Revision of failed prosthetic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The Role of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Clinical Studies

BACKGROUND

After its success in restoring rotational stability and reducing failure rates in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) or anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) has been endorsed for use in revision ACLR surgery, where failure rates are historically higher.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether the addition of a LET or ALLR results in superior clinical outcomes and stability compared with isolated revision ACLR (iACLR).

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: ("extra-articular" OR "tenodesis" OR "anterolateral ligament" OR "iliotibial") AND ("anterior cruciate ligament") AND ("revision" OR "re-operation"). Data pertaining to all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rotational stability, and postoperative complications were extracted from each study.

RESULTS

After abstract and full-text screening, 10 clinical comparative studies were included. There were 793 patients, of whom 390 had an iACLR while 403 had an ACLR augmented with a LET or an ALLR (augmented ACLR [aACLR]). The mean time for assessment of PROMs was 35 months. The aACLR group had superior International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.54; P = .04), rotational stability (odds ratio [OR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.91 to 4.01; P < .00001), and lower side-to-side difference (OR, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.24; P = .0003) than those without the augmentation. Furthermore, they were less likely to fail (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.80; P = .007). Subgroup analysis in the higher-grade laxity cohort (grade ≥2) revealed an even greater IKDC score (SMD, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.86; P = .005) and an improved Lysholm score (SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.67; P < .0001) in the aACLR group.

CONCLUSION

Revision aACLR with a LET or an ALLR can improve subjective IKDC scores, restore rotational stability, and reduce failure rates compared with iACLR. Although controversy remains on the necessity of augmenting all revision ACLRs, the present meta-analysis advocates adding a lateral procedure, particularly in those with a higher-grade pivot shift.

Anterior cruciate ligament revision with Achilles tendon allograft in young athletes

BACKGROUND

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

HYPOTHESIS

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TYPE OF STUDY AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, level IV.

The Role of an Extra-Articular Tenodesis in Revision of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Patients who present for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision with a high-grade pivot shift at the time of an index ACL revision procedure and subsequent reconstruction failure or a high-grade pivot shift at revision surgery, patients with generalized joint laxity, and those requiring softs tissue grafts should be considered candidates for lateral tenodesis to supplement intraarticular graft revision. Although there is no consensus regarding the optimal lateral tenodesis technique, due to the tibial positioning associated with tensioning and fixation of extra-articular procedures, a lateral tenodesis should not be used in patients with posterolateral corner injuries or lateral compartment articular disease.

Patient Outcomes and Predictors of Success After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background:

Patient outcomes and predictors of success after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are currently limited in the literature. Existing studies either have a small study size or are difficult to interpret because of the multiple surgeons involved in the care of the study sample.

Purpose:

To determine patient outcomes and predictors of success or failure after a single-stage revision ACL reconstruction by a single fellowship-trained senior surgeon at a single institution.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A total of 78 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2014 were contacted and available for follow-up. The mean time from revision procedure to follow-up was 52 months. Those patients who were able to participate in the study sent in a completed Tegner activity level scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, and IKDC Current Health Assessment Form. The patients’ medical records were also thoroughly reviewed.

Results:

Five patients had subsequent failure after revision surgery. The median Tegner score was 6 at follow-up, and the mean subjective IKDC score was 72.5. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome scores when comparing revision graft type, body mass index, sex, need for bone grafting, and time from failure to revision. Patients with failures after primary ACL reconstruction secondary to a traumatic event were found to have statistically significantly higher IKDC scores (mean, 76.6) after revision when compared with nontraumatic failures (mean, 67.1), even when controlling for confounders (P < .017).

Conclusion:

Revision ACL reconstruction is effective in improving patient activity levels and satisfaction. However, the subjective IKDC results are quite variable and likely based on multiple factors. Patients with traumatic injuries contributing to graft failure after primary ACL reconstruction had a statistically significantly, although not clinically significant, higher IKDC score after revision surgery compared with nontraumatic failures. These data may be useful when counseling a patient on whether to pursue revision ACL reconstruction surgery.

Reliability of early postoperative radiographic assessment of tunnel placement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of radiographic assessment of tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

Seven sports fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons in the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) group participated in the study. We prospectively enrolled 54 consecutive patients after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Postoperative plain radiographs were obtained including a full-extension anteroposterior view of the knee, a lateral view of the knee in full extension, and a notch view at 45° of flexion (Rosenberg view). Three blinded reviewers performed 8 different radiographic measurements including those of Harner and Aglietti/Jonsson. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to determine reliability of the measurements. Intrarater reliability was assessed by repeated measurements of a subset of 20 patient images from 1 institution, and inter-rater reliability was assessed by use of all 54 sets of films from a total of 4 institutions.

RESULTS

Intraobserver reliability for femoral measures ranged from none to substantial, with notch height having the worst results. Intraobserver reliability was moderate to almost perfect for tibial measures. Interobserver reliability ranged from slight to moderate for femoral measures. The Harner method for determining tunnel depth was more reliable than the Aglietti/Jonsson method. Interobserver reliability for tibial measures ranged from fair to substantial. The presence of metal interference screws did not improve reliability of measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative radiographs are easily obtained, but our results show that radiographic measurements are of quite variable reliability, with most of the results falling into the fair to moderate categories.

Does computer navigation system really improve early clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Inaccurate tunnel placement is an important cause of failure in conventional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Controversy currently exists over the usefulness of computer-assisted navigation systems in addressing this problem. Five randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials comparing computer-navigated versus conventional technique in ACL reconstructions until December 1, 2009 were identified through a systematical database search. The clinical outcomes of the trials were analyzed by Lachman test, pivot-shift test, International Knee Documentation Committee knee score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score. Mean difference or risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. Heterogeneity across the studies was also assessed. We found that the use of computer-assisted navigation systems led to additional operative time (8-17min). No significant differences between computer-navigated and conventional groups were found in terms of knee stability and functional assessment during short-term follow-up. The role of computer-assisted navigation systems on clinical performance and longevity needs further investigation in large sample, long-term randomized trials.

Adoption of new technology in sports medicine: case studies of the Gore-Tex prosthetic ligament and of thermal capsulorrhaphy

Evaluation of new technology in sports medicine is supposed to promote improvements in the care of patients. It is also supposed to prohibit technology that can harm patients. This evaluation process is not perfect and at times can promote technology that not only does not help patients but may harm them. Two examples of new sports medicine technology that were widely adopted but eventually abandoned are thermal capsulorrhaphy for treatment of shoulder instability and the Gore-Tex prosthetic ligament (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ) for patients with anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. On analysis of the quick adoption of these 2 failed procedures, certain recommendations are apparent for improvement of the evaluation process. There must be a sound rationale behind any new technology, basic science research into the theory of the medical technology, and demonstrated improvements in animal models and clinical studies that are prospective cohort studies or randomized controlled trials, and finally, there must be careful follow-up and postmarket surveillance.

Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective review of management and outcome of 10 patients with an average 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, no previous published study has focused on management and outcome of repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in terms of functional result and meniscus and articular cartilage status.

HYPOTHESIS

Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves knee stability, but with inferior results for functional outcome compared with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Meniscal tears and subsequent articular cartilage degeneration are more prevalent with successive revisions due to recurrent laxity.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2003 and November 2006, a consecutive series of 10 patients with an average age at 30 years (range, 17-48) were operated on for a repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (2 revisions after a primary reconstruction) with arthroscopic procedures. A clinical and a radiographic evaluation were performed to assess anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failures, outcome of revisions, and causes of failures. Meniscal tears and articular cartilage lesions were analyzed.

RESULTS

The average follow-up of the second revision was 38 months (range, 12-61). At latest follow-up, final International Knee Documentation Committee assessment was excellent or good in 7 cases. Postoperatively, only 2 patients recovered to the same sports activity level they had before their first anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Four had a lower level, and 4 discontinued sports activity. The postoperative average side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual difference was 1.3 +/- 1.9 mm. Nine patients had meniscal tears and 7 had articular cartilage lesions. Meniscal tears, meniscectomies, and articular cartilage degeneration increased after the second revision (P = .016, P = .0098, and P = .0197, respectively). Severe articular cartilage degeneration (International Cartilage Repair Society grade III and IV lesions) was found in patients with bad functional outcome (final International Knee Documentation Committee assessment C or D) (P = .0472). Incidence of articular cartilage degeneration was found to be more prevalent in cases of meniscal tears and partial meniscectomy at the same tibiofemoral compartment (P = .0157). Index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and first revision failures were caused by recurrent trauma (60% and 70%, respectively) or a surgical technical error with tunnel malpositioning (40% and 10%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Outcome of repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was excellent or good in 70% of the cases, although decreased after the second revision, in relation to the occurrence of meniscal tears and articular cartilage lesions. Meniscal and articular cartilage lesions were more frequent and more severe with recurrent laxity. The cause of failures was mainly recurrent trauma, followed by surgical technical errors.

Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results in 107 patients

BACKGROUND

Although techniques and options for suitable graft substitutes for anterior cruciate ligament surgery continue to improve, failures occur because of many reasons. Errors in surgical techniques seem to be important reasons.

HYPOTHESIS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels may be the most important reason for these failures. Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction, using autografts, may yield acceptable outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 148 anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstructions performed in our hospital using autografts. One hundred and seven patients were followed up at a mean of 72.9 +/- 20.6 months. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Lysholm score, the Tegner rating system, the International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation form, and the KT-1000 arthrometer. Radiographs were evaluated for signs of osteoarthritis according to the Jaeger and Wirth classification.

RESULTS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels was the most important reason (63.5%) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. The average Lysholm score improved significantly at the follow-up (88.5 +/- 12.4 vs 51.5 +/- 24.9; P < .001). Moreover, the average Tegner activity score improved significantly compared with the activity score before revision surgery (6.3 +/- 1.8 vs 2.8 +/- 1.8; P < .001). The International Knee Documentation Committee score was A in 17 cases, B in 45, C in 37, and D in 8. Radiographic evaluation revealed that 33 patients had degenerative findings of grade I, 35 of grade II, 16 of grade III, and 2 of grade IV.

CONCLUSION

Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction provides satisfactory midterm results as far as stability and function of the knee are concerned. In spite of these favorable subjective and objective results, the radiological evaluation revealed a significant progression of osteoarthritis.

Primary versus single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective matched-group analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a low level of evidence about clinical results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts.

HYPOTHESIS

Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction improves knee stability but shows inferior results for functional and subjective outcome and knee stability compared with primary reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Between October 1997 and July 2005, 166 single-stage or 2-stage revision ACL reconstructions were done using different graft types. One hundred twenty-four cases underwent a single-stage revision reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendon grafts. At the time of data analysis, 67 cases fulfilled the criteria of minimum 2-year follow-up. Five patients were lost to follow-up (follow-up rate, 91%). Four patients (6%) who experienced graft rupture were counted as failures but not subjected to further detailed analysis. Because of loss to follow-up and exclusion criteria (n = 12), 50 patients were included in the study. For a comparative matched-group analysis, patients with a primary hamstring tendon graft ACL reconstruction were selected out of a database with minimum 2 years' follow-up (N = 284). Patients were followed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, KT-1000 arthrometer testing, and additional functional tests.

RESULTS

Four of 62 available patients (6.5%) in the revision group experienced graft failure, which was comparable to 16 of 284 (5.6%) in the primary reconstruction group. When the 2 matched groups of 50 patients were further compared, postoperative IKDC results showed no significant differences between groups. The manual maximum KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was 2.1 +/- 1.6 mm for the revision group and 2.2 +/- 1.1 mm for the primary reconstruction group. The Lysholm score was significantly better in the primary reconstruction group (P = .014). The incidence of postoperative positive pivot-shift test results was not significantly different. The primary reconstruction group showed significantly less extension deficits. Functional testing revealed significantly better results for the primary reconstruction group for stair climbing, squatting, knee bending, and duck walk.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient series, primary ACL reconstruction showed significantly better results in Lysholm score, although the IKDC score and objective knee stability showed no significant difference between the groups. Thus, parameters other than measurable knee stability must be responsible for the inferior results of the revision reconstruction group.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction due to knee instability

Introduction. The primary goal of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is to provide stability to the knee and regain full range of motion. Although great improvement has been achieved in surgical techniques and rehabilitation, some patients are not completely satisfied with the results of surgery and a revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is necessary. Material and Methods. Revision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was carried out in eleven patients with bone-tendon-bone autografts. The surgery was performed in a standard manner and the graft was taken from the opposite knee. Eight men and three women were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 26 (17-34) years. Repeated instability of the knee was caused by injury in five patients, while six patients were unsatisfied with the position of the graft. Results. The follow up was 4,2 years (2-8) respectively. The mean Lysholm and Gillquist score after operation was 88 (65-90). Preoperative and postoperative tibial shift was 9mm (6-15) and 2mm (0-4), respectively. The preoperative pivot shift test was grade 2 and 3 in all patients. Postoperative pivot shift test was negative in seven patients, in three it was grade 1 and grade 2 in one patient. According to the IKDC scale, preoperative results were abnormal in three patients and in eight they were severely abnormal. Postoperative IKDC score was normal in five patients, in four nearly normal, and in one patient the score was still abnormal. Five patients continued to be active in sports activities, four patients decreased the level of sports activity and two stopped all sports activities. Conclusion. Success of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction requires detailed preoperative evaluation of the repeated instability of the knee. The treatment plan is then decided upon. The patients must be preoperatively informed about the real possibilities of revision surgery. Only a mutual collaboration between the patient, physiatrist and a surgeon is a key for successful treatment and return to previous level of sports activities.

Current concepts review: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Failed anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction presents a difficult clinical challenge. Successful revision ACL reconstruction depends on identifying the causes of failure and correcting technical or diagnostic errors. Failed ACL reconstruction may be either traumatic or atraumatic. Atraumatic failures may be attributable to technical errors, diagnostic errors, or failure of graft incorporation. Published outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction have been worse than for primary ACL reconstruction. The preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction are reviewed.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons and lateral extra-articular reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has only rarely been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery with use of an autogenous doubled semitendinosus and gracilis graft in association with an extra-articular procedure.

METHODS

Between 1997 and 2003, thirty patients underwent a repeat reconstruction of a previously reconstructed torn anterior cruciate ligament with use of a doubled semitendinosus and gracilis graft combined with an extra-articular reconstruction. Primary reconstruction had been done with an autogenous patellar tendon graft in twenty-six patients and with a prosthetic ligament in four patients; the average time from the primary reconstruction to the revision was five years. Functional outcomes, graft survival, and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at a mean of five years. A graft was considered to have failed when a revision was done or when the side-to-side difference on KT-1000 arthrometer testing was >5 mm and/or the pivot-shift test grade was greater than a trace.

RESULTS

One patient underwent another revision reconstruction because of graft failure at three years postoperatively. The mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee score for the remaining twenty-nine patients was 84 +/- 12 points, and the mean Lysholm knee score was 90 +/- 10 points. The side-to-side difference as measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer with maximum manual force was <3 mm in twenty patients (of the twenty-eight who returned for follow-up), between 3 and 5 mm in six patients, and >5 mm in two patients. The result of the pivot shift examination was normal in fifteen patients, slightly positive in eleven patients, and positive in two patients. Twenty-five percent of the patients showed no radiographic signs of degenerative joint disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with use of an autogenous doubled semitendinosus and gracilis graft combined with an extra-articular procedure provided satisfactory functional outcomes, with a failure rate of 10%.

Early aseptic loosening of a total knee arthroplasty due to Gore-Tex particle-induced osteolysis

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the use of synthetic graft material has been used as an alternative to biologic grafts. The use of these grafts has largely been abandoned in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament because of mechanical failure of the graft and production of wear debris leading to synovitis and recurrent effusions. This article presents a case of early, extensive periprosthetic osteolysis around a total knee arthroplasty associated with wear debris from retained fragments of a Gore-Tex (WL Gore and associates, Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz) (polytetrafluoroethylene) anterior cruciate ligament graft.

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using the polyester ABC ligament scaffold

We carried out a prospective study of 71 patients who had undergone reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with the ABC scaffold. Their mean age was 28 years (18 to 50). All had either sub-acute or chronic traumatic deficiency of the ligament. The mean period of follow-up was five years (four to seven). Assessment included the use of the International Knee Documentation Committee score, the modified Lysholm score, the Tegner Activity score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score and measurement with the KT-1000 arthrometer. Two patients had mild recurrent synovitis. There were no infections and no failures of the ligament. During the period of study, two patients sustained a traumatic fracture of a femoral condyle. The implants retained their integrity in both cases. All patients returned to their previous or enhanced levels of daily activity by three months after operation and 56 (79%) achieved their pre-injury level of sporting activity by six months. The patients who were competing in National level sports returned to play at one level less after operation than before. The Lysholm score showed that 58% of the patients (41) were excellent, 34% (24) good, and 8% (6) fair, with a mean post-operative score of 93. According to the International Knee Documentation Committee score, 35% of knees (25) were ‘normal’, 52% (37) ‘nearly normal’ and 13% (9) ‘abnormal’. Complete satisfaction was noted in 90% of patients (64). The development of osteoarthritis and the management of anterior cruciate deficiency associated with laxity of the medial collateral ligament remains uncertain. Our results indicate that in the medium-term, the ABC ligament scaffold is suitable and effective when early and safe return to unrestricted activities is demanded. We acknowledge the current general hostility towards reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with artificial materials following reports of early failure and chronic synovitis associatiated with the production of particulate debris. We did not encounter these problems.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a midterm patient assessment

Twenty patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Before revision surgery all patients reported functional instability with daily and or sporting activities. The causes of primary graft failure have been identified. Four different types of graft were used for the revision reconstruction. A comprehensive knee analysis was used to assess the graft performance both subjectively and objectively at an arranged follow-up visit. In general our study shows that although there is residual antero-posterior laxity on clinical assessment and KT-1000 instrumentation after revision surgery, the majority of patients thought the results were subjectively good or excellent. The study highlights the well-recognised technical failures of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and confirms good subjective results. The poor correlation between the physical examination (objective) and the patient's perception (subjective) of the revision surgery is discussed.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autografts with a polyester fixation device

Twenty-nine patients who had undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision were evaluated retrospectively between 1992 and 2000. A similar surgical technique was used in all cases. Twenty-six patients underwent revision following failed primary and revision surgery with the ABC scaffold ligament. There were 2 failed primary semitendinosus/gracilis (STG) autografts and one failed bone patella tendon bone (BPTB) autograft. Autologous hamstring tendons (STG) were used in 26 knees, quadriceps tendon in 2 and BPTB autograft in 1 knee. The Mark I Soffix soft tissue fixation device was used in 16 patients and 13 patients underwent reconstruction with the Mark II BH (Button Hole ) Soffix. Follow up evaluation included clinical examination, KT 2000 arthrometric side to side difference (SSD) assessment, Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scoring. The average follow up time was 50+/-22 months. The overall SSD was 1.66+/-1.5 mm, a mean Lysholm score of 87.2+/-12.5 was obtained and 22 patients had an IKDC score of nearly normal (B). In the Mark II (BH Soffix) group knees were significantly tighter than in the Mark I Soffix group (P<0.05) with a mean SSD of 1.23+/-1.3 and 2.0+/-1.6 mm, respectively. However there were no significant differences in the other measured parameters between the two fixation devices. Multiply re-operated knees tended to have lower IKDC and Lysholm scores (not statistically significant). We concluded that the technique reported in this study can restore stability to the knee following failed primary or revision ACL reconstruction and the results in the non-multiply operated knees are comparable to primary reconstruction.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Revision ACL surgery is indicated in patients who present with pathologic anterior laxity on clinical examination that reproduces their symptoms of instability during activities of daily living or athletic activities. The goals of the revision ACL surgery are to stabilize the knee, prevent further injury to the articular cartilage and menisci, and maximize the patient's function. Successful revision ACL surgery requires a thorough preoperative evaluation, including a detailed history, physical examination, and radiographic evaluation. Preoperative planning begins with a determination of the mechanisms of failure for the initial ACL reconstruction. Often a primary, as well as secondary cause, for failure can be identified. The determination of the cause of failure is the first step in a carefully-constructed treatment plan, which includes consideration of skin incisions to be used, method of graft removal, hardware removal, the need for a staged procedure or concomitant surgery, graft material selection, tunnel placement, graft fixation, and postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Despite the most meticulous planning, unanticipated findings may be encountered in the operating room, and the preoperative plan should have enough flexibility to accommodate these developments. Finally, it is crucial to counsel the patient preoperatively to limit his or her expectations regarding their surgical outcome. Given the complexity of revision ACL reconstruction, patient expectations must be adjusted to realistically match the potential for success. With proper planning, attention to detail, and appropriate patient expectations, revision ACL surgery can result in a beneficial and satisfying patient outcome.

Obtaining intra-articular bone grafts arthroscopically for intra-articular grafting

Autogenous bone graft is frequently necessary for arthroscopic procedures and even small open procedures that involve cruciate revision, osteochondritis dissecans repair, and fracture reduction and internal fixation. Currently used sites to obtain bone graft are the iliac crest and Gerdy's tubercle. This article describes an arthroscopic technique for harvest of small amounts of bone graft from the distal femur. This avoids the morbidity of the extra-articular harvest. Tube harvesters frequently used for osteochondral autografts are the primary tool required for this technique. However, as described, the obtaining of bone graft is much less technically exacting than when procuring osteochondral bone plugs. This provides a safe, simple way to obtain extra autogenous bone at minimal additional operative morbidity.

Analysis of retrieved polymer fiber based replacements for the ACL

The present retrospective analysis of 117 surgically excised anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) prostheses was designed to elucidate the etiology and mechanisms of failure of synthetic ligamentous prostheses. They were harvested from young and active patients (26 +/- 7 yrs) at various orthopaedic centers in France between 1983 and 1993. The average duration of implantation of augmentation and replacement prostheses were 21.5 +/- 12.6 and 33.2 +/- 25.3 months, respectively. The principal causes for their excision were ruptures and synovitis. Each ACL prosthesis was examined macroscopically, histologically, and, after tissue removal, by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to determine the model, manufacturer, surgical technique used at implantation, the extent of healing, the site of rupture, and the morphology of the damaged fibers. Fourteen types of ACL prostheses were analysed, each fabricated using a different combination of polymers, fibers and textile constructions. Consequently, they generated a variety of healing characteristics and mechanical responses in vivo. SEM observations revealed that abrasion of the textile fibers as a result of yarn-on-yarn and/or yarn-on-bone contact was a common phenomenon to almost all models, and was the primary cause of prosthetic failure. Healing inside the synthetic ACL was poorly organized, incomplete and unpredictable as the extent of collagenous infiltration into the textile structure did not increase with the duration of implantation. In fact, the collagenous infiltration into certain models appeared to be more detrimental than beneficial since it caused deterioration and fraying of the textile structure rather than serving as a reinforcing matrix around the prosthesis. In conclusion, the present study shows that three mechanisms may be involved in the failure of ACL prostheses: (1) inadequate fiber abrasion resistance against osseous surfaces; (2) flexural and rotational fatigue of the fibers, and (3) loss of integrity of the textile structure due to unpredictable tissue infiltration during healing.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery

An increasing number of revision ACL reconstructions are being performed each year. Revision ACL surgery is challenging and cannot be approached in the same manner as primary ACL surgery. Successful revision ACL surgery requires a detailed history, a comprehensive physical examination, appropriate radiologic studies, and careful preoperative planning. The results of revision ACL surgery do not equal the results of primary ACL surgery, and this should be explained to the patient prior to surgery. In order to avoid repeating errors that led to failure of the primary reconstruction, the etiology of the primary failure must be clearly understood before proceeding with the revision procedure. Although graft failure is the most common reason for failure of the original reconstruction and revision surgery, other non-graft-related problems, such as loss of motion, extensor mechanism dysfunction, and degenerative arthritis, can also result in an unsatisfactory outcome and residual complaints. Errors in surgical technique, specifically nonanatomic graft placement and failure to address associated ligamentous injuries at the time of the original procedure, are responsible for graft failures in most reported series. Preoperative planning must address the issues of graft selection, skin incisions, hardware removal, tunnel placement, graft fixation, and associated ligamentous injuries. Loss of motion and in some cases enlarged bone tunnels may require a staged approach. Because of the weaker initial graft fixation, laxity of secondary restraints, the potential need to address associated ligamentous injuries, and the presence of more significant articular cartilage changes, an accelerated rehabilitation program is inappropriate in most revision cases. Successful revision ACL surgery requires a motivated and compliant patient, a well thought out plan, and an experienced surgeon who is knowledgeable and proficient with a variety of different surgical techniques, graft sources, and graft fixation techniques.