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

One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Preoperative evaluation, planning and surgical techniques. A review of current concepts

The increased rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears has led to a greater number of revisions. Revision surgery can be performed in one or two stages. Single-stage revision ACL reconstruction (ssRACLR) may be performed when prior tunnels can be re-used or bypassed whereas a two-stage procedure is indicated when bone grafting of dilated tunnels prior to revision is necessary. While both approaches have shown similar functional outcomes and failure risk, ssRACLR is preferred, when possible, to avoid the increased morbidity, inconvenience and cost associated with two-stage RACLR. In adequately planning for RACLR, a surgeon should investigate the mechanism and timing of injury as well as the previous graft selection, associated pathology and the tunnel placement and size. It is especially important to obtain radiographs and three-dimensional imaging including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), which allow the surgeon to accurately evaluate the entire tunnel architecture to determine surgical staging. Following a detailed assessment of the pathoanatomy, the surgeon may determine graft and hardware type, tunnel placement and utilization of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and other procedures. In our experience, ssRACLR can be carried out for over 90% of revision cases with creative pre-operative planning using autograft with bone plug(s), divergent tunnel creation on the femur (when necessary) and convergent tunnel creation on the tibia (when appropriate) and suspensory or interference fixation as needed. In revision scenarios, we believe that autografts with bone plugs provide the best opportunity for graft healing and incorporation and that LET can be a useful adjunct to reduce re-tear rates. The purpose of this review is to report on the preoperative considerations and surgical techniques for performing ssRACLR, as well as the outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level V expert opinion.

Computer Patient-Specific 3D Modeling and Custom-Made Guides for Revision ACL Surgery

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a challenging surgery occurring in 3 to 24% of primary reconstructions. A meticulous planning to study the precise size and location of both femoral and tibial bone tunnels is mandatory. The aim of the study was to evaluate the intra- and interoperator differences in the decision-making process between experienced surgeons after they were asked to make preoperative planning for ACL revision reconstruction with the use of both the computed tomography (CT) scan and a three-dimensional (3D)-printed model of the knee. Data collected from 23 consecutive patients undergoing revision of ACLR for graft failure at a single institute between September 2018 and February 2020 were prospectively reviewed. The double-blinded collected data were presented to three board-certificate attending surgeons. Surgeons were asked to decide whether to perform one-stage or two-stage revision ACLR based on the evaluation of the CT scan images and the 3D-printed custom-made models at two different rounds, T0 and T1, respectively, 7 days apart one from the other. Interoperator consensus following technical mistake was 52% at T0 and 56% at T1 using the CT scans, meanwhile concordance was 95% at T0 and 94% at T1 using the 3D models. Concordance between surgeons following new knee injury was 66% at T0 and 70% at T1 using CT scans, while concordance was 96% both at T0 and T1 using 3D models. Intraoperative variability using 3D models was extremely low: concordance at T0 and T1 was 98%. McNemar test showed a statistical significance in the use of 3D model for preoperative planning (p < 0.005). 3D-printed model reliability resulted to be higher compared with CT as intraoperator surgery technique selection was not modified throughout time from T0 to T1 (p < 0.005). The use of 3D-printed models had the most impact when evaluating femoral and tibial tunnels, resulting to be a useful instrument during preoperative planning of revision ACLR between attending surgeons with medium-high workflow.

Controversies in ACL revision surgery: Italian expert group consensus and state of the art

Background

Revision ACL reconstruction is a complex topic with many controversies and not-easy-to-make decisions. The authors’ aim is to provide some feasible advice that can be applied in daily clinical practice with the goal of facilitating the decision-making process and improving the outcomes of patients subjected to revision ACL reconstruction.

Methods

A national survey with seven questions about the most controversial topics in revision ACL reconstruction was emailed to members of two societies: SIOT and SIAGASCOT. The participants’ answers were collected, the most recent literature was analyzed, and a consensus was created by the authors, according to their long-term surgical experience.

Conclusions

The decision-making process in revision ACL reconstruction starts with a standardized imaging protocol (weight-bearing radiographs, CT scan, and MRI). One-stage surgery is indicated in almost all cases (exceptions are severe tunnel enlargement and infection), while the choice of graft depends on the previously used graft and the dimensions of the tunnels, with better clinical outcomes obtained for autografts. Additional procedures such as lateral extra-articular tenodesis in high-grade pivot-shift knees, biplanar HTO in the case of severe coronal malalignment, and meniscal suture improve the clinical outcome and should be considered case by case.

Level of evidence

V (Expert opinion).

Histological analysis of ACL reconstruction failures due to synthetic-ACL (LARS) ruptures

INTRODUCTION

Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an established surgical procedure. Synthetic ligaments represent an option for ACL reconstruction. Their popularity declined for the raising concerns due to re-ruptures, knee synovitis and early arthritis related to I and II generation artificial ligaments. The introduction of a III generation synthetic ligament (Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System-LARS) permitted renewed interest in the adoption of this kind of graft. Main purpose of our study was to describe the histological findings on samples obtained from a consecutive series of ACL revision surgeries due to LARS ACL reconstruction failures. Secondary aim was to determine the reason for LARS rupture.

METHODS

In a period between 2016 and 2018 eleven patients underwent ACL revision surgery due to LARS ACL reconstruction failure. At the time of the arthroscopic procedure, samples of synovial membrane and remnants of the torn LARS were sent to the Pathological-Anatomy Institute of our Hospital for a histological analysis.

RESULTS

Histological analysis of the synovial tissues confirmed the arthroscopic evidence of synovitis mainly characterized by chronic inflammation with predominance of multinucleated giant cells. The adoption of polarized light microscopy revealed the presence of brightly bi-refractive material (LARS wear particles) in the synovial tissue; at higher magnification wear debris were detected inside the cytoplasma of multi nucleated cells. The histological analysis of the removed LARS revealed a surrounding typical foreign body reaction with poor signs of fibrovascular ingrowth of the synthetic ligament.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings could not clearly advocate a unique mechanism of LARS-ACL reconstruction failure: biologic issues (poor tissue ingrowth) and mechanical issues (fibers properties and tunnel position) probably concur in a multi factorial manner. ACL reconstruction using artificial ligaments can not be considered a simple surgery. Artificial augments require some expertise and could therefore achieve better results if used by skilled sport surgeons other than trainees or low volume surgeons. The Authors believe that ACL reconstruction with synthetic devices still have restricted indications for selected patients (e.g. elderly patients who require a fast recovery, professional athlete, autologous tendons not available and/or refusing donor tendons). Our study arises additional suspicion on the unresponsiveness of synthetic fibers and claim some concern in the implantation of synthetic devices.