Surgical Timing Does Not Interfere on Clinical Outcomes in Combined Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament: A Comparative Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery

This narrative review examines the current literature for the influence of the surgical timing in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction on various outcomes. Although the exact definition of early and delayed ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is a subject of controversy, surgical timing influences arthrofibrosis and postoperative stiffness, quadriceps strength, postoperative knee function, and the incidence of intra-articular injuries to the menisci and cartilage. Additionally, there is a shortage of evidence regarding the role of ACLR timing in the setting of multiligament knee injury and when concurrent procedures are performed during the operative treatment of the ACL-injured knee.

Lateral extra-articular tenodesis may be more cost-effective than independent anterolateral ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and economic analysis

IMPORTANCE

Anterolateral augmentation during primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) may lower rates of ACL graft failure. However, differences in costs between two techniques, lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR), are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LET versus ALLR in the setting of primary ACLR. The hypothesis was that LET is more cost-effective than ALLR.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review was conducted on studies in which patients underwent primary ACLR with a concomitant LET or ALLR with minimum 24 months follow-up published between January 2013 and July 2023. Primary outcomes included ACL graft failure rates and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Survey-Quality of Life (KOOS-QoL) subscale scores, which were used to determine health utilities measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A decision tree model with one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses compared the cost of primary ACLR with a concomitant LET, independent autograft ALLR, or independent allograft ALLR. Costs were estimated using a combination of QALYs, institution prices, literature references, and a survey sent to 49 internationally recognized high-volume knee surgeons.

FINDINGS

A total of 2505 knees undergoing primary ACLR with concomitant LET (n=1162) or ALLR (n=1343) were identified from 22 studies. There were 77 total ACL graft failures with comparable failure rates between patients receiving LET versus ALLR (2.9% vs. 3.2%, P=0.690). The average QALYs gained was slightly higher for those who received LET (0.77) compared to ALLR (0.75). Survey results revealed a 5 minute longer median self-reported operative time for ALLR (20 ​min) than LET (15 ​min). The estimated costs for LET, autograft ALLR, and allograft ALLR were $1,015, $1,295, and $3,068, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR with LET is more cost-effective than independent autograft and allograft ALLR given the lower costs and comparable clinical outcomes. Surgeons may utilize this information when determining the optimal approach to anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR, although differences in preferred technique and health care systems may influence operative efficiency and material costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review; Level of evidence, IV.

Patients With More Than 6.5° of Knee Hyperextension are 14.6 Times More Likely to Have Anterior Cruciate Ligament Hamstring Graft Rupture and Worse Knee Stability and Functional Outcomes

PURPOSE

To create a cut-off point for hyperextension that best discriminates retear and to verify whether this cut-off point can predict retear regardless of other characteristics after primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstrings autograft.

METHODS

A cohort of patients submitted to primary isolated ACL reconstruction with hamstrings autografts was retrospectively evaluated. Patients were stratified according to the degree of passive knee hyperextension measured in the normal contralateral knee. The following data were collected: patient age and sex, time from injury to surgery, knee hyperextension, KT-1000 and pivot-shift, associated meniscus injury, intra-articular graft size, follow-up time, graft failure, and postoperative Lysholm and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores.

RESULTS

Data from 457 patients were evaluated. Median age was 31 years. Thirty-two (7.0%) presented with retear. There was a significant difference in hyperextension between patients with and without retear (P < .001), with the cut-off point established by the receiver operating characteristic curve from 6.5°. Patients with greater hyperextension had a statistically greater frequency of women, longer injury time, greater intra-articular graft diameter, greater postoperative KT-1000, and greater frequency of retear, whereas the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were statistically lower in patients with greater hyperextension. Only hyperextension showed a statistically significant association with re-rupture (P < .001). The odds of retear in patients with hyperextension greater than 6.5 was 14.65 times the odds of patients with hyperextension less than 6.5.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with more than 6.5° of hyperextension are 14.6 times more likely to have a graft rupture than patients with lower hyperextension when submitted to ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendons. Also, they present worse knee stability by the KT-1000 test and worse functional outcomes. Therefore, patients with this degree of hyperextension should not have isolated reconstruction with hamstrings as their first choice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Knee Flexion Angle of Fixation During Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Lateral Extra-articular Reinforcement Techniques Performed in Conjunction With ACL Reconstruction

Background

Anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) is being used more frequently in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the knee flexion angle at which fixation of ALLR or LET is performed during the procedure is quite variable based on existing technique descriptions.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to identify whether flexion angle at the time of ALLR/LET fixation affected postoperative outcomes in a clinical population. It was hypothesized that ALLR/LET fixation at low versus high flexion angles would lead to no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures and graft failure rates.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to identify published clinical studies of ACLR with ALLR/LET in which the knee flexion angle at the time of ALLR/LET was reported. A priori, low flexion was defined as 0° to 30°, and high flexion was defined as 60° to 90°. Studies were excluded if the flexion angle was between 31° and 59° because these angles constituted neither low nor high flexion angles and including them in an analysis of high versus low flexion angle at fixation would have biased the study results toward the null. The overall risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The pooled results of the studies were analyzed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scores, along with reported graft failure rates.

Results

A total of 32 clinical studies (5230 patients) met inclusion criteria: 22 studies (1999 patients) in the low-flexion group and 10 studies (3231 patients) in the high-flexion group. The median Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 6. Comparisons of patients with a low flexion angle versus a high flexion angle demonstrated no differences in the IKDC (P = .84), Lysholm (P = .67), or Tegner (P = .44) scores or in graft failure (3.4% vs 4.1%, respectively; P = .69).

Conclusion

The results of this review indicated that ACLR performed in conjunction with ALLR/LET provides good to excellent patient-reported outcomes and low graft failure rates when ALLR/LET fixation is performed in either low or high knee flexion.

Combined All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Semitendinosus Plus Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction With Intact Gracilis Tibial Insertion and Transtibial Passage

The indications for combining anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with anterolateral ligament reconstruction have increased considerably in recent years since several anatomical, clinical, and biomechanical studies have proven the importance of the anterolateral periphery in knee rotational stability. Much is still being discussed on how to combine these techniques in terms of which grafts and fixation options to use, as well as avoiding tunnel convergence. This study aims to describe anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a triple-bundle semitendinosus tendon graft all-inside technique combined with an anterolateral ligament reconstruction maintaining the gracilis tendon insertion on the tibia, using independent anatomical tunnels. With this, we were able to reconstruct both using only hamstring autografts, reducing morbidity in other possible donor areas, in addition to allowing stable fixation of both grafts without tunnel convergence.

Small Hamstring Tendon Graft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Combined With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Results in the Same Failure Rate as Larger Hamstring Tendon Graft Reconstruction Alone

PURPOSE

To compare patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring grafts 7 mm or less in diameter combined with anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction versus isolated ACL reconstruction with grafts greater than 7 mm in diameter.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the descriptive data and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring grafts from June 2013 to January 2020 and had a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Patients with quadrupled or quintupled semitendinosus and gracilis autograft 7 mm or less in diameter combined with single-strand ALL reconstruction (ACL-ALL group) were matched in a 1:2 propensity ratio to patients who underwent isolated single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring grafts greater than 7 mm (ACL group).

RESULTS

We identified 30 patients in our database who met the criteria for the ACL-ALL group. The patients in this group were matched to 60 patients comprising the ACL group. Both groups were similar regarding all preoperative matched and unmatched variables. The mean ACL graft diameter was 6.8 ± 0.4 mm in the ACL-ALL group and 8.6 ± 0.6 mm in the ACL group (P < .001). The ACL-ALL group presented 1 failure (3.3%), and the ACL group presented 3 failures (5%) (P = .717). Postoperative KT-1000 measurements were similar between the groups (2.1 ± 1.1 mm vs 1.9 ± 1.2 mm, P = .114), as were postoperative pivot-shift grades (P = .652). Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores and Lysholm scores did not present any differences between the groups (P = .058 and P = .280, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo combined ACL-ALL reconstruction with an ACL graft diameter of 7 mm or less can achieve similar results to patients who undergo isolated ACL reconstruction with a graft diameter greater than 7 mm. An associated ALL reconstruction can be performed to increase knee stability in patients with small-diameter hamstring grafts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective, comparative therapeutic trial.

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.

Functional results of multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament with anterolateral tibial tunnel associated with anterolateral ligament reconstruction

Background

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are usually complex owing to previous tunnels. The objective of this study is to report the results of a revision ACL reconstruction technique with a tibial tunnel performed from the anterolateral plateau associated with an anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction.

Methods

Patients with at least two ACL reconstructions that failed and who had significant enlargement and confluence of tunnels in the medial tibial plateau and underwent revision ACL reconstruction associated with ALL reconstruction with the tibial tunnel for the ACL performed from the lateral plateau between 2017 and 2019 were evaluated. All patients were evaluated by physical examination, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Lysholm functional scales.

Results

Six patients who underwent this surgical procedure were evaluated. All patients were sports practitioners and presented a grade 3 pivot shift. The mean age was 28.5 ± 8.2 years, and the mean follow-up time was 34.1 ± 12.8 months. No patient had a new graft rupture, but three (50%) had grade 1 pivot shift. Four patients had minor complications with no clinical impact on the final result. All except one patient were able to return to pre-injury type of sports, at a mean time of 14.6 ± 2.3 months after surgery.

Conclusion

The anterolateral tibial tunnel technique using an Achilles tendon allograft for revision ACL reconstruction after multiple failures associated with an ALL reconstruction showed good results and no major complications. The anterolateral tunnel can be considered a good alternative in cases of medial tibial confluence or significant enlargement of the medial tunnels in re-revision procedures.

Optimal Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The timing of surgery has been regarded as a key factor in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and early vs delayed ACLR remains a controversial topic.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize up-to-date published data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing early vs elective delayed ACLR for patients with ACL deficiency, in terms of clinical outcomes and complications.

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until September 9, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

All published RCTs comparing clinical and functional outcomes and complications associated with early ACLR vs elective delayed ACLR.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data and assessed the methodological quality following the PRISMA guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Due to the clinical heterogeneity, the random-effects model was preferred. The primary outcomes were functional outcomes and complications. The Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate dichotomous variables and the inverse variance method was used to assess continuous variables.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 972 participants in 11 RCTs stratified by follow-up duration. The following factors did not differ between early and delayed ACLR: operative time (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, -0.68 to 10.61; P = .08), retear (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.52-4.43; P = .44), and infection (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 0.77-18.79; P = .10). There were also no differences between groups in range of motion, knee laxity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC rating scale), and Tegner score. IKDC score (mean difference, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.89-3.66; P < .001), and Lysholm score at 2-year follow-up (mean difference, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.74-4.48; P = .006) significantly differed between early and delayed ACLR. In addition, the timing of surgery was redefined in the included RCTs and subgroup analyses were performed, which validated the robustness of the principal results.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that early ACLR was not superior to delayed ACLR in terms of most factors analyzed, except for IKDC and Lysholm scores. This information should be available to patients with ACL deficiency and clinicians as part of the shared decision-making process of treatment selection.

Acute and subacute anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions are associated with a higher risk of revision and reoperation

PURPOSE

(1) Report concomitant cartilage and meniscal injury at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), (2) evaluate the risk of aseptic revision ACLR during follow-up, and (3) evaluate the risk of aseptic ipsilateral reoperation during follow-up.

METHODS

Using a United States integrated healthcare system's ACLR registry, patients who underwent primary isolated ACLR were identified (2010-2018). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, with a secondary outcome evaluating ipsilateral aseptic reoperation. Outcomes were evaluated by time from injury to ACLR: acute (< 3 weeks), subacute (3 weeks-3 months), delayed (3-9 months), and chronic (≥ 9 months).

RESULTS

The final sample included 270 acute (< 3 weeks), 5971 subacute (3 weeks-3 months), 5959 delayed (3-9 months), and 3595 chronic (≥ 9 months) ACLR. Medial meniscus [55.4% (1990/3595 chronic) vs 38.9% (105/270 acute)] and chondral injuries [40.0% (1437/3595 chronic) vs 24.8% (67/270 acute)] at the time of ACLR were more common in the chronic versus acute groups. The crude 6-year revision rate was 12.9% for acute ACLR, 7.0% for subacute, 5.1% for delayed, and 4.4% for chronic ACLR; reoperation rates a 6-year follow-up was 15.0% for acute ACLR, 9.6% for subacute, 6.4% for delayed, and 8.1% for chronic ACLR. After adjustment for covariates, acute and subacute ACLR had higher risks for aseptic revision (acute HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, p = 0.026; subacute HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.040) and aseptic reoperation (acute HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43-2.91, p < 0.001; subacute HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.54, p = 0.002) when compared to chronic ACLR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study, while more meniscal and chondral injuries were reported for ACLR performed ≥ 9 months after the date of injury, a lower risk of revision and reoperation was observed following chronic ACLR relative to patients undergoing surgery in acute or subacute fashions.

Restoring rotational stability following anterior cruciate ligament surgery: single-bundle reconstruction combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis versus double-bundle reconstruction

Aim: To compare the outcomes of patients who underwent single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) with the outcomes of those who underwent double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction. Methods: 16 patients who underwent ACL hamstring SB reconstruction combined with LET (Coker-Arnold modification of the MacIntosh procedure) were retrospectively compared with 20 patients who underwent hamstring DB reconstruction at an average follow-up of 6.2 years. Assessment included Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores, objective examination and instrumented laxity test. Results: No complications were reported. Mean Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores significantly increased from preoperatively (p < 0.05). No differences were reported between the two groups with regard to point scales, anterior tibial translation and pivot-shift test (p = not significant). Conclusions: Both DB ACL reconstruction and combined LET and autologous hamstring SB ACL reconstruction are effective at providing satisfying functional outcomes and restoring rotational stability.

Delaying ACL reconstruction beyond 6 months from injury impacts likelihood for clinically significant outcome improvement

BACKGROUND

The effect of surgical latency on outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a topic that is heavily debated. Some studies report increased benefit when time from injury to surgery is decreased while other studies report no benefit. The purpose of our analysis was to compare achievement of clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) in patients with greater than six months of time from injury to ACLR to those with less than or equal to six months of time to surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary ACLR between January 2017 and January 2018 with minimum one year follow-up were included. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for outcome achievement and risk of revision ACLR and Weibull parametric survival analysis was performed for relative time to outcome achievement. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.

RESULTS

379 patients were included of which, 140 patients sustained ACL injury greater than six months prior to surgery. This group of patients experienced reduced likelihood to achieve patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) on the IKDC (p = 0.03), KOOS Pain (p = 0.01) and a greater likelihood to undergo revision ACLR (p = 0.001). There was no impact of surgical timing on minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

CONCLUSION

Patients with greater than 6 months from injury to ACLR reported reduced likelihood to achieve CSOs, delayed achievement of CSOs, and increased rates of revision surgery.

Knee Hyperextension Greater Than 5° Is a Risk Factor for Failure in ACL Reconstruction Using Hamstring Graft

Background:

The degree of knee hyperextension in isolation has not been studied in detail as a risk factor that could lead to increased looseness or graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Purpose:

To analyze whether more than 5° of passive knee hyperextension is associated with worse functional outcomes and greater risk of graft failure after primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A cohort of patients who had primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts was divided into 2 groups based on passive contralateral knee hyperextension greater than 5° (hyperextension group) and less than 5° (control group) of hyperextension. Groups were matched by age, sex, and associated meniscal tears. The following data were collected and compared between the groups: patient data (age and sex), time from injury to surgery, passive knee hyperextension, KT-1000 arthrometer laxity, pivot shift, associated meniscal injury and treatment (meniscectomy or repair), contralateral knee ligament injury, intra-articular graft size, follow-up time, occurrence of graft failure, and postoperative Lysholm knee scale and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form scores.

Results:

Data from 358 patients initially included in the study were analyzed; 22 were excluded because the time from injury to surgery was greater than 24 months, and 22 were lost to follow-up. From the cohort of 314 patients, 102 had more than 5° of knee hyperextension. A control group of the same size (n = 102) was selected by matching among the other 212 patients. Significant differences in the incidence of graft failure (14.7% vs 2.9%; P = .005) and Lysholm knee scale score (86.4 ± 9.8 vs 89.6 ± 6.1; P = .018) were found between the 2 groups.

Conclusion:

Patients with more than 5° of contralateral knee hyperextension submitted to single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendons have a higher failure rate than patients with less than 5° of knee hyperextension.