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

Increased Lateral Femoral Condyle Ratio Measured by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Associated With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rerupture

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between lateral femoral condyle ratio (LFCR) measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rerupture after anatomic ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and to compare the diagnostic accuracy between MRI and radiograph measurements.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent anatomic ACLR in our institution between 2015 and 2018. Patients who experienced rerupture after ACLR were identified and matched 1:1 with control patients who showed no evidence of graft failure during a minimum 48-month follow-up. The matching criteria included age, sex, and body mass index. LFCR was measured on MRI scans and radiographs of the affected limb. Patients' characteristics, surgical features, and anatomic measurements were compared between groups. Conditional logistic regression was performed to investigate whether MRI-measured LFCR is a risk factor for ACL rerupture. The optimal cutoff value was determined by receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). Delong's test was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy between MRI and radiograph measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients who sustained ACL rerupture were included and matched with 72 control subjects. Compared to patients with intact ACLR, those who sustained ACL rerupture showed a significant increase in LFCR on MRI scans (63.38% ± 2.26% [95% CI, 62.84%-63.91%] vs 61.10% ± 2.19% [95% CI, 60.59%-61.61%], P < .001). An MRI-measured LFCR >62.18% was set as the cutoff point to discern patients at a higher risk of graft failure after anatomic ACLR, with sensitivity and specificity of 75.0% and 70.8%, respectively. MRI-measured LFCR demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy during ROC curve analysis, achieving a higher area under the curve compared to radiograph-measured LFCR (0.783 ± 0.051 vs 0.668 ± 0.060, P = .041).

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that MRI-measured LFCR was associated with ACL rerupture. A cutoff value of 62.18% was determined, which can help identify patients at a higher risk of rerupture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Femoral Tunnel Malposition, Increased Lateral Tibial Slope, and Decreased Notch Width Index Are Risk Factors for Non-Traumatic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors for patients who sustain nontraumatic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients undergoing primary or revision ACLR in our institution between 2010 and 2018. Patients sustaining insidious-onset knee instability without history of trauma were identified as nontraumatic ACLR failure and assigned to the study group. The control group of subjects who showed no evidence of ACLR failure with minimum 48-month follow-up were matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age, sex, and body mass index. Anatomic parameters including tibial slope (lateral [LTS], medial [MTS]); tibial plateau subluxation (lateral [LTPsublx], medial [MTPsublx]); notch width index (NWI); and lateral femoral condyle ratio were measured with magnetic resonance imaging or radiography. Graft tunnel position was assessed using 3-dimensional computed tomography and reported in 4 dimensions: deep-shallow ratio (DS ratio) and high-low ratio for femoral tunnel, anterior-posterior ratio and medial-lateral ratio for tibial tunnel. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Patients' demographic data, surgical factors, anatomic parameters, and tunnel placements were compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to discriminate and assess the identified risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients who sustained nontraumatic ACLR failure were included and matched with 52 control subjects. Compared to patients with intact ACLR, those who sustained nontraumatic ACLR failure showed significantly increased LTS, LTPsublx, MTS, and deceased NWI (all P < .001). Moreover, the average tunnel position in the study group was significantly more anterior (P < .001) and superior (P = .014) at the femoral side and more lateral (P = .002) at the tibial side. Multivariate regression analysis identified LTS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.313; P = .028), DS ratio (OR = 1.091; P = .002), and NWI (OR = 0.813; P = .040) as independent predictors of nontraumatic ACLR failure. LTS appeared to be the best independent predictive factor (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.804; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.721-0.887), followed by DS ratio (AUC = 0.803; 95% CI, 0.717-0.890), and NWI (AUC = 0.756; 95% CI, 0.664-0.847). The optimal cutoff values were 6.7° for increased LTS (sensitivity = 0.615, specificity = 0.923); 37.4% for increased DS ratio (sensitivity = 0.673, specificity = 0.885); and 26.4% for decreased NWI (sensitivity = 0.827, specificity = 0.596). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability was good to excellent, with ICCs ranging from 0.754 to 0.938 for all radiographical measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased LTS, decreased NWI, and femoral tunnel malposition are predictive risk factors for nontraumatic ACLR failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Effect of graft types for outcomes in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes among different types of graft for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

A comprehensive search from Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant articles. Studies that conducted a comparative analysis on outcomes among different types of grafts were included. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software.

RESULTS

In total, 7 non-randomized studies with a minimum 1-year follow-up were included in analysis, and all studies compared outcomes between autograft and allograft. International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee (IKDC) scores and side-to-side anterior laxity were not significantly different between autograft and allograft. Revision ACLR with allograft had a higher risk of failure than autograft at the final follow-up (OR=2.22, 95% CI=1.55-3.18). The rates of return to pre-injury type of sport and return to same and higher level of pre-injury sport were not significantly different between autograft and allograft.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of IKDC score, side-to-side anterior laxity, and rates of return to sport were not significantly different between autograft and allograft. Autografts provide a significantly lower risk of failure than allografts in revision ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; meta-analysis.

Approximately half of pediatric or adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction return to the same level of sport or higher: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarise the surgical techniques and clinical outcomes in paediatric and adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (r-ACLR).

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 29 July 2023. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, surgical details, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rates of instability, rupture and return to sport (RTS) were extracted.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 706 (711 knees) patients were included (48.7% female). The mean age at r-ACLR was 17.1 years (range: 16.5-18.0). Autografts (67.5%) were more common than allografts (32.2%) in revision, with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) being the most prevalent autograft source (59.6%). Bone grafts were used in seven patients (4.8% of 146 patients). The most common femoral and tibial fixation techniques were interference screws (37.6% and 38.1%, of 244 patients, respectively). The most common tunnelling strategy was anatomic (69.1% of 236 patients), and meniscus repairs were performed in 39.7% of 256 patients. The re-rupture rate was 13.0% in 293 patients. RTS at the same level or higher was 51.6% in 219 patients. The mean (SD) Lysholm score was 88.1 (12.9) in 78 patients, the mean (SD) Tegner score was 6.0 (1.6) in 78 patients, and the mean (SD) IKDC score was 82.6 (16.0) in 126 patients.

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR in paediatric and adolescent patients predominantly uses BPTB autografts and interference screw femoral and tibial fixation with concomitant meniscal procedures. Rates of re-rupture and RTS at the same level or higher were 13.0% and 51.6%, respectively. Information from this review can provide orthopaedic surgeons with a comprehensive understanding of the most commonly used operative techniques and their outcomes for revision ACLR in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

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.

Nonoperative Treatment for Traumatic Partial Graft Rupture After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 2-Year Follow-up Study

Background

There are no studies on the nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates between nonoperative treatment and revision ACL reconstruction for traumatic partial ACL graft rupture. We hypothesized that the outcomes and failure rates would be comparable and that nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial ACL graft rupture can produce satisfactory outcomes.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 2114 patients treated for isolated ACL rupture between January 2000 and June 2020. Patients with traumatic partial graft rupture after ACL reconstruction with minimum 2-year follow-up data were included. Patients who met all the following conditions were candidates for nonoperative treatment: (1) Lachman or pivot-shift grade 0 or 1 at 6 months after ACL reconstruction, (2) ACL graft with low to intermediate signal intensity on 1-year postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and (3) MRI after reinjury showing definite evidence of trauma, some fibers remaining in continuity of the ACL graft, and no anterior tibial subluxation in the sagittal plane. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to treatment method: nonoperative treatment (group A) and revision ACL reconstruction (group B). Clinical scores, laxity test results, radiological outcomes, and graft failures were compared between the groups.

Results

In total, 47 patients had traumatic partial graft rupture (group A, n = 10; group B, n = 37). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of clinical scores, laxity tests, radiological outcomes, or graft failure.

Conclusion

The clinical and radiological outcomes of nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial graft rupture after ACL reconstruction were comparable with those of revision ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial ACL graft rupture can produce satisfactory outcomes in selected patients.

Autograft-Only and Allograft-Augmented Hamstring Autograft Have Similar Failure Rates After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

To compare failure rates and clinical outcomes after hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with and without allograft augmentation by a single surgeon otherwise using the same surgical technique.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis with prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes of primary hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction with and without allograft augmentation performed in a military population by a single surgeon. The primary outcome measure was graft failure, defined as graft rupture confirmed by use of magnetic resonance imaging scans and/or revision ACL reconstruction. The secondary outcome measure was the postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score.

Results

This study included 112 patients with a mean follow-up period of 65.3 months. In patients with a graft diameter of 8 mm or greater, there was no difference in failure rates (9.4% for autograft only vs 6.3% for hybrid, P = .59). There was a higher failure rate in patients in the autograft-only group with a graft diameter of less than 8 mm (29.4%) when compared with the hybrid graft group (6.3%, P = .008). There were no hybrid grafts less than 8 mm in diameter. There were no differences in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score between groups as long as the graft diameter was 8 mm or greater.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing hamstring ACL reconstruction, there was no significant difference in graft failure rates or outcome scores between autograft only and autograft with allograft augmentation as long as grafts were 8 mm or greater. High failure rates were seen when the graft diameter was less than 8 mm.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

A Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis in High-Risk Adolescents Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Quadriceps Tendon Autograft: 2-Year Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) in children and adolescents has increased significantly, and many such patients are at increased risk for ACL retear. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) may be performed in conjunction with ACLR to reduce the risk of ACL retear.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the 2-year clinical outcomes of ACLR with soft tissue quadriceps tendon (QUAD) autograft performed with a concomitant LET using a modified Lemaire technique in skeletally immature patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A consecutive series of adolescent patients who underwent QUAD autograft ACLR and LET with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up data were analyzed retrospectively. ACLR techniques, including all-epiphyseal and complete transphyseal, were indicated based on skeletal age. Outcome measures included return to sports, concomitant or subsequent surgical procedures, and multiple patient-reported outcome measures, including Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKDC), and Hospital for Special Surgery Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (HSS Pedi-FABS) scores.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 49 consecutive adolescent patients aged 11 to 16 years (mean, 14.2 ± 1 years) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. One patient was lost to follow-up. Of the patients included in the study (N = 48; 27 male, 21 female), 98% participated in high-risk competitive sports. Two (4%) patients were undergoing revision ACLR. Thirty-eight (79%) patients underwent complete transphyseal, and 10 (21%) patients underwent all-epiphyseal ACLR. Sixteen (33%) patients had subsequent surgical procedures, including 5 contralateral ACLR, 4 meniscal surgery, 4 QUAD autograft scar revision, 4 irrigation and debridement (2 patients, 2 each), and 3 hardware removal (2 for hemi-epiphysiodesis and 1 tibial socket button removal) procedures. The rate of graft rupture was 0%. At a mean follow-up of 3.4 ± 1.2 years (range, 2-7 range), the mean SANE score was 93, the mean Pedi-IKDC score was 89, and the mean HSS Pedi-FABS score was 23. The return-to-sports rate was 100%.

CONCLUSION

An LET performed concomitantly with an ACLR is safe and should be considered as a concomitant procedure for adolescent patients with nonmodifiable risk factors who are at high risk of retear.

The Addition of Either an Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or an Iliotibial Band Tenodesis Is Associated With a Lower Failure Rate After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparative Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the failure rate in patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction alone or associated with an extra-articular procedure. Secondary objectives were to compare ACL laxity, patient-reported outcome measures, and complication rates in these patients and, subsequently, to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction associated with anatomical anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).

METHODS

This was a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified into 2 groups, according to whether (group 2) or not (group 1) an extra-articular reconstruction was performed. Patients who underwent an extra-articular procedure were further divided into ALL reconstruction (group 2A) and LET (group 2B). Baseline demographic variables, operative data and postoperative data were evaluated.

RESULTS

The groups with (86 patients) and without (88 patients) an associated extra-articular reconstruction had similar preoperative data. Group 2 had a lower failure rate (4.6% vs 14.7%; P = .038), better KT-1000, better pivot-shift, and better Lysholm. There was no difference regarding complications, except more lateral pain in group 2. Regarding the groups who underwent ALL reconstruction (41 patients) and LET (46 patients), group 2A showed better Lysholm scores. Both groups had similar failure rates and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a laterally based augmentation procedure had a lower failure rate than patients who underwent isolated revision ACL reconstruction. KT-1000 and pivot-shift examination were also significantly better when a lateral augmentation was performed. Complications were similar except for an increase in lateral pain in the augmented group. No clinically important differences were found when comparing the LET group to the ALL group other than a statistical improvement in the Lysholm functional scale, likely not clinically meaningful, favoring the ALL group and an increased duration of post-operative lateral pain in the LET group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Revision Soft-Tissue Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Associated With Lower Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Aged 40 and Older

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and graft failure rates in revision allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients aged 40 and older and compare them with primary ACLRs.

METHODS

Patients aged 40 and older who underwent arthroscopic soft-tissue allograft ACLR between 2005 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped based on revision versus primary ACLR. The rate of achieving an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) score was recorded. Patient satisfaction, PROs, and graft failure were compared between groups using the χ² test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

We identified 32 patients who underwent revision ACLR and 201 patients who underwent primary ACLR aged 40 and older who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 6.2 and 6.9 years, respectively (P = .042). There was a lower rate of concomitant meniscal repair in the primary ACLR group (6% vs 21.9%, P = .007) There were no other differences in chondral injuries, mechanism of injury, or meniscal injuries between groups. The median IKDC score was greater in the primary ACLR group as compared with the revision ACLR group (83.9 vs 70.6, P < .001). Patients who underwent revision ACLR were less likely to achieve the IKDC PASS threshold (82.5% vs 56.3%, P = .001) and were less likely to report satisfaction as compared with patients who underwent primary ACLR (90.5% vs 78.1%, P =.038). No difference in graft failure rates was identified between groups (8% vs 15.6%, P = .180).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision allograft ACLR in patients aged 40 and older was associated with lower PROs compared with primary ACLR. Patients who underwent revision ACLR failed to meet the IKDC PASS threshold more often and were dissatisfied with procedure results more than twice as often as patients that underwent primary ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Double-bundle non-anatomic ACL revision reconstruction with allograft resulted in a low revision rate at 10 years

PURPOSE

This study aimed at reporting the long-term second revision rate and subjective clinical outcomes from a cohort of patients who underwent a double-bundle (DB) ACLR first revision with allograft at a single institution.

METHODS

The Institutional database was searched according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients that underwent DB-ACL first revision with Achilles tendon allograft, (2) surgery performed between January 2000 and December 2012, (3) age at revision ≥ 18 y/o. Patients' general information, history, surgical data, and personal contacts were extracted from charts. An online survey platform was implemented to collect responses via email. The survey questions included: date of surgeries, surgical data, date of graft failure and subsequent second ACL revision surgery, any other surgery of the index knee, contralateral ACLR, KOOS score, and Tegner scores.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included in the survival analysis, mean age at revision 32 ± 9.2 y/o, 71 males, mean BMI 24.7 ± 2.7, mean time from ACL to revision 6.8 ± 5.4 years, mean follow-up time 10.7 ± 1.4 years. There were 12 (15%) second ACL revisions during the follow-up period, three females and nine males, at a mean of 4.5 ± 3 years after the index surgery. The overall survival rates were 85% from a second ACL revision and 68% from all reoperations of the index knee. Considering only the successful procedures (61 patients), at final follow-up, the mean values for the KOOS subscales were 84 ± 15.5 for Pain, 88.1 ± 13.6 for Symptoms, 93 ± 11.6 for ADL, 75 ± 24.5 for Sport, and 71 ± 19.6 for Qol. Twenty-nine (48%) patients performed sports activity at the same level as before ACLR failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Double-bundle ACL revision with fresh-frozen Achilles allograft yields satisfactory results at long-term follow-up, with an 85% survival rate from a second ACL revision at mean 10 years' follow-up and good patient-reported clinical scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

All-Soft Tissue Quadriceps Tendon Autograft in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Athletes: Comparison to Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft With at Least a 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is being performed at an increasing rate. Previous literature has suggested that autograft ACL reconstruction is a better option than allograft in revision surgery, although the optimal autograft choice remains unknown. The all-soft tissue quadriceps tendon (ASTQT) autograft has been found to be an effective option for primary ACL reconstruction. However, few studies have evaluated ASTQT autograft in revision ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ASTQT autograft in revision ACL reconstruction in athletes compared with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft. We hypothesized that the ASTQT autograft would lead to similar return to play, time to return to play, retear rate, and patient-reported outcomes compared with BTB autograft.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on all athletes undergoing revision ACL reconstruction between August 2013 and December 2019 at a single institution. Patients participating in high school or college athletics undergoing first-time revision with either ASTQT or BTB autograft with ≥2 years of follow-up were included. Demographic variables, complications, return to sports, and outcome scores including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm were collected and compared between the 2 cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 58 revision ACL reconstructions were included, with 32 in the ASTQT cohort and 26 in the BTB cohort. Return to sports at the same level occurred in 62.5% of the ASTQT group and 53.8% of the BTB group. The ASTQT group returned to sports significantly faster than the BTB group (8.9 vs 10.3 months; P = .020). There was no difference in retear rates (3.1%, ASTQT; 7.7%, BTB) or other complications between the 2 groups. The IKDC scores were significantly higher at the 6- and 12-month follow-up for the ASTQT autograft group compared with the BTB group (6 months: ASTQT, 71.3; BTB, 61.7, P = .001; 12 months: ASTQT, 82.7; BTB, 78.6; P = .021). Lysholm scores were also greater in the ASTQT cohort at these time points (6 months: ASTQT, 75.1; BTB, 63.6; P < .001; 12 months: ASTQT, 82.0; BTB, 74.5; P < .001). However, IKDC and Lysholm scores were similar between both groups at final follow-up (IKDC: ASTQT, 82.9; BTB, 81.7; P = .344; Lysholm: ASTQT, 83.0; BTB, 81.0; P = .104) There was no significant clinical difference in the absolute difference in scores or rate of achieving clinical thresholds between the 2 cohorts.

CONCLUSION

ASTQT autograft for revision ACL in athletes has similar outcomes compared with BTB autograft. However, the ASTQT may possibly afford quicker return to sports and better early improvements in patient-reported outcomes that normalize by 1 year. The soft tissue quadriceps autograft should be considered a viable graft option in revision ACL reconstruction in athletes.

Return to Sport After Revision ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Cohort Study of Outcomes After Single- Versus Multiple-Revision Surgeries

BACKGROUND

The return-to-sport rate at 2 years after multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions has not been evaluated.

HYPOTHESIS

It was hypothesized that patients who undergo multiple-revision ACL reconstructions would have a lower return-to-sport rate at 2 years after surgery than those who undergo a single-revision reconstruction. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the multiple-revision group would have lower functional scores.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A single-center cohort study in patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction was begun in 2012. This study included 2 groups: Patients who underwent a single revision, and those who underwent multiple revisions. The main evaluation criterion was the return to sport at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary criteria were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm, and ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) functional knee scores at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups.

RESULTS

A total of 322 patients (single-revision group: n = 302; multiple-revision group: n = 20) were included. A significant difference in the percentage of patients who stopped all sports activity was found between the 2 groups at 2 years (single-revision group: 19.4%; multiple-revision group: 50%). The return-to-sport rate at the same or lower level of performance was higher in the single-revision group as well (17% vs 14.3% for return at the same level; 45.6% vs 14.3% for return at a lower level; P = .03). At the 2-year follow-up, the functional scores of the single-revision group were significantly higher those than in the multiple-revision group: IKDC (77.7 ± 13.82 vs 64.79 ± 15.22; P < .001), KOOS (72.66 ± 17.63 vs 52.5 ± 15.64; P < .001), Lysholm (84.05 ± 11.88 vs 72.5 ± 13.49; P < .001), and ACL-RSI (52.34 ± 21.83 vs 46.43 ± 14.8; P = .0036).

CONCLUSION

Only a small percentage of patients returned to the same level of sport after single- revision and multiple-revision ACL reconstruction, yet significantly more in the former. More patients who underwent multiple revisions gave up their sport. Functional scores were higher for single-revision than multiple-revision surgeries.

Slope-Reducing High Tibial Osteotomy and Over-The-Top Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Achilles Tendon Allograft in Multiple Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Graft failure is a challenging complication following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R). Among the multiple anatomic and nonanatomic risk factors contributing to ACL-R failure, there is accumulating evidence that a posterior tibial slope of 12° or greater may predispose patients to graft failure of primary and revision ACL-R. In addition, previously malpositioned or widened tunnels, as well as limited autograft options, pose challenges in the setting of revision ACL-R. This Technical Note describes a technique to correct an increased posterior tibial slope using slope-reducing high tibial osteotomy, and single stage revision ACL-R with Achilles tendon allograft using the over-the-top route, in a single-stage procedure. The surgical technique involves an anterior approach to the proximal tibia, followed by tibial tubercle osteotomy and anterior closing-wedge osteotomy. The posterior cortical osteotomy hinge is left intact below the insertion of the posterior cruciate ligament. Over-the-top revision ACL-R is then performed using an Achilles tendon allograft passed around the posterior aspect of the lateral femoral condyle and fixed onto the lateral femur.

Over-The-Top Technique for Revision ACL Reconstruction with Achilles Allograft and Associated Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) is made challenging by the frequent presence of rotatory instability, tunnel malpositioning and widening, and limited autograft options. Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET), alternative tunnel routing, and the use of allograft tissue can be used to manage these challenges. This Technical Note describes revision ACL-R using the over-the-top (OTT) technique with Achilles tendon allograft with concomitant LET. The surgical approach involves routing the graft around the posterior aspect of the lateral femoral condyle, and then deep to the iliotibial band to a site just medial to Gerdy's tubercle, with staple fixation on the lateral femur for the ACL-R and anterolateral tibia for the LET. The OTT technique with LET provides a versatile approach for the management of failed ACL-R by circumventing challenges in revision ACL-R and addressing rotatory instability, a contributing factor to prior graft failure.

Joint effusion at 3 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with reinjury

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether joint effusion at 3 months after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is associated with ACL reinjury.

METHODS

The medical records of 227 consecutive patients who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction between 2015 and 2018 were reviewed in this retrospective single-center study. Demographic data such as sex and age at surgery, as well as data on preinjury Tegner activity scale score, time from injury to surgery, presence of meniscus and cartilage injuries, and the occurrence of ACL reinjury within 2 years, were collected. Joint effusion was defined as grade 3 (range 0-3) according to the ACL Osteoarthritis Score by magnetic resonance imaging at 3 months postoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 176 patients (mean age 22.5 ± 9.9 years) were included. Among these patients, 18 (10.2%) had ACL reinjury. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis, higher Tegner activity scale (odds ratio [OR] 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-6.04; p < 0.001) and presence of joint effusion (OR 34.5; 95% CI 6.63-179.7; p < 0.001) increased the odds of ACL reinjury, and older age (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.92; p = 0.012) decreased the odds of ACL reinjury.

CONCLUSIONS

Joint effusion with a larger fluid volume at 3 months postoperatively was one of the risk factors for ACL reinjury independent of confounders, such as age and activity level. This result suggests the possibility of postoperative intervention for ACL reinjury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Are Elite Collegiate Female Athletes PRIME for a Safe Return to Sport after ACLR? An Investigation of Physical Readiness and Integrated Movement Efficiency (PRIME)

Background

Elite female athletes who successfully return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) represent a high-risk group for secondary injury. Little is known about how the functional profile of these athletes compares to their teammates who have not sustained ACL injuries.

Purpose

To compare elite collegiate female athletes who were able to successfully return to sport for at least one season following ACLR to their teammates with no history of ACLR with regard to self-reported knee function, kinetics, and kinematics during a double limb jump-landing task.

Study Design

Cross-Sectional Study.

Level of Evidence

Level 3.

Methods

Eighty-two female collegiate athletes (17 ACLR, 65 control) completed the knee-specific SANE (single assessment numeric evaluation) and three trials of a jump-landing task prior to their competitive season. vGRF data on each limb and the LESS (Landing Error Scoring System) score were collected from the jump-landing task. Knee-SANE, vGRF data, and LESS scores were compared between groups. All athletes were monitored for the duration of their competitive season for ACL injuries.

Results

Athletes after ACLR reported worse knee-specific function. Based on vGRF data, they unloaded their involved limb during the impact phase of the landing, and they were more asymmetrical between limbs during the propulsion phase as compared to the control group. The ACLR group, however, had lower LESS scores, indicative of better movement quality. No athletes in either group sustained ACL injuries during the following season.

Conclusion

Despite reporting worse knee function and demonstrating worse kinetics, the ACLR group demonstrated better movement quality relative to their uninjured teammates. This functional profile may correspond to short-term successful outcomes following ACLR, given that no athletes sustained ACL injuries in the competition season following assessment.

Non-anatomic tunnel position increases the risk of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure is a complication that may require revision ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). Non-anatomic placement of the femoral tunnel is thought to be a frequent cause of graft failure; however, there is a lack of evidence to support this belief. The purpose of this study was to determine if non-anatomic femoral tunnel placement is associated with increased risk of revision ACL-R.

METHODS

After screening all 315 consecutive patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL-R by a single senior orthopedic surgeon between January 2012 and January 2017, 58 patients were found to have both strict lateral radiographs and a minimum of 24 months follow-up without revision. From a group of 456 consecutive revision ACL-R, patients were screened for strictly lateral radiographs and 59 patients were included in the revision group. Femoral tunnel placement for each patient was determined using a strict lateral radiograph taken after the primary ACL-R using the quadrant method. The center of the femoral tunnel was measured in both the posterior-anterior (PA) and proximal-distal (PD) dimensions and represented as a percentage of the total distance (normal center of anatomic footprint: PA 25% and PD 29%).

RESULTS

In the PA dimension, the revision group had significantly more anterior femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (38% ± 11% vs. 28% ± 6%, p < 0.01). Among patients who underwent revision; those with non-traumatic chronic failure had statistically significant more anterior femoral tunnel placement than those who experienced traumatic failure (41% ± 13% vs. 35% ± 8%, p < 0.03). In the PD dimension, the revision group had significantly more proximal femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (30% ± 9% vs 38% ± 9%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study of 58 patients with successful primary ACL-R compared with 59 patients with failed ACL-R, anterior and proximal (high) femoral tunnels for ACL-R were shown to be independent risk factors for ACL revision surgery. As revision ACL-R is associated with patient- and economic burden, particular attention should be given to achieving an individualized, anatomic primary ACL-R. Surgeons may reduce the risk of revision ACL-R by placing the center of the femoral tunnel within the anatomic ACL footprint.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

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

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

Suture tape reinforcement of hamstring tendon graft reduces postoperative knee laxity after primary ACL reconstruction

Purpose

To evaluate and compare subjective and objective knee outcomes following hamstring tendon (HT) and quadriceps tendon (QT) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with or without suture tape (ST) reinforcement. It was hypothesized that the addition of an intra-articular synthetic augmentation with a ST would reduce postoperative knee laxity and graft ruptures after ACLR.

Methods

A 1:1 matched-cohort comparison of patients who underwent HT and QT autograft ACLR with or without ST reinforcement was performed. Patients with ST reinforcement were consecutively assigned to the study groups until a number of 20 in each group was achieved. Medical records were reviewed for demographic characteristics and additional injuries. Laxity measurements with KT-1000, strength measurements and physical examination findings were collected both preoperatively and at 6 months and patient reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected both preoperatively and at 12 months, and comparison was made HT vs HT + ST and QT vs QT + ST. Reoperations and re-ruptures were recorded during the 24-month follow-up period.

Results

Overall, 80 patients who underwent ACLR were included. Patients with HT + ST had significant less laxity postoperatively compared to HT at 6 months, 1.9 vs 0.8 mm, p < 0.05. No differences were found between the QT and QT + ST group. At 6 weeks patients treated with ST, both QT and HT, had a significant deficit in flexion compared to those without ST. However, this resolved at 6 months. There were no significant differences between HT + ST vs HT, or QT + ST vs QT, regarding postoperative PROs or strength measurements. Furthermore, the incidence of subsequent surgery and graft rupture was not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusion

ACLR with HT + ST reduces laxity at 6 months compared to ACLR without ST, a difference not seen when ACLR was performed using QT with or without ST. No other differences were seen between the two techniques comparing subjective and objective findings.

Level of evidence

Level III.

A high tibial slope, allograft use, and poor patient-reported outcome scores are associated with multiple ACL graft failures

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes, radiographic characteristics, and surgical factors between patients with single and multiple anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failures. It was hypothesized that patients experiencing multiple ACL graft failures exhibit lower patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) and a higher (steeper) posterior tibial slope (PTS) than patients with single ACL graft failure.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included in this retrospective cohort study. Based on the number of ACL graft failures, patients were assigned either to the group "single ACL graft failure "or" multiple ACL graft failures ". The PTS was measured on strict lateral radiographs. Validated PROs including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale, ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale for pain were collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 102 patients were included with 58 patients assigned to the single ACL graft failure group and 44 patients to the multiple ACL graft failures group. Quadriceps tendon autograft was used significantly more often (55% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) and allografts were used significantly less often (31% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) as the graft for first revision ACL reconstruction in patients with single versus multiple ACL graft failures. Patients with multiple ACL graft failures were associated with statistically significantly worse PROs (IKDC: 61.7 ± 19.3 vs. 77.4 ± 16.8, p < 0.05; Tegner Activity Scale: 4 (range, 0-7) vs. 6 (range 2-10), p < 0.05), higher PTS (12 ± 3° vs. 9 ± 3°, p < 0.001), and higher rates of subsequent surgery (73% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) and complications (45% vs. 17%, p < 0.05) than patients with single ACL graft failure.

CONCLUSION

Compared to single ACL graft failure in this study multiple ACL graft failures were associated with worse PROs, higher PTS, and allograft use. During the first revision ACL reconstruction, it is recommended to avoid the use of allografts and to consider slope-reducing osteotomies to avoid multiple ACL graft failures and improve PROs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Quadriceps tendon autograft is becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate trends in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R), with emphasis on intra-articular findings, grafts, and concurrent procedures. It was hypothesized that revision ACL-Rs over time show a trend toward increased complexity with increased use of autografts over allografts.

METHODS

This was a two-center retrospective study including patients undergoing revision ACL-R between 2010 and 2020. Demographic and surgical data including intra-articular findings and concurrent procedures were collected and compared for the time periods 2010-2014 and 2015-2020. All collected variables were compared between three pre-defined age groups (< 20 years, 20-30 years, > 30 years), right and left knees, and males and females. A time series analysis was performed to assess trends in revision ACL-R.

RESULTS

This study included 260 patients with a mean age of 26.2 ± 9.4 years at the time of the most recent revision ACL-R, representing the first, second, third, and fourth revision ACL-R for 214 (82%), 35 (14%), 10 (4%), and 1 (< 1%) patients, respectively. Patients age > 30 years showed a significantly longer mean time from primary ACL-R to most recent revision ACL-R (11.1 years), compared to patients age < 20 years (2.2 years, p < 0.001) and age 20-30 years (5.5 years, p < 0.05). Quadriceps tendon autograft was used significantly more often in 2015-2020 compared to 2010-2014 (49% vs. 18%, p < 0.001). A high rate of concurrently performed procedures including meniscal repairs (45%), lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET; 31%), osteotomies (13%), and meniscal allograft transplantations (11%) was shown. Concurrent LET was associated with intact cartilage and severely abnormal preoperative knee laxity and showed a statistically significant and linear increase over time (p < 0.05). Intact cartilage (41%, p < 0.05), concurrent medial meniscal repairs (39%, p < 0.05), and LET (35%, non-significant) were most frequently observed in patients aged < 20 years.

CONCLUSION

Quadriceps tendon autograft and concurrent LET are becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL-R. Intact cartilage and severely abnormal preoperative knee laxity represent indications for LET in revision ACL-R. The high rate of concurrent procedures observed demonstrates the high surgical demands of revision ACL-R.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Primary stability of single-stage revision reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in case of failure of dynamic intraligamentary stabilization depends on implant position during ACL repair

INTRODUCTION

The object of this study was to evaluate the primary stability of tibial interference screw (IFS) fixation in single-stage revision surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the case of recurrent instability after ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS), dependent on the implant position during DIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tibial aperture fixation in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) was performed in a porcine knee model using an IFS. Native ACL-R was performed in the control group (n = 15). In the intervention groups DIS and subsequent implant removal were performed prior to single-stage revision ACL-R. A distance of 20 mm in group R-DIS1 (n = 15) and 5 mm in group R-DIS2 (n = 15) was left between the joint line and the implant during DIS. Specimens were mounted in a material-testing machine and load-to-failure was applied in a worst-case-scenario.

RESULTS

Load to failure was 454 ± 111 N in the R-DIS1 group, 154 ± 71 N in the R-DIS2 group and 405 ± 105 N in the primary ACL-R group. Load-to-failure, stiffness and elongation of the group R-DIS2 were significantly inferior in comparison to R-DIS1 and ACL-R respectively (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between load-to-failure, stiffness and elongation of R-DIS1 and the control group.

CONCLUSION

Primary stability of tibial aperture fixation in single-stage revision ACL-R in case of recurrent instability after DIS depends on monobloc position during ACL repair. Primary stability is comparable to aperture fixation in primary ACL-R, if a bone stock of 20 mm is left between the monobloc and the tibial joint line during the initial procedure.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction after Surgical Management of Multiligament Knee Injury

The purpose of this study is to determine factors associated with the need for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) after multiligament knee injury (MLKI) and to report outcomes for patients undergoing revision ACLR after MLKI. This involves a retrospective review of 231 MLKIs in 225 patients treated over a 12-year period, with institutional review board approval. Patients with two or more injured knee ligaments requiring surgical reconstruction, including the ACL, were included for analyses. Overall, 231 knees with MLKIs underwent ACLR, with 10% (n = 24) requiring revision ACLR. There were no significant differences in age, sex, tobacco use, diabetes, or body mass index between cohorts requiring or not requiring revision ACLR. However, patients requiring revision ACLR had significantly longer follow-up duration (55.1 vs. 37.4 months, p = 0.004), more ligament reconstructions/repairs (mean 3.0 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001), more nonligament surgeries (mean 2.2 vs. 0.7, p = 0.002), more total surgeries (mean 5.3 vs. 2.4, p < 0.001), and more graft reconstructions (mean 4.7 vs. 2.7, p < 0.001). Patients in both groups had similar return to work (p = 0.12) and activity (p = 0.91) levels at final follow-up. Patients who had revision ACLR took significantly longer to return to work at their highest level (18 vs. 12 months, p = 0.036), but similar time to return to their highest level of activity (p = 0.33). Range of motion (134 vs. 127 degrees, p = 0.14), pain severity (2.2 vs. 1.7, p = 0.24), and Lysholm's scores (86.3 vs. 90.0, p = 0.24) at final follow-up were similar between groups. Patients requiring revision ACLR in the setting of a MLKI had more overall concurrent surgeries and other ligament reconstructions, but had similar final outcome scores to those who did not require revision surgery. Revision ligament surgery can be associated with increased pain, stiffness, and decrease patient outcomes. Revision surgery is often necessary after multiligament knee reconstructions, but patients requiring ACLR in the setting of a MLKI have good overall outcomes, with patients requiring revision ACLR at a rate of 10%.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Tibial Tunnel-First Graft-Sizing Technique

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) has become more common as the number of failed primary ACLRs increase. Although increasingly common, R-ACLR has a greater failure rate than a primary reconstruction. Technical errors, particularly in tunnel placement, account for a large proportion of graft failure in R-ACLR as well as re-revision cases. Tunnel placement and trajectory is particularly important in R-ACLR and becomes more challenging with each additional revision attempt. This is in part because any tunnels created for revision may converge with formerly drilled tunnels or face interference hardware creating, complicating proper graft fixation. While there are many approaches to revision ACL surgery, our technique describes a simple, tibial tunnel-first graft-sizing method initially reaming tunnels with very small diameters and sequentially working your way up to more anatomic diameters.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Reconstruction

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is used in patients with recurrent instability after primary ACL reconstruction. Identifying the etiology of graft failure is critical to the success of revision reconstruction. The most common etiologies include technical errors, trauma, failure to recognize concomitant injuries, young age, incomplete rehabilitation, and hardware failure. Patients should undergo a complete history and physical examination with a specific focus on previous injury mechanism and surgical procedures. A revision ACL reconstruction is a technically demanding procedure, and the surgeon should be prepared to address bone tunnel osteolysis, concurrent meniscal, ligamentous, or cartilage lesions, and limb malalignment. Surgical techniques described in this article include both single-stage and two-stage reconstruction procedures. Rates of return to sport after a revision reconstruction are lower than after primary reconstruction. Future research should be focused on improving both single-stage and two-stage revision techniques, as well as concomitant procedures to address limb malalignment and associated injuries.

Outcomes after arthroscopic revision surgery for anterior cruciate ligament injuries

Background and purpose - The frequency of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is increasing resulting in more ACL revision surgeries. Therefore, we assessed survival rates of 2 different grafts for ACL revision surgery at 1- and 5-year follow-ups, as well as physical activity levels of patients after revision surgery.Patients and methods - This is a retrospective cohort study involving 218 patients (176 males) who had revision surgery for anterior cruciate ligament injuries between 2008 and 2017 at the Clinic of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Joint Pathology Clinic (I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University). A comparison group involved 189 patients with only primary surgery. Surgical interventions were performed according to the standard procedure using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) and semitendinosus/gracilis (ST/G) autografts. The results of revision surgery were assessed at 1- and 5-year follow-ups by using the Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores.Results - Malpositioned bone tunnels were found in 87/218 patients (40%). At 1 and 5 years postoperatively, the revision BTB group had significantly better results in terms of IKDC and Lysholm scores than the revision ST/G group (p = 0.03, Mann-Whitney U-test), and these results were comparable to those in the comparison group. Graft survival after revision was lower than after the primary operation. However, the survival rate of 80% is quite high and is consistent with previous findings. There were no statistically reliable differences in survival between ST/G and BTB autografts.Interpretation - The graft choice for revision ACL surgery should be decided upon before surgery based on, among other things, the state of bone tunnels, in particular their position and degree of bone resorption. Tunnel widening that exceeds 14 mm (osteolysis) would require 2-stage surgery using a BTB autograft with bone plugs because it is larger than the ST/G autograft.

Clinical outcome after knee ligament reconstruction with tendon allografts

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical outcome for patients after knee ligament reconstructions with allografts at a university hospital.

METHODS

A total of 33 patients received allografts for reconstructive knee surgery between 2007 and 2017. The follow up evaluation consisted of a clinical knee examination including evaluation of range of motion (ROM), lateral and medial laxity, the Lachman test, the Pivot shift test, the sag test, the posterior drawer test and checking for patellofemoral pain. The following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used; the Lysholm Function Score, the Tegner activity score, and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

RESULTS

Twenty-one (64%) patients were available for the follow-up evaluation and the mean follow-up time was 4.8 years. A total of 16 out of 21 patients had multiligament injuries of which the ACL was the ligament most frequently ruptured. At the time of follow-up, 14 out of 16 patients (87%) with ACL injury had Lachman test grade 0 or grade 1 + , and 12 out of 13 (92%) had a pivot shift grade 0 or 1 + . The mean Lysholm Score was 74. All mean KOOS subscale values were ≥ 59 at the follow-up. The preoperative Tegner activity score was 3 (range, 1-6) and 4 (range, 2-6) at follow up. There were no deep postoperative infections. A total of 19 out of 21 patients (90%) reported that they would have undergone surgery again had they known the clinical outcome in advance.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients improved from the preoperative score to the follow-up score in the knee-related Quality of Life (QoL) KOOS subscale. None of the patients were diagnosed with deep postoperative infections.

Beighton Score, Tibial Slope, Tibial Subluxation, Quadriceps Circumference Difference, and Family History Are Risk Factors for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Failure: A Retrospective Comparison of Primary and Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions

PURPOSE

To assess patient history, physical examination findings, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 3-dimensional computed tomographic (3D CT) measurements of those with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure compared with primary ACL tear patients to better discern risk factors for ACL graft failure.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review comparing patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with a primary ACLR group with minimum 1-year follow-up. Preoperative history, examination, and imaging data were collected and compared. Measurements were made on MRI, plain radiographs, and 3D CT. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent primary ACLR by a single surgeon at a single center with minimum 1-year follow-up or ACL graft failure with revision ACLR performed by the same surgeon.

RESULTS

A total of 109 primary ACLR patients, mean age 33.7 years (range 15 to 71), enrolled between July 2016 and July 2018 and 90 revision ACLR patients, mean age 32.9 years (range 16 to 65), were included. The revision ACLR group had increased Beighton score (4 versus 0; P < .001) and greater side-to-side differences in quadricep circumference (2 versus 0 cm; P < .001) compared with the primary ACLR group. A family history of ACL tear was significantly more likely in the revision group (47.8% versus 16.5%; P < .001). The revision group exhibited significantly increased lateral posterior tibial slope (7.9° versus 6.2°), anterolateral tibial subluxation (7.1 versus 4.9 mm), and anteromedial tibia subluxation (2.7 versus 0.5 mm; all P < .005). In the revision group, femoral tunnel malposition occurred in 66.7% in the deep-shallow position and 33.3% in the high-low position. The rate of tibial tunnel malposition was 9.7% from medial to lateral and 54.2% from anterior to posterior. Fifty-six patients (77.8%) had tunnel malposition in ≥2 positions. Allograft tissue was used for the index ACLR in 28% in the revision group compared with 14.7% in the primary group.

CONCLUSION

Beighton score, quadriceps circumference side-to-side difference, family history of ACL tear, lateral posterior tibial slope, anterolateral tibial subluxation, and anteromedial tibia subluxation were all significantly different between primary and revision ACLR groups. In addition, there was a high rate of tunnel malposition in the revision ACLR group.

Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament graft tears in high-risk populations: An analysis of professional athlete and pediatric populations

BACKGROUND

Professional athletes are at increased risk of injury with high activity levels and additional pressure to return to sports quickly after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. The purpose of this study was to determine ACL graft re-tear rates in National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Baseball (MLB), and National Hockey League (NHL) athletes using publicly available databases and to compare these to general populations, National Football League (NFL) athletes, and the pediatric population to establish a baseline for those partaking in high-risk sporting activity.

METHODS

A comprehensive online search was performed to identify athletes in the NBA, MLB, and NHL who had a reported ACL tear between 2007 and 2017. For each tear, the type of tear (initial or re-tear) and return to play data were documented. Comparisons of re-tear rates from these leagues to prior registry, meta-analyses, and epidemiologic studies were performed using Fisher's exact or Chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

The aggregate re-tear rate was 11.9%. ACL re-tear rates by league did not statistically differ. Return to play rate after index surgery was 95.8%, whereas after a revision procedure was 92.3%. There was a statistically significant difference between the studied ACL re-tear rates (NBA, MLB, NHL) and those of national registries (P < 0.01), and no difference when compared with the pediatric population or with the NFL.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to higher-risk sporting activity, common to pediatric patients and professional athletes, is a likely major influential factor in ACL re-tear.

Clinical Outcomes and the Failure Rate of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Were Comparable Between Patients Younger Than 40 Years and Patients Older Than 40 Years: A Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Study

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes and failure rates of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) between young and middle-aged surgery patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision ACLRs between January 2008 and June 2017 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to age: ≥40 years (group A) and <40 years (group B). Detailed patient demographic data, preoperative radiographic data, and concurrent meniscal and chondral lesion were reviewed. Clinical scores, laxity tests results, and graft failures were compared between groups at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients (group A, n = 24, 46.6 ± 4.5 years; group B, n = 62, 26.2 ± 6.3 years) were included in this study. Demographic data showed that the time interval from primary to revision ACLR was longer in group A than in group B (96.2 ± 80.9 vs. 52.0 ± 42.1 months, P = .011). Group A had a higher prevalence of chondral defects of the trochlea (P = .016). No significant differences were identified in the prevalence and severity of meniscal lesions. At the final follow-up, all clinical scores were improved postoperatively but did not differ significantly between the groups. No significant differences were identified in side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (group A, 6.3 ± 5.0 mm; group B, 5.6 ± 3.8 mm; P = .403) and graft failure rate (group A, 33.3%; group B, 30.6%; P = .358) at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study showed that the clinical outcomes of revision ACLRs in patients improved significantly in patients younger than 40 years and were comparable to those observed in patients older than 40 years at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Effect of Nearly Isometric ACL Reconstruction on Graft-Tunnel Motion: A Quantitative Clinical Study

Background:

In anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, minimizing the graft-tunnel motion (GTM) will promote graft-to-bone healing and avoid graft loosening or tearing as well as potential bone tunnel enlargement. A nearly isometric state of the graft can be achieved by placing the tunnel properly to theoretically gain better graft-to-bone healing. However, little clinical evidence is available to quantify the relation between GTM and tunnel position.

Purpose:

To find the proper zones for the femoral and tibial tunnel apertures that minimize the GTM, referred to as the “nearly isometric zone,” through use of intraoperative GTM measurement and 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT).

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 100 patients were enrolled in this study. Nearly isometric ACL reconstruction was performed, and an intra-articular GTM measuring device was designed to measure and record the amplitude of GTM while the knee was flexed from 0° to 120°. Postoperatively, the patients underwent multislice CT, and the images were used to create 3D-CT models. After tibial aperture examination, 5 patients were excluded due to the divergence of tibial aperture, and therefore 95 patients remained in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether the lateral intercondylar ridge was absent or present. The Bernard-Hertel grid coordinates (h, t) of the femoral tunnel were then quantified.

Results:

The maximal GTM (mGTM) was a mean ± SD of 1.06 ± 0.66 mm (range, 0.0-3.0 mm). The mGTM in patients with a lateral intercondylar ridge was significantly lower than that in patients without a lateral intercondylar ridge (0.81 ± 0.39 vs 1.59 ± 0.73 mm, respectively; P < .0001). The average h and t were 0.227 ± 0.079 and 0.429 ± 0.770, respectively. Notably, in 1 patient, the mGTM was 0 mm whereas the coordinates (h, t) of the femoral tunnel were 0.250 and 0.255. The overall GTM slowly increased before 90° but increased significantly after the knee was bent 105° (P = .010). Correlation analysis showed that the t coordiinate had significant correlation with mGTM (R = 0.581; P < .001). A gradient pattern was created to show the nearly isometric blue zone (mGTM <0.5 mm), which was found to overlap with the IDEAL (isometric, direct insertion, eccentric, anatomic, low tension-flexion pattern) position.

Conclusion:

A method of measuring intraoperative GTM and quantifying femoral tunnel position on postoperative 3D-CT was successfully developed. The presence of a lateral condylar ridge can significantly reduce mGTM. A nearly isometric zone was described that was consistent with the IDEAL concept.

Return to sports following arthroscopic primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament in the adult population

BACKGROUND

To assess return to sport (RTS) rates and evaluate the timeline of rehabilitation milestones following arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients treated with primary repair between 2008 and 2018 was conducted. All adult patients with preoperative Tegner of ≥6 and minimum follow-up of two years were included. Patients were seen in clinic or contacted to complete the postoperative Tegner, and report their time to return to work, time to running, and time to RTS. Additionally, they were asked to complete the ACL-Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI). Outcomes were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Sixty patients treated with repair were included, of which 85% returned to any sports, 70% returned to knee-strenuous sports, and 60% returned to preinjury level. Patients returned to work in seven days (IQR five to 14 days), running in 90 days (IQR 57-120 days), and sports in 180 days (IQR 116-270 days). Overall, ACL-RSI score was 80.0 (IQR 53.0-95.0). Higher return to preinjury rates was found in patients with older age and lower fear of reinjury (all p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Following primary ACL repair, 70% of adult patients returned to knee-strenuous sports and 60% to preinjury levels by 180 days postoperatively. Positive predictors for return to preinjury levels included older age and low fear of reinjury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective Case-Series, level IV.

Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showed more laxity than revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum 2-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare patient demographics, associated lesions (concurrent meniscal and chondral injuries), and clinical outcomes between revision and re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision or re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2008 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Detailed patient demographic data, radiographic preoperative tunnel diameters, posterior tibia slope, and concurrent meniscal and chondral lesion were reviewed. Clinical scores and laxity tests' results were compared between the groups at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients (mean age, 33.8 ± 9.9 years; revision group, n = 62; re-revision group, n = 20) were included. The re-revision group showed a higher grade for preoperative arthritis (P < 0.001); more severe preoperative bone defects of the femoral (13.8 ± 2.6 vs 11.7 ± 2.7 mm, P = 0.004) and tibial tunnels (14.6 ± 2.4 vs 13.0 ± 2.3 mm, P = 0.010); and a higher prevalence of subtotal medial meniscectomy (P = 0.008) and chondral defects of the medial (P = 0.006) and lateral femoral condyles (P < 0.001), patella (P = 0.040), and trochlea (P = 0.036). At the final follow-up, the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the re-revision group showed more instability in the anterior drawer (P = 0.001), Lachman (P < 0.001), and pivot-shift (P < 0.001) tests, while a side-to-side difference was observed on the Telos stress radiographs (7.1 ± 4.7 vs 4.9 ± 3.7 mm, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

These findings showed that the patients who underwent re-revision had poor prognostic factors as compared with those who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Although the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups, the re-revision group showed more laxity at the 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Cohort study; IV.

Comparison of concomitant injuries and patient-reported outcome in patients that have undergone both primary and revision ACL reconstruction-a national registry study

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery has been associated with inferior outcome compared with primary ACL reconstruction. However, this has rarely been investigated in a consecutive cohort limited to patients that have undergone both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. This study aimed to assess differences in outcome and concomitant injuries between primary and revision ACL reconstruction in such a cohort, and to identify predictors of the patient-reported outcome after ACL revision.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone both primary and revision ACL reconstruction were identified in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients aged 13-49 years with hamstring tendon primary ACL reconstruction and data on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) on at least one occasion (preoperative or one year postoperatively) at both surgeries were eligible. Concomitant injuries and the KOOS were compared between each patient's primary and revision ACL reconstruction. Linear regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of the one-year KOOS after ACL revision.

RESULTS

A total of 1014 patients were included. Cartilage injuries increased at ACL revision (p < 0.001), as 23.0% had a cartilage injury at ACL revision that was not present at primary ACL reconstruction. The 1-year KOOS was lower after ACL revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction, with the largest difference in the KOOS sports and recreation (5.2 points, SD 32.2, p = 0.002). A posterolateral corner (PLC) injury at ACL revision was a negative predictor of KOOS, with the largest effect on the sports and recreation subscale (β = - 29.20 [95% CI - 50.71; - 6.69], p = 0.011). The use of allograft for ACL revision was an independent predictor of a poorer KOOS QoL (β = - 12.69 [95% CI - 21.84; - 3.55], p = 0.0066) and KOOS₄ (β = - 11.40 [95% CI - 19.24; - 3.57], p = 0.0044).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing ACL revision reported a 1-year outcome that was slightly inferior to the 1-year outcome after their primary ACL reconstruction. An ACL revision was associated with an increase in cartilage injuries. A PLC injury at ACL revision and the use of allograft for ACL revision predicted a clinically relevant poorer KOOS one year after ACL revision.

High Risk of Further Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in a 10-Year Follow-up Study of Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Soccer Players in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry

PURPOSE

To follow up on soccer players 10 years after a primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to find out how many players returned to play soccer, what influenced their decision, and if there are any differences in additional ACL injuries (graft failure and/or contralateral ACL injury) between those who returned to play and those who did not.

METHODS

The study cohort consists of 1661 soccer players from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. A questionnaire was sent to each player regarding their return to play and additional knee injuries that may have occurred 10 years after their primary ACL. The results are based on the 684 responders. Data such as age, sex, surgical procedural data, associated injuries, patient-reported outcome measures, and additional knee surgeries were collected from the registry.

RESULTS

In this study, 51% returned to play soccer. For those who did not return to play, the primary reason was knee related (65.4% of the cases). The most common knee-related reasons for not returning were pain and/or instability (50%; n = 109), followed by fear of reinjury (32%; n = 69). Players who return to soccer have a significantly higher risk of additional ACL injury. Of the players who returned to play soccer, 28.7% (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, P < .001) had additional ACL injury, 9.7% (OR 2.9, P < .001) had a graft failure and 20.6% (OR 2.1, P < .001) had a contralateral ACL injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Players that return to soccer have a significantly higher risk of sustaining further ACL injury. Only half of the soccer players return to play after ACL reconstruction, and in two-thirds of those who did not return, the reason was knee related. The high risk of sustaining additional knee injury is of serious concern to the player's future knee health and should be considered when deciding on a return to play.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III retrospective case-control study.

Editorial Commentary: The First Hip Arthroscopy Is the Best Hip Arthroscopy, Capsular Defect or Not

Hip arthroscopy has evolved significantly over the last 5 to 10 years. With this comes the burden of patients with continued pain after their index procedure. Reasons for the need for revision surgery can be many, including incomplete resection of impingement morphology, unrecognized/unaddressed acetabular dysplasia or hip instability, failure to manage the soft tissue appropriately (i.e., labrum or capsule/ligament), or other unrecognized cause of pain, like femoral retroversion or subspine impingement. Like many other orthopaedic procedures, revision hip arthroscopy with or without a defect in the hip capsule has significantly worse outcomes at 2 years compared with primary hip arthroscopy. This emphasizes the importance of proper diagnosis, well-done surgery, and proper rehabilitation the first time to avoid the need for revision hip surgery in the young adult altogether.

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.

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

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

Autograft or allograft for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments.

METHODS

Systematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESULTS

Both autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available.

CONCLUSION

In ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Hybrid graft vs autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis

Purpose

We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of hybrid grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods

We performed an electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect from the inception of these databases to February 2018, based on the terms “anterior cruciate ligament or ACL reconstruction”, “autograft”, “hybrid”, and “augment”. Relevant journals and conference proceedings were searched manually. Quality assessment, data extraction, and calculation of data from the included studies were conducted independently by two reviewers using RevMan 5.1.

Results

One randomized controlled trial and eight nonrandomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Larger graft diameters were found in the hybrid-graft group (mean difference −1.47, P=0.0001). There was no significant difference in failure rate (OR 2.13, P=0.21), retearing (OR 2.23, P=0.12), revision of ACLR (OR 1.05, P=0.87) or reoperation (OR 1.27, P=0.35). Subgroup analysis showed that hybrid-graft patients with meniscus injury suffered more revision (OR 4.10, P=0.02) and reoperation (OR 5.74, P=0.001). Both autografts and hybrid grafts performed similarly in most knee-score systems. However, autograft patients had better KT-1000 (mean difference 0.24, P=0.05) and quality-of-life results on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score measure (mean difference 7.23, P=0.05).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis of the current literature indicates similar performance of hybrid or autologous grafts in ACLR, though hybrid grafts had larger diameters than autografts. Other potential factors to influence failure, revision, or postoperative knee function, such as irradiation, age at reconstruction, meniscus injury/treatment, and hybrid-graft remodeling, should be investigated further.

Return to sport and re-tears after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this study was to determine the time to and level of return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in children and adolescents. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the risk of early ACL re-tear after return to sports and the risk of ACL tear in the contralateral knee.

HYPOTHESIS

The time to return to sports in young patients is considerably longer than in adults.

METHODS

A prospective multicentre study was conducted at 12 centres specialised in knee ligament surgery, in children and adolescents younger than 18 years, between 1 January 2015 and 31 October 2015. The patients were divided into a paediatric group with open physes and a skeletally mature group with closed physes. We recorded the time to return to sport, the type of sport resumed, and the occurrence of early re-tears on the same side. A poor outcome was defined as a re-tear or an objective IKDC score of C or D. A contralateral ACL tear was not considered a poor outcome.

RESULTS

Of 278 included patients, 100 had open physes and 178 closed physes. In the open physes group, return to running occurred after 10.4±4.7 months, return to pivoting/contact sport training after 13.1±3.9 months, and return to pivoting/contact sport competitions after 13.8±3.8 months. Of the 100 patients, 80% returned to the same sport and 63.5% to pivoting/contact sport competitions. Re-tears occurred in 9% of patients, after 11.8±4.1 months, and contralateral tears in 6% of patients, after 17.2±4.4 months. In all, 19.4% of patients had a poor outcome, including 10.4% with an IKDC score of C or D and 9% with re-tears. In the group with closed physes, return to running occurred after 8.8±5.1 months, return to pivoting/contact sport training after 11.7±4.7 months, and return to pivoting/contact sport competitions after 12.3±4.2 months. Of the 178 patients, 76.9% returned to the same sport and 55.6% to pivoting/contact sport competitions. The re-tear rate was only 2.8% and the contralateral tear rate 5%. In all, 14.7% of patients had poor outcome, including 11.9% with an IKDC score of C or D and 2.8% with re-tears. No risk factors for re-tears were identified; the quadruple-bundle semitendinosus technique showed a non-significant association with re-tears.

CONCLUSION

In young children, the return to sport time after ACL reconstruction is considerably longer than 1 year and the return to competitions occurs later and is more difficult. The results of this study indicate that reservations are in order when informing the family about return to sports prospects after ACL reconstruction. The return to pivoting/contact sport competitions should not be allowed until 14 months after surgery in young skeletally immature patients, and the risk of re-injury is high within the first 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Revision Knee Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Failure Rates Appear to Have Declined yet Different Research Methods Could Show Different Results

In the past decade there has been a rapid expansion in the available evidence for outcomes after revision knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions including data from 2 large registries and a growing body of research. The advent of 2 large registries and a growing body of evidence have provided a refined view of failure after revision reconstruction. A careful review of this evidence indicates that failure rates are not as high as previously reported in the literature. Because the body of literature continues to grow, the true role of graft selection on failure rates will become clearer and a more precise estimate of failure will emerge.