61), and mean Lysholm score was 86.18 (95% CI, 79.08-93.28). The proportion of patients with IKDC grade A or B was 85% (95% CI, 77%-91%). When the available data for failure rate were analyzed by graft type, autograft reconstruction had a failure rate of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.9%), similar to allograft reconstruction at 3.6% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, revision ACL reconstruction had failure rates similar to autograft or allograft reconstruction. Overall outcome scores for revision reconstruction have improved but appear modest when compared with primary ACL reconstruction surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Meta-analysis of Level II studies, Level II.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Contralateral Hamstring Tendon Grafts: 6 Years Follow-Up

Purpose  The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with contralateral hamstring tendon autografts, specifically with regard to patient satisfaction, return to preinjury activity level, and postoperative functional outcomes. Methods  Between 2004 and 2011, 23 patients underwent revision ACL reconstruction with contralateral autogenous hamstring tendon grafts and were retrospectively reviewed at an average follow-up of 6.3 years. Subjective and functional evaluations were performed. The Tegner score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form were used. Objective evaluation included range of motion, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, and KT-1000 instrumented laxity testing. Wilcoxon test was used to compare the preoperative and follow-up status. Differences with a p -value of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results  No major complications were reported. The mean KOOS significantly increased from a preoperative mean of 62.8 ± 8.3 to 85.8 ± 6.9 ( p < 0.001). IKDC subjective score significantly improved from 29.2 ± 10.4 to 72.8 ± 5.2 ( p < 0.001). The median Tegner activity score significantly improved from a preoperative mean of 6.5 (range: 4-10) to 7.5 (range: 7-10) ( p  < 0.001). Most of the patients increased or returned to the same activity level, with 61% of the patients returning to cutting and pivoting sports. Conclusion  The use of contralateral hamstring tendon autografts for ACL revision surgery represents a valid option following a failed primary ACL reconstruction and confirms subjective and objective clinical improvement 6 years after surgery. Level of Evidence  Level IV, therapeutic case series.

High non-anatomic tunnel position rates in ACL reconstruction failure using both transtibial and anteromedial tunnel drilling techniques

INTRODUCTION

Although it is well known from cadaveric and biomechanical studies that transtibial femoral tunnel (TT) positioning techniques are associated with non-anatomic tunnel positions, controversial data exist as so far no clinical differences could have been found, comparing transtibial with anteromedial techniques (AM). The purpose of the study was to analyze if graft failure following TT ACL reconstruction was more commonly associated with non-anatomic tunnel position in comparison with the AM technique. We hypothesized that, compared to AM techniques, non-anatomic tunnel positions correlate with TT tunnel positioning techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 147 cases of ACL revision surgery were analyzed retrospectively. Primary ACL reconstructions were analyzed regarding the femoral tunnel drilling technique. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were determined on CT scans using validated radiographic measurement methods. Correlation analysis was performed to determine differences between TT and AM techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 101 cases were included, of whom 64 (63.4%) underwent the TT technique and 37 (36.6%) the AM technique for primary ACL reconstruction. Non-anatomic femoral tunnel positions were found in 77.2% and non-anatomical tibial tunnel positions in 40.1%. No correlations were found comparing tunnel positions in TT and AM techniques, revealing non-anatomic femoral tunnel positions in 79.7 and 73% and non-anatomic tibial tunnel positions in 43.7 and 35.1%, respectively (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable rates of non-anatomic femoral and tibial tunnel positions were found in ACL revisions with both transtibial and anteromedial femoral drilling techniques. Despite the potential of placing tunnels more anatomically using an additional AM portal, this technique does not ensure anatomic tunnel positioning. Consequently, the data highlight the importance of anatomic tunnel positioning in primary ACL reconstruction, regardless of the applied drilling technique.

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.

Three dimensionalCT analysis of femoral tunnel position after ACL reconstruction. A prospective study of one hundred and thirty five cases

BACKGROUND

One of the principal causes for failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) is femoral tunnel mal-position. Several studies compare the position of femoral tunnels achieved with various techniques, with small series and using a quadrant assessment method.

QUESTIONS

(1) What is the incidence of anatomical positioning of the intra-articular femoral tunnel aperture in primary ACL reconstruction in a university knee surgery? (2) What are the main errors in positioning?

METHODS

3D-CT scans were performed after primary ACL reconstruction in 135 consecutive cases. The intra-articular position of the femoral tunnel aperture was analyzed using the Magnussen classification.

RESULTS

The intra-articular tunnel position was deemed anatomical in 77%, intermediate in 20.8%, and non-anatomical in 2.2%. Among the mal-positioned tunnels, 54.8% were vertical, 29% were anteriorly positioned, and 16.1% were both.

CONCLUSIONS

The intra articular femoral tunnel aperture was well positioned using an outside-in technique. The main error of tunnel positioning was a tunnel too vertical.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, prospective study (case series).

Femoral interference screw fixation of hamstring and quadriceps tendons for ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

This cadaveric study compares the biomechanical properties of femoral graft fixation in ACL reconstruction of either quadriceps or hamstring tendon grafts with four different interference screws. The hypothesis was that quadriceps tendon grafts provide at least equal results concerning gap formation during cyclic loading and ultimate failure load compared to hamstring tendon grafts with four different interference screws.

METHODS

Eighty porcine femora underwent interference screw fixation of human tendon grafts for ACL reconstruction. Either quadriceps (Q) or hamstring (H) tendon grafts and four different bioabsorbable interference (Wolf (W), Storz (S), Mitek (M), Arthrex (A)) screws were used, resulting in 8 groups with 10 specimens per groups (WQ, WH, SQ, SH, MQ, MH, AQ, AH). Biomechanical analysis included pretensioning the constructs with 60 N for 30 s, then cyclic loading of 500 cycles between 60 and 250 N at 1 Hz in a servohydraulic testing machine, with measurement of elongation and stiffness including video measurements. After this, ultimate failure load and failure mode analysis were performed.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference could be noted between the groups regarding gap formation during cyclic loading [Cycles 21-500 (mm): WQ 3.6 ± 0.8, WH 3.9 ± 1.4, SQ 3.6 ± 0.8, SH 3.3 ± 1.5, MQ 4.3 ± 0.8, MH 4.6 ± 1.0, AQ 4.8 ± 0.8, AH 4.3 ± 1.5, n.s.], stiffness during cyclic loading [Cycles 21-500 (N/mm): WQ 72.9 ± 16.9, WH 71.6 ± 20.7, SQ 69.5 ± 23.9, SH 77.4 ± 25.1, MQ 59.6 ± 11.2, MH 48.4 ± 15.4, AQ 48.8 ± 12.7, AH 51.9 ± 22.2, n.s.], and ultimate failure load [(N): WQ 474.4 ± 88.0, WH 579.3 ± 124.2, SQ 493.9 ± 105.2, SH 576.0 ± 90.4, MQ 478.6 ± 59.0, MH 543.9 ± 119.7, AQ 480.2 ± 93.8, AH 497.8 ± 74.2, n.s.].

CONCLUSIONS

Quadriceps tendon grafts yield comparable biomechanical results for femoral interference screw fixation in ACL reconstruction compared to hamstring tendon grafts. From a clinical perspective, quadriceps tendon grafts should therefore be considered as a good option in ACL reconstruction in the future.

Return to sports and functional results after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by fascia lata autograft

INTRODUCTION

The surgical revision rate following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery is 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. Revision ACL surgery raises the question of the type of graft to be used. The present study assessed return to sports and functional results after revision ACL reconstruction by fascia lata graft. The hypothesis was that fascia lata provides a reliable graft in revision ACL surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective continuous study included 30 sports players with a mean age of 26.8±8 years undergoing surgical revision for iterative ACL tear between 2004 and 2013. Multi-ligament lesions were excluded. Type and level of sports activity were assessed preoperatively, after primary surgery and at end of follow-up. Clinical assessment used subjective IKDC, Lysholm and KOOS scores.

RESULTS

At a mean 4.6±1.6 years' follow-up, all patients had resumed sport activity, but only 12 with the same sport at the same level. Median subjective IKDC score increased from 57 [54.3; 58.5] preoperatively to 82 [68.3; 90] at last follow-up, and Lysholm score from 46 [42.3; 51] to 90.5 [80.8; 96.8]; KOOS score at last follow-up was 94.7 [83; 100].

CONCLUSION

Functional results in revision ACL reconstruction by fascia lata graft were satisfactory, with similar return-to-sports rates as with other techniques. Fascia lata provides a reliable graft in revision ACL surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

The Development and Early to Midterm Findings of the Multicenter Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Study

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can present a series of unique challenges for the both the patient and the treating surgeon. The Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) was established to identify the factors contributing to ACL graft failure and report on the outcomes following revision reconstruction. In this article we review the development and early to midterm findings of the MARS group.

Meniscal and Articular Cartilage Predictors of Clinical Outcome After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to determine if the prevalence, location, and/or degree of meniscal and chondral damage noted at the time of revision ACL reconstruction predicts activity level, sports function, and osteoarthritis symptoms at 2-year follow-up. The hypothesis was that meniscal loss and high-grade chondral damage noted at the time of revision ACL reconstruction will result in lower activity levels, decreased sports participation, more pain, more stiffness, and more functional limitation at 2 years after revision surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2011, a total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction by 83 surgeons at 52 hospitals were accumulated for study of the relationship of meniscal and articular cartilage damage to outcome. Baseline demographic and intraoperative data, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity score, were collected initially and at 2-year follow-up to test the hypothesis. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, incidence of having a previous ACL reconstruction on the contralateral knee, previous and current meniscal and articular cartilage injury, graft choice, and surgeon years of experience to assess the meniscal and articular cartilage risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

At 2-year follow-up, 82% (989/1205) of the patients returned their questionnaires. It was found that previous meniscal injury and current articular cartilage damage were associated with the poorest outcomes, with prior lateral meniscectomy and current grade 3 to 4 trochlear articular cartilage changes having the worst outcome scores. Activity levels at 2 years were not affected by meniscal or articular cartilage pathologic changes.

CONCLUSION

Prior lateral meniscectomy and current grade 3 to 4 changes of the trochlea were associated with worse outcomes in terms of decreased sports participation, more pain, more stiffness, and more functional limitation at 2 years after revision surgery, but they had no effect on activity levels.

REGISTRATION

NCT00625885.

Two-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

The number of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears is rapidly increasing. In patients who wish to return to their preoperative level of function, specifically as it pertains to participation in sports, the gold standard of treatment following an ACL tear remains an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Despite a majority of good/excellent results following primary ACL reconstruction, there is a growing subset of patients with persistent or recurrent functional instability who require revision ACL reconstruction. Preoperative planning for revision ACL reconstruction requires a careful understanding of the root cause of ACL failure, including possible technical causes of primary ACL failure and the presence of combined knee pathology that was not addressed at the index ACL reconstruction. The decision to perform 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction is multifactorial and is reached by technical considerations that may make a 1-stage revision less optimal, including tunnel widening, arthrofibrosis, active infection, and others. Concomitant knee pathology such as meniscal deficiency, malalignment (including an increase in posterior tibial slope), chondral lesions, and other ligamentous laxity may also require a staged approach to treatment. This evidence-based review covers the indications for 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction, surgical techniques, evidence for and technique of bone grafting prior ACL tunnels, and outcomes of 2-stage revision stratified by initial cause of ACL reconstruction failure. With proper preoperative planning and an understanding of the cause of failure following the primary ACL reconstruction, revision ACL reconstruction can offer excellent outcomes in the motivated patient. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(3):e456-e464.].

Can graft choice affect return to sport following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery?

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing number of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, revision surgery has become more frequent. The purpose of the present study is to retrospectively compare the clinical outcome of contralateral hamstring tendon autografts vs. allografts for ACL revision surgery, specifically with regard to patient satisfaction, return to preinjury activity level, and postoperative functional outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2004 and 2011, 59 patients underwent ACL revision surgery. 44 were successfully recontacted and retrospectively reviewed at an average follow-up of 5.2 years. 23 subjects underwent revision ACL reconstruction with contralateral autogenous hamstring tendon grafts; 21 underwent allograft revision ACL surgery. Clinical, arthrometric, and functional evaluations were performed. The Tegner, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form were used. Objective evaluation included range of motion, Lachman test, pivot-shift test and KT-1000 instrumented laxity testing.

RESULTS

No major complications were reported. Follow-up examination showed that there were no significant differences IKDC and KOOS scores between the groups. The percentage of patients returning to pre-injury level was high in both groups. Anterior tibial translation according to manual laxity testing and as measured with KT-1000 arthrometer was not statistically different in the two groups. With regard to return to sports, patients undergoing revision surgery with autografts experienced a quicker return to sports compared to patients who underwent allograft revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of contralateral hamstring tendon autografts for ACL revision surgery produced similar subjective and objective outcomes at 5.2 years follow-up compared to revision with allograft patellar or Achilles tendon. Patients undergoing revision surgery with autografts experienced a quicker return to sports compared to patients who underwent allograft revision surgery.

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT WITH THE CENTRAL THIRD OF THE QUADRICEPS MUSCLE TENDON: ANALYSIS OF 10-YEAR RESULTS

Objective: Assess clinical results using two different protocols, 10 years after ACL reconstruction surgery with the central third of quadriceps muscle tendon (QT). Method: Between November /1997 and April/1998, 25 patients were submitted to 25 ACL reconstructions with QT by transtibial technique. The bone portion of the graft was fixated on femoral tunnel with interference screw and the tendinous portion of tibial tunnel with screw with washer. Two patients injured the new when playing soccer. Six patients were not available for follow-up (24%). Seventeen patients were evaluated, 15 men and two women, with mean age at surgery time of 28.53 ± 6.64 years. All patients were examined at six months, one year, and ten years after surgery. Clinical evaluation was made by the Lysholm scale, and the knee evaluation, with the Hospital for Special Surgery scale. Results: The patients had their injuries operated after 9.87 ± 14.42 months of the accident. According to Lysholm scale, the results at the end of the first year were 98.71 ± 2.47 and, after 10 years, 97.35 ± 3.12. Using the Hospital for Special Surgery scale, the mean score was 95.07 ± 5.23 in one year, and 94.87 ± 4.16 in 10 years. All patients returned to their professional activities with the same previous status. Fifteen (88.24%) patients were able to return to their sports activities, one by modifying the practice, while another one switched to another sport. No patient complained of pain on the donor area in the medium and long term. The sports return rate was excellent, and no changes were found on the femoropatellar joint.

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.

Radiographic Anatomy of the Native Anterior Cruciate Ligament: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In an attempt to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of tunnel positioning, radiographs are being analyzed in an attempt to recreate the native anatomy of the ACL. Understanding the native ACL radiographic anatomy is an essential prerequisite to understand the relevance of postoperative tunnel position.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We performed a systematic review of the literature to delineate the radiographic location of the native ACL femoral and tibial footprints.

METHODS

A search was performed in March 2014 in PubMed, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and EMBASE to identify all studies that evaluated the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy on radiographs. Various measurement methods were used in each study, and averages were obtained of the data from studies with the same measurement methods.

RESULTS

Fifteen papers were identified (which included data on 177 femora and 207 tibiae in total). Evaluation of the femoral footprint using the quadrant method on lateral knee radiographs showed that the average percent distance location of the anteromedial (AM) bundle and posterolateral (PL) bundle was 22.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16.59-28.90) and 32.5% (95% CI 27.71-37.26) from the posterior condyle, respectively, and 23.2% (95% CI 19.52-26.94) and 50.0% (95% CI 46.16-53.76) from Blumensaat's line, respectively. Using the Amis and Jacob method, the tibial footprint on the lateral knee radiograph average percent distances was 35.1% (95% CI 34.46-35.72) for the center of the AM bundle and 47.3% (95% CI 41.69-52.95) for the center of the PL bundle of the ACL. The femoral and tibial ACL footprints on the anteroposterior (AP) views of the knee were not well delineated by these studies.

CONCLUSION

The information presented in this systematic review offers surgeons another important tool for accurate ACL footprint identification.

After revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, who returns to sport? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Return to sport and to pre-injury level represents an important outcome after both primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

PURPOSE

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to determine the return to sport rate after revision ACL reconstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Databases. All the studies that reported return to sport, return to pre-injury sport level and return to high level/competitive sport was considered for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled mean of post-operative knee laxity and pooled rate of positive pivot-shift and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) categories was calculated as well.

RESULTS

Overall, 472 abstracts were identified and screened for inclusion and only 16 studies reported the rate of return to any level of sport activity at the final follow-up of 4.7 years (range 1.0-13.2 years), showing a pooled rate of 85.3% (CI 79.7 to 90.2). The return to pre-injury sport level was achieved in 53.4% (CI 37.8 to 68.7) of cases. Normal or quasi-normal objective IKDC, less than 5 mm of side-to-side difference at arthrometric evaluations and grade I-II pivot-shift test were reported in 84%, 88% and 93% patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of almost 8 patients out of 10 returning to sport after revision ACL reconstruction and showing good stability, only half of the patients returned to the same pre-injury sport level.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Context:

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most common surgical procedures, with more than 200,000 ACL tears occurring annually. Although primary ACL reconstruction is a successful operation, success rates still range from 75% to 97%. Consequently, several thousand revision ACL reconstructions are performed annually and are unfortunately associated with inferior clinical outcomes when compared with primary reconstructions.

Evidence Acquisition:

Data were obtained from peer-reviewed literature through a search of the PubMed database (1988-2013) as well as from textbook chapters and surgical technique papers.

Study Design:

Clinical review.

Level of Evidence:

Level 4.

Results:

The clinical outcomes after revision ACL reconstruction are largely based on level IV case series. Much of the existing literature is heterogenous with regard to patient populations, primary and revision surgical techniques, concomitant ligamentous injuries, and additional procedures performed at the time of the revision, which limits generalizability. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that the outcomes for revision ACL reconstruction are inferior to primary reconstruction.

Conclusion:

Excellent results can be achieved with regard to graft stability, return to play, and functional knee instability but are generally inferior to primary ACL reconstruction. A staged approach with autograft reconstruction is recommended in any circumstance in which a single-stage approach results in suboptimal graft selection, tunnel position, graft fixation, or biological milieu for tendon-bone healing.

Strength-of-Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT):

Good results may still be achieved with regard to graft stability, return to play, and functional knee instability, but results are generally inferior to primary ACL reconstruction: Level B.

Minimally invasive harvest of a quadriceps tendon graft with or without a bone block

The quadriceps tendon (QT) as a graft source for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has recently achieved increased attention. Although many knee surgeons have been using the QT as a graft for ACL revision surgery, it has never gained universal acceptance for primary ACL reconstruction. The QT is a very versatile graft that can be harvested in different widths, thicknesses, and lengths. Conventionally, the QT graft is harvested by an open technique, requiring a 6 to 8 cm longitudinal incision, which often leads to unpleasant scars. We describe a new, minimally invasive, standardized approach in which the QT graft can be harvested through a 2- to 3-cm skin incision and a new option of using the graft without a bone block.

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.

"Central" quadriceps tendon harvest with patellar bone plug: surgical technique revisited

The objective of this article is to review the surgical technique for quadriceps tendon graft harvest while highlighting an additional technical note that has not been previously emphasized. The quadriceps tendon typically inserts eccentrically on the superior pole of the patella. By shifting the soft-tissue harvest to a location just off the medial edge of the tendon, the adjoining patellar bone plug will be centered on the superior pole of the patella, reducing the risk of an iatrogenic patellar fracture.