Does Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes to Primary ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Combined Tibial Deflexion Osteotomy and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Improves Knee Function and Stability: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Patients with excessive posterior tibial slope (PTS) may have higher risks of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACL-R) failure, and clinical outcomes after revision ACL-R procedures are typically poor.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the literature summarizing the clinical and radiological outcomes of the surgical treatment of ACL insufficiency in the setting of excessive PTS using a tibial deflexion osteotomy combined with ACL-R.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and OVID Medline databases from 1990 to present. Inclusion criteria were: studies of outcomes of isolated tibial deflexion osteotomies performed with primary or revision ACL-R in the English language. Data extracted included study demographic information, type of tibial deflexion osteotomy and concomitant procedures, radiological outcomes, patient reported outcome scores, and postoperative complications FINDINGS: Six studies, with 133 knees were identified. All included studies were retrospective case series, with a weighted mean follow-up of 3.39 years. In 106 of 133 (79.7%) knees, tibial deflexion osteotomy was performed concomitantly with an ACL-R, whereas in 27 of 133 (20.3%) knees the procedures were staged. 22, 45, and 66 of 133 knees (16.5%, 33.8%, and 49.6%) underwent primary, 1st revision, and 2nd or greater revision ACL-R, respectively. 3 of 133 (2.25%) knees demonstrated recurrent ACL graft failure at final follow-up. On average, PTS decreased from 15.2 degrees preoperatively to 7.1 degrees postoperatively. Mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scores increased from 42.5, 46.4, and 4.2 preoperatively to 71.8, 89.0, and 6.7 postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review suggest that combined ACL-R and tibial deflexion osteotomy may be effective in decreasing PTS and improving knee function and stability.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review; Level of evidence 4.

A novel surgical technique for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an isolated rectus femoris tendon autograft

INTRODUCTION

Only a few anatomic studies have described an isolated rectus femoris tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This study aims to demonstrate a new surgical technique utilising the rectus femoris tendon for ACL reconstruction. This study hypothesises that the rectus tendon autograft will yield satisfying postoperative outcomes in terms of stability, with minimal complications at the harvest site.

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated the outcomes of 28 revision ACL reconstructions using a rectus tendon autograft with a mean follow-up of 41.7 (range, 24.0-64.8) months. A 3 cm longitudinal incision was used to harvest the rectus tendon with an open tendon stripper. Intraoperative collected data included the length of the tendon and thickness of a 4-fold graft. Further outcome parameters include anterior cruciate ligament stability and range of motion. Additionally, postoperative complications, especially donor site morbidity, were documented in type and frequency.

RESULTS

The mean tendon length measured 32.4 cm (range, 30-35 cm). After preparing a 4-fold graft, the mean diameter was 9.2 mm (range, 8.0-10 mm) at the tibial and 9.0 mm (range, 7.5-10 mm) at the femoral end. Stability evaluated by the Lachman test improved significantly from 2 (Interquartile range (IQR), 2-3) preoperatively to 0 (IQR, 0-1) postoperatively (p < .001). Rerupture of the anterior cruciate ligament graft was observed in 2 patients (7.1%). Four patients showed a persistent extension deficit of about 5 degrees postoperatively. Two of them underwent revision surgery due to a Cyclops lesion. Only one patient complained of prolonged pain at the harvest site (3.6%).

CONCLUSION

The 4-fold rectus tendon represents a novel autograft technique in revision ACL reconstruction. This study provides evidence of appropriate graft dimensions and satisfying postoperative outcomes regarding stability. The technique is associated with a low complication rate at the harvest site.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, IV.

Difference of Knee Strength Recovery Between Revision and Primary ACL Reconstruction

Different grafting procedures are available to restore knee stability after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We compared knee strength recovery between ACL revision surgery and primary reconstruction. One hundred and ten patients with ACL revision surgery were matched with 110 patients with primary reconstruction based on the graft procedure. The isokinetic knee strength had been assessed for the first 9 months post-surgery. Knee laxity, function, and activity score were also evaluated. Limb symmetry index for knee extensor and flexor strength was not different at 4-, 6- and 9-months post-surgery between revision surgery and primary reconstruction. These results depended on ipsilateral or contralateral graft choice. Ipsilateral hamstring tendon (HT) and contralateral bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) graft procedures were similar for a revision of a BPTB graft failure. Contralateral HT procedure was better than ipsilateral BPTB procedure for a revision of a HT graft failure. The early recovery of isokinetic knee strength after ACL revision surgery regardless of the HT or BPTB procedures, was similar to the recovery after primary ACL reconstruction with the same graft technique. These results apparently depended on a temporary quadriceps arthrogenic muscle inhibition and on a persistent donor site morbidity, concerning the new and the previous grafts, respectively.

Evaluation of Failed ACL Reconstruction: An Updated Review

Failure rates among primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) range from 3.2% to 11.1%. Recently, there has been increased focus on surgical and anatomic considerations which predispose patients to failure, including excessive posterior tibial slope (PTS), unaddressed high-grade pivot shift, and improper tunnel placement. The purpose of this review was to provide a current summary and analysis of the literature regarding patient-related and technical factors surrounding revision ACLR, rehabilitation considerations, overall outcomes and return to sport (RTS) for patients who undergo revision ACLR. There is a convincingly higher re-tear and revision rate in patients who undergo ACLR with allograft than autograft, especially amongst the young, athletic population. Unrecognized Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PLC) injury is a common cause of ACLR failure and current literature suggests concurrent operative management of high-grade PLC injuries. Given the high rates of revision surgery in young active patients who return to pivoting sports, the authors recommend strong consideration of a combined ACLR + Anterolateral Ligament (ALL) or Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) procedure in this population. Excessive PTS has been identified as an independent risk factor for ACL graft failure. Careful consideration of patient-specific factors such as age and activity level may influence the success of ACL reconstruction. Additional technical considerations including graft choice and fixation method, tunnel position, evaluation of concomitant posterolateral corner and high-grade pivot shift injuries, and the role of excessive posterior tibial slope may play a significant role in preventing failure.

Outcomes of Slope-Reducing Proximal Tibial Osteotomy Combined With a Third Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedure With a Focus on Return to Impact Sports

BACKGROUND

An increased posterior tibial slope (PTS) is a proven risk factor for both native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and ACL graft insufficiency. Anterior closing wedge high tibial osteotomy (ACW-HTO) for PTS correction is a validated procedure in revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of combined ACW-HTO and at least a second revision ACLR procedure on knee stability, function, and sports performance in a large series of patients. The hypothesis was that patients would return to impact sports after ACW-HTO combined with a second or third revision ACLR procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients who underwent a second (or more) revision ACLR procedure and ACW-HTO between June 1, 2015, and June 1, 2019, and had a PTS >12° were included. The mean age was 29.60 ± 6.31 years, and the mean preoperative PTS was 13.79°± 1.50°. The cases were analyzed at a mean follow-up of 2.96 ± 0.83 years (range, 2-5 years). At the last follow-up, the rate of patients returning to impact sports (based on the University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA], activity scale), ACL graft status (per magnetic resonance imaging), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, Lysholm scores, and laxity measurements using a knee arthrometer were recorded.

RESULTS

The total number of patients participating in impact sports and high-impact sports was as follows: 43 and 30, respectively, before the injury; 0 and 0, respectively, preoperatively; and 31 and 12, respectively, postoperatively. At the last follow-up, the UCLA score was ≥8 in 48.44% of the patients, and only 16 patients returned to their preinjury level of activity. At a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, there was clinical improvement in the IKDC score from 37.98 ± 12.48 preoperatively to 69.06 ± 12.30 postoperatively (P < .0001), in the Lysholm score from 51.94 ± 14.03 preoperatively to 74.45 ± 11.44 postoperatively (P < .001), and in the UCLA score. However, this clinical improvement did not equate to preinjury values for all outcome scores (P < .001). The preinjury IKDC and Lysholm scores were 76.98 ± 11.71 and 89.26 ± 8.91, respectively. The mean change in anterior knee laxity using a knee arthrometer at 134 and 250 N was -4.03 ± 0.18 mm and -3.63 ± 0.16, respectively. There were 3 cases of a rerupture with a severe pivot shift on the clinical examination. None of these patients underwent revision per the patient's preference. Increased knee recurvatum was observed in one-third of the patients, but all were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of chronic ACL-deficient knees, PTS reduction (ACW-HTO) with revision ACLR restored knee stability and improved function with an acceptable rate of specific complications. Increased knee recurvatum was observed in one-third of the patients, but all were asymptomatic. Also, approximately half of the patients were able to return to impact sports.

Rotational stability can be enhanced in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the over-the-top augmentation technique compared to single bundle technique

PURPOSE

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is technically challenging due to mispositioned tunnels, bone loss, and tunnel enlargement, which may compromise graft fixation and result in failure. To obtain firm graft fixation and strength in one stage, we utilized an over-the-top augmentation technique using an Achilles tendon allograft in revision ACL reconstruction (OA-ACLR). This study compared OA-ACLR with single-bundle ACL reconstruction (SB-ACLR). We hypothesized that OA-ACLR would enhance the postoperative knee joint rotational stability.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 47 patients who underwent revisional OA-ACLR and 48 who underwent primary SB-ACLR with minimum follow-up of 6 months. Knee instability was evaluated with the anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift tests preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Side-to-side differences were compared with the non-affected side at the final follow-up. Function was evaluated using the IKDC subjective and Lysholm knee scores preoperatively and at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ in terms of sex, age, BMI, and etiology. There were no significant differences in concomitant surgical procedures, such as meniscectomy and meniscus repair, between the two groups (p = 0.335, > 0.99). Both groups significantly improved in the anterior drawer, Lachman, pivot shift tests, and IKDC and Lysholm knee scores after surgery (all p < 0.001). The OA-ACLR group showed significantly higher rotational stability in the pivot shift test than the SB-ACLR group (p = 0.017). The postoperative side-to-side difference, the IKDC and Lysholm scores showed no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.34, 0.301, 0.438).

CONCLUSIONS

OA-ACLR showed enhanced rotational stability with pivot shift test compared to SB-ACLR. It may be considered a useful alternative for revision ACL reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament failure and management

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure can be defined as abnormal knee function due to graft insufficiency with abnormal laxity or failure to recreate a functional knee according to the expected outcome. Traumatic ruptures have been reported as the most common reason for failure. They are followed by technical errors, missed concomitant knee injuries, and biological failures. An in-depth preoperative examination that includes a medical history, clinical examinations, advanced imaging, and other appropriate methods is of utmost importance. There is still no consensus as to the ideal graft, but autografts are the favorite choice even in ACL revision. Concomitant meniscal treatment, ligamentous reconstruction, and osteotomies can be performed in the same surgical session to remove anatomical or biomechanical risk factors for the failure. Patient expectations should be managed since outcomes after ACL revision are not as good as those following primary ACL reconstruction.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Plus Lateral Extra-Articular Procedure Results in Superior Stability and Lower Failure Rates Than Does Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision but Shows No Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes or Return to Sports

PURPOSE

To determine whether comparative clinical studies demonstrate significant advantages of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) combined with a lateral extra-articular procedure (LEAP), with respect to graft rupture rates, knee stability, return to sport rates, and patient-reported outcome measures, compared with isolated RACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses Guidelines. A PubMed search was conducted using the key words "revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" combined with any of the following additional terms, "lateral extra-articular tenodesis" OR "anterolateral ligament reconstruction" OR "Lemaire." All relevant comparative clinical studies were included. Key clinical data were extracted and evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies (seven Level III studies and a one Level IV study) were identified and included. Most studies reported more favorable outcomes with combined procedures with respect to failure rates (0%-13% following RACLR+LEAP, and 4.4%-21.4% following isolated RACLR), postoperative side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.3-3.9 mm following RACLR+LEAP and 1.8-5.9 mm following isolated RACLR), and high-grade pivot shift (0%-11.1% following RACLR+LEAP and 10.2%-23.8% in patients following isolated RACLR). There were no consistent differences between isolated and combined procedures with respect to return to sport or patient-reported outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrates that the addition of a LEAP to RACLR was associated with an advantage with respect to ACL graft failure rates and avoidance of high-grade postoperative knee laxity across almost all included studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic review of level III to IV studies.

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.

Could anterior closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy be a viable option in patients with high posterior tibial slope who undergo anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent ACL reconstruction (ACLR) combined with anterior closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy (ACW-HTO) for posterior tibial slope (PTS) reduction to investigate the efficacy of this procedure in improving anterior knee stability and preventing graft failure in primary and revision ACLR.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in six databases (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus). The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The initial screening identified 1246 studies. Each eligible clinical article was screened according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 levels of evidence (LoE), excluding clinical studies of LoE V. Quality assessment of the articles was performed using the ROBINS-I methodological evaluation. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). For the outcomes that were possible to perform a meta-analysis, a p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Five clinical studies were included in the final analysis. A total of 110 patients were examined. Pre- and post-operative clinical and objective tests that assess anteroposterior knee stability, PTS, clinical scores, and data on surgical characteristics, complications, return to sports activity, and graft failure after ACLR were investigated. A meta-analysis was conducted using R software, version 4.1.3 (2022, R Core Team), for Lysholm score and PTS outcomes. A statistically significant improvement for both these clinical and radiological outcomes (p < 0.05) after the ACW-HTO surgical procedure was found.

CONCLUSION

ACLR combined with ACW-HTO restores knee stability and function with satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in patients with an anterior cruciate ligament injury associated with a high PTS and seems to have a protective effect from further ruptures on the reconstructed ACL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Primary Biceps Tenodesis Is Superior to Revision Following Failed SLAP Repair

Purpose

To compare satisfaction and return to play (RTP) rates between patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis for a symptomatic SLAP tear and patients undergoing secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent subpectoral mini-open biceps tenodesis following failed SLAP repair between January 2011 and October 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria included age older than 16 years, skeletal maturity, and a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Both athletes and nonathletes were included across all types of sport. Patients who had anterior or posterior instability or rotator cuff tears were excluded; in addition, those requiring concomitant procedures were excluded. Case-control matching was performed using age, sex, indication, follow-up, and type of sport, to generate a 3:1 control group for the primary biceps tenodesis cohort. Primary outcome measurements were collected via telephone in 2020 and included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score, Subjective Shoulder Value score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and revisions. RTP and timing of RTP were evaluated as secondary outcomes. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

The current study included 76 patients in total; 57 patients with primary biceps tenodesis, and 19 patients with secondary biceps tenodesis. The mean age was 39 years (19-48 years), 100% were male, and the mean follow-up was 54 months (16-99 months). Patient reported outcomes were obtained postoperatively via telephone survey. Overall, we found that primary biceps tenodesis patients reported greater American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (89.9 vs 76.4, P = .0162), lower visual analog scale scores (1.0 vs 3.1, P = .0034), and greater Subjective Shoulder Value scores (86.7 vs 64.7, P = .0004). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (84% vs 75%, P = .5025), or timing of RTP (8.2 months vs 8.1 months, P = .9529) between patient groups. Patients reported playing tennis, swimming, golf, rock climbing, and basketball. No patients required a further shoulder surgery after undergoing biceps tenodesis.

Conclusions

In this study, patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis had significantly better functional outcomes compared with secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair.

Level of Evidence

III, retrospective comparative study.

[Mid-to-long term clinical outcomes and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament revision]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the mid-to-long term clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery and to analyze their predictors.

METHODS

The medical records of 235 patients undergoing ACL revision surgery between Jan. 2001 and Dec. 2015 at Department of Sports Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital were reviewed. Data were collected including demographic information, information related to revision surgery (time and cause of graft failure, date of revision surgery, surgical technique, combined injuries and management, etc.), as well as information related to primary ACL reconstruction (time, cause and mechanism of first-time ACL rupture, date of primary ACL reconstruction, surgical technique, combined injuries and management, etc.). Patients were followed up at least 2 years after revision surgery for clinical outcomes [Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee score]. Post-revision surgeries on the involved knee and the contralateral knee joint were also documented. Multivariate regression model was used to analyze the predictors of clinical outcomes after ACL revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 166 (70.63%) patients were followed up at a mean of (4.44±2.40) years (2.03-14.63 years). Clinical outcomes improved significantly at the last follow-up from pre-operative level, with the Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores improving from 70.51±21.25, 3.39±1.77, 63.78±15.04 to 88.64±14.36, 4.67±1.739, 80.23±13.31 (P < 0.05), respectively. Three (1.81%) patients experienced infection while 39 (23.49%) patients underwent surgery after revision surgery during the follow-up. Compared with that those occurred during sports, graft failure that occurred during daily activities or due to surgical technical errors that led to poorer clinical outcomes, with the Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores of 9.90 (95%CI: 1.49-18.31), 1.41 (95%CI: 0.10-2.72), 10.35 (95%CI: 0.17-20.54), and 8.53 (95%CI: 1.31-15.75), 1.28 (95%CI: 0.14-2.43), 9.39 (95%CI: 1.03-17.74) lower, respectively. Compared with antero-medial portal, transtibial technique for placement of the femoral bone tunnel showed poorer Lysholm scores of 11.18 (95%CI: 4.73-17.63, P=0.001). Concurrent repair of medial meniscus yielded higher IKDC scores of 11.06 (95%CI: 1.21-20.92, P=0.029) than those with intact medical meniscus. Other factors showed no significant effect.

CONCLUSION

ACL revision surgery is able to restore knee stability and improve knee function. Graft failure caused by sports, concurrent repair of medical meniscus and antero-medial portal technique predicts better outcomes after revision surgery.

Three-in-One Procedure for Revision ACL Reconstruction

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a challenge due to the unfavorable condition of the knee and the lack of autogenous graft tissue. Anterolateral structure (ALS) reconstruction of the knee has been proved effective to address the unfavorable condition in revision cases, and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) is a special technique that can enhance anterolateral stability of the knee without graft tissue. We introduce a procedure that combines ACL and ALS reconstruction, as well as LET for failed ACL reconstruction. The critical point of this technique is using the anterior half of the iliotibial band to realize LET and to partially reconstruct the ACL. Our clinical experience indicates this technique is extremely useful in revision ACL reconstruction without enough free graft tissue. This technique will provide a reasonable choice in revision ACL reconstruction.