Influence of hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts on worsened patient reported outcome measurements in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparing outcomes between primary and revision reconstructions

A new neural network model that detects graft ruptures and contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injuries

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a neural network model for predicting second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk following ACL reconstruction using patient features from medical records.

METHODS

Of 486 consecutive patients who underwent primary unilateral ACL reconstruction, 386 patients (198 women, 188 men) with a mean age of 25.1 ± 11.6 years were included in this study. Fifty-eight features, including demographic data, surgical, preoperative and postoperative data, were retrospectively collected from medical records, and features with an incidence of less than 5% were excluded. Finally, 14 features were used for the analysis. The multilayer perceptron was composed of four hidden layers with a rectified linear unit as activation and was trained to maximise the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (auROC). Subsequently, validation was carried out through a rigorous threefold cross-validation process. To ascertain the most efficacious combination of features with the highest auROC, a single feature with the least impact on auROC maximisation was systematically eliminated from the comprehensive variable set, ultimately resulting in the retention of a mere two variables.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 50.5 (24-142) months. Fifty-seven knees had a second ACL injury, with a graft rupture rate of 7.7% and a contralateral injury rate of 6.9%. The maximum auROC for predicting graft rupture was 0.81 with two features: young age and hamstring graft. Meanwhile, the maximum auROC for predicting contralateral ACL injury was 0.74 with seven features, including young age, presence of medial meniscus tear, small body mass index, hamstring graft, female sex and medial meniscus repair or treatment.

CONCLUSION

A neural network model with patient features from medical records detected graft ruptures and contralateral ACL injuries with acceptable accuracy. This model can serve as a new, useful tool in clinical practice to inform decisions about ACL reconstruction and retuning to sports postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Comparison of Revision ACL Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Augmented With Allograft Versus Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft With Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis

Background

Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the conventional techniques in the revision setting especially after a primary hamstring tendon graft. The use of the iliotibial band (ITB) augmented with allograft (AG) is an encouraging graft alternative for ACLR in terms of clinical and biomechanical data in the literature.

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of BTB graft with lateral extra-articular tenodesis, modified Lemaire (BTB-LET), and an ITB graft augmented with hamstring AG (ITB-AG) in the setting of revision ACLR.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Descriptive data and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected from patients who underwent revision ACLR with either the BTB-LET or ITB-AG technique between 2012 and 2020 and who had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The clinical outcomes were assessed by the Lysholm, Tegner, Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Return to sports, complications, and revisions were also analyzed.

Results

A total of 167 patients were included, with 106 patients in the BTB-LET group and 61 patients in the ITB-AG group. There were no significant group differences in sociodemographic characteristics; however, the mean follow-up was significantly longer in the BTB-LET compared with the ITB-AG group (52.0 vs 38.8 months, respectively; P = .0001). There were no significant differences in postoperative outcome scores; however, patients in the ITB-AG group had a higher rate of return to competitive pivoting sports (32.8% vs 17.9%; P = .0288) and a higher overall rate of return to preinjury sport (63.9% vs 47.2%; P = .0365). Complications, including revisions for meniscal or chondral lesions and retears (8 [8.3%] in the BTB-LET group and 2 [4.0%] in the ITB-AG group), were not significantly different. All retears were due to sports-related accidents.

Conclusion

In this study, ITB-AG was not different from BTB-LET in terms of functional outcomes scores but allowed better return to sport rate. Performing ITB-AG reconstruction in the setting of revision ACLR appears to be safe, effective, and associated with a satisfying return-to-sports rate.

Contralateral hamstring autografts do not provide benefit compared to ipsilateral hamstring autografts in primary or revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of primary or revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) after contralateral hamstring autografts versus ipsilateral hamstring autograft harvest.

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to April 27th, 2023 for studies investigating contralateral hamstring autografts in primary or revision ACLR. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, strength measures, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and rates of positive Lachman test, positive pivot-shift test and graft rupture were extracted. PROMs included Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores.

RESULTS

Nine studies comprising 371 patients were included in this review. In primary ACLR, there were no significant differences between contralateral and ipsilateral groups in isokinetic hamstring torque in the non-ACLR limb or isokinetic quadriceps torque in both limbs when tested at 60, 90, 120 or 180 degrees/second. Isokinetic hamstring torque in the non-ACLR limb was significantly weaker in the contralateral group at six months for primary ACLR; however, these deficits did not persist. There were no significant differences in postoperative median Tegner scores and Lysholm scores between contralateral and ipsilateral groups in primary ACLR. There were no significant differences in postoperative median Tegner, mean Lysholm and IKDC scores between groups in revision ACLR. There were no significant differences in positive Lachman, positive pivot-shift and rupture rates in primary ACLR between groups. Rates of positive Lachman and pivot-shift were slightly higher in the contralateral than ipsilateral group for revision ACLR.

CONCLUSION

Contralateral hamstring autografts results in comparable muscle strength to ipsilateral hamstring autografts, with the exception of weaker hamstring strengths in the early postoperative period. Patient-reported outcome measures were similar between the two groups across both primary and revision ACLR, with rates of instability and failure being similar between groups for primary ACLR. Contralateral hamstring grafts do not provide additional benefit when compared to ipsilateral options for either primary or revision ACLR, and should be used only in select circumstances including insufficient ipsilateral hamstring grafts or situations where quadriceps or patella autografts are not optimal.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

The reverse fragility index: RCTs reporting non-significant differences in failure rates between hamstring and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts have fragile results

PURPOSE

The reverse fragility index (RFI) is a novel metric to appraise the results of studies reporting statistically non-significant results. The purpose of this study was to determine the statistical robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant differences in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) graft failure rates, defined as re-rupture/revision ACLR rate, between hamstring tendon (HT) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts by calculating RFIs.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs that compared HT to BTB grafts for ACLR through January 2022. Studies reporting non-significant differences in graft re-rupture and revision ACLR rate (n.s.) were included. The RFI, defined as the fewest number of event reversals needed to change the non-significant graft re-rupture/revision outcome to statistically significant (P < 0.05), was recorded for each study. In addition, the number of studies in which the loss to follow-up exceeded the RFI was recorded.

RESULTS

Among the 16 included RCTs, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) sample size was 71 (64-114), and the median (IQR) total number of graft re-rupture/revision ACLR events was 4 (4-6). The median (IQR) graft re-rupture/revision ACLR rate was 4.3% (3.0-6.4) overall, 4.1% (2.6-6.7) in the BTB group, and 5.4% (3.0-6.3) in the HT group. The median (IQR) RFI was 3 (3-4), signifying that a reversal of the outcome in 3 patients in one arm was needed to flip the studies' result from non-significant to statistically significant (P < 0.05). The median (IQR) number of participants lost to follow-up was 11 (3-13), and 13 (81.3%) of the included studies had a loss to follow-up greater than the studies' RFI.

CONCLUSION

The results of RCTs reporting statistically non-significant re-rupture/revision ACLR rates between HT and BTB autografts would become significant if the outcome were reversed in a small number of patients-a number that was less than the loss to follow-up in the majority of studies. Thus, the neutrality of these studies is fragile, and a true statistically significant difference in re-rupture/revision rates may have been undetected.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.