Results of revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery

Considerations for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A review of the current literature

Background

Failure rates among primary Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction 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.

Methods

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.

Results

In revision ACLR patients, those receiving autografts are 2.78 times less likely to experience a re-rupture compared to patients who receive allografts. Additionally, individuals with properly positioned tunnels and removable implants are considered strong candidates for one-stage revision procedures. Conversely, cases involving primary tunnel widening of approximately 15 mm are typically indicative of two-stage revision ACLR. These findings underscore the importance of graft selection and surgical approach in optimizing outcomes for patients undergoing revision ACLR.

Conclusion

Given the high rates of revision surgery in young, active patients who return to pivoting sports, the literature recommends strong consideration of a combined ACLR + anterolateral ligament (ALL) or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) procedure in this population. Unrecognized posterolateral corner (PLC) injury is a common cause of ACLR failure and current literature suggests concurrent operative management of high-grade PLC injuries. Excessive PTS has been identified as an independent risk factor for ACL graft failure. Consider revision ACLR with combined slope-reducing tibial osteotomy in cases of posterior tibial slope greater than 12°.

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 of ACL-R procedures are typically poor.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed 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, first revision, and second or greater revision ACL-R, respectively. Three of 133 (2.25%) knees demonstrated recurrent ACL graft failure at the final follow-up. On average, PTS decreased from 15.2° preoperatively to 7.1° postoperatively. The mean International Knee Documentation Committee, 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.

Peroneus longus tendon autograft versus allograft in revision ACLR: A retrospective comparison

PURPOSE

The use of peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has increased recently, but there is a lack of research on its use in revision ACLR. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between revision ACLR using allografts and PLT autografts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-nine patients who underwent arthroscopic revision of ACLR with complete clinical follow-ups between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Allograft was used in 44 of these patients, and PLT autograft was used in 15 of them. Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, Lachman, and anterior drawer tests were performed after a mean follow-up of 60months (range: 19-116). The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale was used to evaluate the donor ankle functions. Clinical outcomes and complications were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significantly improved functional outcomes compared to their preoperative assessments. However, both groups had similar clinical results at the final follow-up, including Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, knee range of motion, return to sports, time to return to daily activities, and rate of re-rupture. No major complications were seen in any of the patients. The AOFAS score was 99.13±2.64 in the PLT autograft group without loss of ankle muscle strength, deformity, instability, and permanent iatrogenic neurovascular injuries. The cumulative cost of the allograft group was significantly higher than the PLT autograft group.

CONCLUSIONS

The PLT autograft might be an alternative autograft option to allografts due to similar clinical outcomes, low donor site morbidity, and reduced cost in ACLR revisions, especially if the primary ACLR was performed using grafts harvested around the knee.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; retrospective comparative study.

Revision Soft-Tissue Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Associated With Lower Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Aged 40 and Older

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and graft failure rates in revision allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients aged 40 and older and compare them with primary ACLRs.

METHODS

Patients aged 40 and older who underwent arthroscopic soft-tissue allograft ACLR between 2005 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped based on revision versus primary ACLR. The rate of achieving an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) score was recorded. Patient satisfaction, PROs, and graft failure were compared between groups using the χ² test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

We identified 32 patients who underwent revision ACLR and 201 patients who underwent primary ACLR aged 40 and older who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 6.2 and 6.9 years, respectively (P = .042). There was a lower rate of concomitant meniscal repair in the primary ACLR group (6% vs 21.9%, P = .007) There were no other differences in chondral injuries, mechanism of injury, or meniscal injuries between groups. The median IKDC score was greater in the primary ACLR group as compared with the revision ACLR group (83.9 vs 70.6, P < .001). Patients who underwent revision ACLR were less likely to achieve the IKDC PASS threshold (82.5% vs 56.3%, P = .001) and were less likely to report satisfaction as compared with patients who underwent primary ACLR (90.5% vs 78.1%, P =.038). No difference in graft failure rates was identified between groups (8% vs 15.6%, P = .180).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision allograft ACLR in patients aged 40 and older was associated with lower PROs compared with primary ACLR. Patients who underwent revision ACLR failed to meet the IKDC PASS threshold more often and were dissatisfied with procedure results more than twice as often as patients that underwent primary ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Return to sports at a minimum 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Between 43% and 75% of patients who undergo primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery return to sport activity. However, after a revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) the rate of return to sports is variable. A few publications have reported returns to sports incidence between 56% to 100% after revision ACLR.

AIM

To determine return to sports and functional outcomes after a single-stage revision ACLR with a 5-year minimum follow-up at a single institution.

METHODS

All patients operated between 2010 and 2016 with a minimum 5 years of follow-up were included. Type of sport, intensity, frequency, expectation, time to return to sport and failure rate were recorded. Lysholm, Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee forms were evaluated prior to the first ACLR surgery, at 6 mo after primary surgery and after revision ACLR at 5 years minimum of follow-up. Objective stability was tested with the knee arthrometer test (KT-1000 knee arthrometer, Medmetric Corp).

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients who underwent revision ACLR during that period of time were contacted and available for follow-up. Median patient age at time of revision was 29 years old [interquartile range (IQR): 24.0-36.0], and 39 (95.0%) were male. The median time from revision procedure to follow-up was 70 mo (IQR: 58.0-81.0). Regarding return to sports, 16 (39.0%) were at the same level compared to preinjury period, and 25 patients (61.0%) returned at a lower level. Sixty-three percent categorized the sport as very important and 37.0% as important. One patient (2.4%) failed with a recurrent ACL torn. Mean preoperative Lysholm and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores were 58.8 [standard deviation (SD) 16] and 50 (SD 11), respectively. At follow-up, mean Lysholm and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores were 89 (SD 8) and 82 (SD 9) (P = 0.0001). Mean Tegner score prior to primary ACLR was 6.7 (SD 1.3), 5.1 (1.5 SD) prior to revision ACLR and 5.6 (1.6 SD) at follow-up (P = 0.0002). Overall, knee arthrometer test measurement showed an average of 6 mm (IQR: 4.0-6.0) side-to-side difference of displacement prior to revision ACLR and 3mm (IQR: 1.5-4.0) after revision.

CONCLUSION

Almost 40.0% of patients returned to preinjury sports level and 60.0% to a lower level. These may be useful when counseling a patient regarding sports expectations after a revision ACLR.

Tibial Supra-tubercular Deflexion Osteotomy in the Management of Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Surgical Technique

Excessive posterior tibial slope (PTS) is a recognized risk factor for failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and should be considered when planning a revision ACLR. A tibial supra-tubercular deflexion osteotomy can correct excessive PTS with simultaneous or staged ACLR. There are only a handful of technical descriptions offering insight on the respective authors' approach at reducing PTS, all of which vary greatly in their methods. The authors describe a surgical technique using a proximal tibial supra-tubercular deflexion osteotomy in patients with persistent knee instability, a history of at least one failed ACLR, and a PTS greater than 12°. This surgery is not recommended in patients with significant genu recurvatum (>10°), significant varus, or severe tibiofemoral osteoarthritis.

Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting

BACKGROUND

Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described.

PURPOSE

To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting-64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group (P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs (P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone-patellar tendon-bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure (P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft (P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) (P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group.

CONCLUSION

Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Bone Grafting Technique in Revision ACL Reconstruction: Coring Reamer and Dowel Trick

One- or two-staged bone grafting is sometimes required for tunnel malposition and/or tunnel widening in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim of this procedure is to restore the correct position of the ACL graft in the revision setting to provide a stable and functional ACL, thereby reproducing normal knee kinematics. We present a technique that allows for a cost-effective, convenient tunnel grafting of a femoral head allograft bone dowel into both femoral and tibial defects in revision ACL reconstruction.

Safer Return to Play After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Evaluation of a Return-to-Play Checklist

Background:

Questions remain regarding the traditional protocols used in rehabilitation and clearance for return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Purpose/Hypothesis:

To investigate the impact on injury rates after return to sports by developing and validating a Safer Return to Play Following ACL Reconstruction Checklist consisting of subjective and objective functional tests that can be quickly and easily implemented into a sports medicine practice. It was hypothesized that patients who successfully passed the checklist before returning to sports would experience lower rates of ipsilateral and contralateral knee injuries at a 2-year follow-up as compared with patients who returned to play before completing the checklist.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

First, a systematic review was performed to generate a list of the most common outcome measures used to assess return to play after ACLR. To refine our checklist, we conducted a survey with an expert panel of 10 medical professionals utilizing the Delphi technique. After the creation of the checklist, validation was performed by prospectively evaluating patients who had undergone ACLR for injury of the ipsilateral or contralateral knee, with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Results:

After our systematic review of 60 studies, 7 criteria were included in the final checklist. During the period studied, October 2014 to December 2017, a total of 222 patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. At a minimum 2 years of follow-up, there were 146 patients who successfully passed the checklist and 38 who did not. Overall, 24 (16.4%) patients who had passed the checklist sustained an injury to either knee, as compared with 10 (26.3%) from the group that did not pass the checklist (P = .162). Of the group that passed the checklist, 8 (5.5%) patients sustained an injury to the ipsilateral knee, as compared with 7 (18.4%) in the group that did not pass (P = .017).

Conclusion:

Prospective validation of our checklist demonstrated that patients who successfully passed the checklist before returning to play experienced a significantly lower incidence of ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament injury as compared with patients who did not pass the checklist.

Equivalent outcomes of ACL revision with over-the-top single and double-bundle reconstruction using hamstring tendon compared to anatomical single and double-bundle reconstruction

Purpose

In revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), our procedure of choice is the over-the-top route (OTTR) for cases where it is difficult to use a primary bone tunnel or to create a new bone tunnel due to the enlargement or malposition of the bone tunnel. Depending on the condition of the primary bone tunnel, we choose single (bone tunnel or OTTR) or double (bone tunnel or anteromedial (AM) bundle: OTTR /posterolateral (PL) bundle: bone tunnel) for femoral fixation. This study showed the results of single and double OTTR revision ACLR using the hamstring tendon.

Methods

Seventy-eight patients, who underwent revision ACLR using the hamstring tendon and who could be followed up for more than 2 year, were included in this study. The methods of revision ACLR were single in 54 cases (bone tunnel: 24 cases; OTTR method: 30 cases) and double in 24 cases (bone tunnel: 16 cases; OTTR for AM bundle and bone tunnel for PL bundle: eight cases). The cause of re-injury, the meniscus and cartilage injury, the reconstruction method, and the Lysholm score, Lachman test, Pivot-shift test, and the side-to-side difference in the tibial anterior translation were evaluated before and after surgery.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in the Lyshom score, Lachman / Pivotshift test and side-to-side difference anterior translation of the tibia between the four groups.

Conclusions

The clinical results of single and double OTTR revision ACLR are equivalent to those of anatomic single and double bone tunnel procedures.

Outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in soccer players : a cohort study

Aims

There is limited information on outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) in soccer (association football) athletes, particularly on return to sport and the rate of additional knee surgery. The purpose of this study was to report return to soccer after rACLR, and to test the hypothesis that patient sex and graft choice are associated with return to play and the likelihood of future knee surgery in soccer players undergoing rACLR.

Methods

Soccer athletes enrolled in a prospective multicentre cohort were contacted to collect ancillary data on their participation in soccer and their return to play following rACLR. Information regarding if and when they returned to play and their current playing status was recorded. If they were not currently playing soccer, they were asked the primary reason they stopped playing. Information on any subsequent knee surgery following their index rACLR was also collected. Player demographic data and graft choice were collected from their baseline enrolment data at rACLR.

Results

Soccer-specific follow-up was collected on 76% (33 male, 39 female) of 95 soccer athletes. Subsequent surgery information was collected on 95% (44 male, 46 female). Overall, 63% of athletes returned to soccer a mean 9.6 months (SD 5.8) after index revision surgery but participation in soccer decreased to 19% at a mean of 6.4 years (SD 1.3) after surgery. There was no significant association of patient sex or graft choice with return to play, time of return to play, or long-term return to play. Females were more likely than males to have subsequent knee surgery following rACLR (20% (9/46) vs 5% (2/44); p = 0.050). The rate of recurrent graft tear (5.6%; 5/90) was similar between males and females.

Conclusion

Approximately two-thirds of soccer players return to sport after rACLR, but the rate of participation drops significantly over time. Neither patient sex nor graft choice at the time of rACLR were associated with return to play. Female soccer players face a higher risk for additional knee surgery after rACLR than male soccer players.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1043–1048.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Tibial Tunnel-First Graft-Sizing Technique

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) has become more common as the number of failed primary ACLRs increase. Although increasingly common, R-ACLR has a greater failure rate than a primary reconstruction. Technical errors, particularly in tunnel placement, account for a large proportion of graft failure in R-ACLR as well as re-revision cases. Tunnel placement and trajectory is particularly important in R-ACLR and becomes more challenging with each additional revision attempt. This is in part because any tunnels created for revision may converge with formerly drilled tunnels or face interference hardware creating, complicating proper graft fixation. While there are many approaches to revision ACL surgery, our technique describes a simple, tibial tunnel-first graft-sizing method initially reaming tunnels with very small diameters and sequentially working your way up to more anatomic diameters.

The 50 Most Cited Articles in the Indications, Risk Factors, Techniques, and Outcomes of ACL Revision Surgery

The rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) retear remains high and revision ACL reconstruction has worse outcomes compared with primaries. To make advances in this area, a strong understanding of influential research is necessary. One method for systematically evaluating the literature is by citation analysis. This article aims to establish and evaluate "classic" articles. With consideration of these articles, this article also aims to evaluate gaps in the field and determine where future research should be directed. The general approach for data collection and analysis consisted of planning objectives, employing a defined strategy, reviewing search results using a multistep and multiauthor approach with specific screening criteria, and analyzing data. The collective number of citations for all publications within the list was 5,203 with an average of 104 citations per publication. "Biomechanical Measures during Landing and Postural Stability Predict Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Return to Sport" by Paterno et al contained both the highest number of total citations and the highest number of citations per year, with 403 total citations and 43.9 citations per year. The most recurring level of evidence were level II (n = 18) and level III (n = 17). "Clinical Outcomes" was the most common article type (n = 20) followed by "Risk Factors" (n = 10). The American Journal of Sports Medicine had the highest recorded Cite Factor with over 50% of the articles (n = 27) published. The most productive authors included R.W. Wright (n = 6), S.D. Barber-Westin (n = 5), F.R. Noyes (n = 5), and K.P. Spindler (n = 5). Historically, influential studies have been published in the realms of clinical outcome and risk factor identification. It has been established that revision ACL reconstruction has worse outcomes and more high-level studies are needed. Additionally, prospective studies that apply the knowledge for current known risk factor mitigation are needed to determine if graft tear rates can be lowered.

Risk Factors for Requiring a Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Case-Control Study

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is considered as a successful orthopaedic procedure that attempts to help patients return to their preinjury level of activity. However, some patients may need to undergo revision surgery, and this potentially may be associated with certain surgery-specific or patient risk factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the potential role of (1) demographics, (2) family history, (3) graft choice, (4) sport, and (5) mechanism of injury (contact vs. noncontact) in the risk for needing a revision ACL for improved clinical outcomes. All patients who had undergone a primary ACL reconstruction between 2012 and 2016 were identified from at a single institution. About 312 patients who had a mean age of 24 years (range, 9-62 years) and a mean follow-up of 4 years (range, 1-10). Patients were further evaluated to identify those who had a revision. There were 19 patients (6.1%) with a mean age of 22 years (range, 13-38 years) and a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 1-10) that required a revision reconstruction. Gender ratios (p = 0.56) and mean age (p = 0.44) were similar among the cohorts. Family history of ACL reconstruction had no association with revision risk (p = 0.57). Those with tibialis anterior allografts (37 vs. 4%; p = 0.0001) and hamstring allografts (16 vs. 1%; p = 0.0001) were far more likely to undergo a revision. Bone-tendon-bone (BTB) patella autografts were less likely (26 vs. 73%; p = 0.0001). Sport did not play a role in revision with those injured playing basketball (p = 0.61), football (p = 0.52), lacrosse (p = 0.52), soccer (p = 0.83), and volleyball (p = 0.61). There were a greater percentage of contact injuries that required revision (95 vs. 77%; p = 0.07). Graft selection played a significant role in requiring revision surgery with allografts portending to higher revision rates and BTB patella autografts conferring a lower risk.

One-Stage Anatomical Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results According to Tunnel Overlaps

PURPOSE

To present clinical results according to tunnel overlap in 1-stage anatomical revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

All patients who underwent revision ACLR performed by a single surgeon (J.H.A.) from 2012 to 2017 and were followed up for >24 months were retrospectively evaluated. The exclusion criteria were concomitant ligament injury, including medial collateral ligament injury, modified Outerbridge grade ≥3 cartilage lesion, and severe meniscus defects. Tunnel overlap was measured on 3-dimensionally reconstructed computed tomography images. Patients in the nonoverlapped femoral tunnel group (group NO, n = 52) were treated with new tunnel drilling that completely avoided previous tunnels, and those in the overlapped femoral tunnel group (group O, n = 41) were treated with a new tunnel that overlapped with previous tunnels. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores. Knee joint stability was measured using the Lachman and pivot shift tests. Patients with femoral tunnel widening of ≥14 mm underwent 2-stage ACLR.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration of 93 patients was 46.9 months (range, 24-97 months). All preoperative subjective and objective IKDC (P<0.001) and Telos stress test scores (P = .016) were significantly improved at the last follow-up. Forty-one patients had overlapping femoral tunnels, whereas 87 had overlapping tibial tunnels. At the last follow-up, subjective IKDC and Lysholm scores (73.6 ± 15.3 vs 74.9 ± 12.1, P = .799 and 80.0 ± 19.2 vs 81.44 ± 13.5, P = .505, respectively) and objective pivot shift (IKDC grade) in the Lachman test (P = .183 and P = .450, respectively) did not differ significantly between groups NO and O, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage anatomical revision ACLR significantly improved the clinical results. Most tibial tunnels (94%) and approximately one-half (44%) of the femoral tunnels overlapped. The overlapped femoral tunnel group did not show inferior outcomes or stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, cohort study.

Editorial Commentary: Remember the Risk Factors During Individualized, Anatomic, Value-Based Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Understanding the etiology behind anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure is a complex topic still being investigated heavily. The 3 classes of failure are technical, traumatic, and biologic. Technical errors are most common and most frequently reflect tunnel malposition. In addition, tibial slope has long been understood to be a risk factor for failed ACL reconstruction. Although not routinely performed at time of primary ACL reconstruction, osteotomy may be considered in the setting of failed ACL reconstruction. Relative quadriceps weakness is a risk factor, and we recommend sport-specific return-to-play testing as well as benchmarks for relative quadriceps strength before full return to activity. Revision ACL reconstruction is associated with both increased costs and worse patient outcomes, so every effort should be made to give patients the best chance of success after the index surgery. Whereas this begins with understanding the patient's history and risk factors for failure, it crescendos with careful attention to the individually variable factors that make each case unique, tailoring one's management to ensure that each patient receives an anatomic, individualized, and value-based ACL reconstruction.

Pre-operative Static Anterior Tibial Translation Assessed on MRI Does Not Influence Return to Sport or Satisfaction After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that the degree of anterior tibial translation (ATT) as measured passively on imaging studies (static ATT) after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury may influence outcomes after ACL reconstruction. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting these suggestions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this retrospective prognostic study was to assess the predictive value of pre-operative static ATT in knees with ACL injury on return to sport and in satisfaction after ACL reconstruction. Our hypothesis was that greater static ATT would be associated with lower rates of return to sport and lower levels of satisfaction.

METHODS

Patients treated with ACL reconstruction were identified from an institutional registry and assigned to one of three groups according to their ACL injury type: acute ACL injury, chronic ACL injury, and failed ACL reconstruction. ATT in each knee compartment was measured using magnetic resonance imaging, and a retrospective telephone questionnaire was used to investigate post-ACL reconstruction return to sport and subjects' satisfaction.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty patients (52 acute with ACL injury, 29 with chronic ACL injury, and 49 with failed ACL reconstruction) completed the questionnaire, with a mean follow-up of 5.67 years. Ninety-seven patients (74.6%) returned to their primary sport, of whom 63 (65%) returned to the same level of sport. The mean time to return to sport was 10.1 months (range, 2 to 24 months). Overall, 113 patients (87%) were either very satisfied or satisfied with their outcomes. No difference in medial or lateral ATT was found between patients who returned to sport and those who did not. The failed-ACL reconstruction group had significantly lower rates of return to sport than did acutely and chronically injured patients (60.4% versus 88.5% and 75.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The degree of pre-operative ATT in an ACL-deficient knee was not correlated with return to sport or satisfaction after ACL reconstruction. In this study cohort, only failed-ACL reconstruction patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were significantly less likely to return to their main sport. They were also less likely to return to sport at their pre-operative level, if they did return to sport.

Clinical Outcomes and the Failure Rate of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Were Comparable Between Patients Younger Than 40 Years and Patients Older Than 40 Years: A Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Study

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes and failure rates of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) between young and middle-aged surgery patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision ACLRs between January 2008 and June 2017 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to age: ≥40 years (group A) and <40 years (group B). Detailed patient demographic data, preoperative radiographic data, and concurrent meniscal and chondral lesion were reviewed. Clinical scores, laxity tests results, and graft failures were compared between groups at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients (group A, n = 24, 46.6 ± 4.5 years; group B, n = 62, 26.2 ± 6.3 years) were included in this study. Demographic data showed that the time interval from primary to revision ACLR was longer in group A than in group B (96.2 ± 80.9 vs. 52.0 ± 42.1 months, P = .011). Group A had a higher prevalence of chondral defects of the trochlea (P = .016). No significant differences were identified in the prevalence and severity of meniscal lesions. At the final follow-up, all clinical scores were improved postoperatively but did not differ significantly between the groups. No significant differences were identified in side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (group A, 6.3 ± 5.0 mm; group B, 5.6 ± 3.8 mm; P = .403) and graft failure rate (group A, 33.3%; group B, 30.6%; P = .358) at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study showed that the clinical outcomes of revision ACLRs in patients improved significantly in patients younger than 40 years and were comparable to those observed in patients older than 40 years at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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

More revisionary reconstruction procedures are required following failing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, which are often regarded as a technique challenge with very limited goals. This study will be performed to compare the outcomes between groups of primary and revision knee reconstruction. Two observers conducted the literature retrieval from the platforms of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies which compared knee function and stability between primary and revisionary reconstructions were included. The data was synthesized by meta‐analysis with fixed‐ or random‐effects models as appropriate. A total of 10 eligible studies were included with 954 subjects in the primary group and 378 in the revision group. The International Knee Documentation Committee International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subscores, side‐to‐side difference, and Lysholm score were demonstrated to be significantly improved at final follow‐up in both groups, while Tegner score was not. The overall IKDC, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Lysholm scores were significantly inferior in the revision group compared to the primary group. However, knee laxity according to side‐to‐side difference was demonstrated to be similar between the two groups. Revision ACL reconstruction (RACLR) could provide patients with excellent restoration of knee outcomes compared to the status before revision. Also, while knee function in the revision group was inferior to the primary group, knee stability was equivalent between the two groups at the final follow‐up.

Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showed more laxity than revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum 2-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare patient demographics, associated lesions (concurrent meniscal and chondral injuries), and clinical outcomes between revision and re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision or re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2008 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Detailed patient demographic data, radiographic preoperative tunnel diameters, posterior tibia slope, and concurrent meniscal and chondral lesion were reviewed. Clinical scores and laxity tests' results were compared between the groups at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients (mean age, 33.8 ± 9.9 years; revision group, n = 62; re-revision group, n = 20) were included. The re-revision group showed a higher grade for preoperative arthritis (P < 0.001); more severe preoperative bone defects of the femoral (13.8 ± 2.6 vs 11.7 ± 2.7 mm, P = 0.004) and tibial tunnels (14.6 ± 2.4 vs 13.0 ± 2.3 mm, P = 0.010); and a higher prevalence of subtotal medial meniscectomy (P = 0.008) and chondral defects of the medial (P = 0.006) and lateral femoral condyles (P < 0.001), patella (P = 0.040), and trochlea (P = 0.036). At the final follow-up, the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the re-revision group showed more instability in the anterior drawer (P = 0.001), Lachman (P < 0.001), and pivot-shift (P < 0.001) tests, while a side-to-side difference was observed on the Telos stress radiographs (7.1 ± 4.7 vs 4.9 ± 3.7 mm, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

These findings showed that the patients who underwent re-revision had poor prognostic factors as compared with those who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Although the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups, the re-revision group showed more laxity at the 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Cohort study; IV.

Two-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Bone Graft Options for Tunnel Augmentation

BACKGROUND

No consensus is available regarding the optimal choice of bone graft material for bone tunnel augmentation in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of different bone graft materials for staged revision ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were queried through use of the terms anterior cruciate ligament and revision to identify all studies reporting outcomes of bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction. Data extracted included indications for 2-stage surgery, surgical technique, graft material, time between surgeries, rehabilitation protocols, physical examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic and histologic findings.

RESULTS

The analysis included 7 studies with a total of 234 patients. The primary outcome in 2 studies was graft incorporation (mean follow-up, 8.8 months), whereas the other 5 studies reported clinical outcomes with follow-up mean ± SD of 4.2 ± 2.1 years. The indication for bone grafting and between-stage protocol varied among studies. Autograft was used in 4 studies: iliac crest bone autograft (ICBG, n = 3) and tibial bone autograft (TBA, n = 1). In 2 studies, the authors investigated the outcomes of allograft: allograft bone matrix (ABM) and allograft bone chips (AC). Finally, 1 study compared ICBG to a synthetic bone substitute. Radiographic evaluation of bone graft integration after the first stage was reported in 4 studies, with an average duration of 4.9 months. In 4 studies, the authors reported the time interval between first and second surgeries, with an average of 6.1 months for ICBG compared with 8.7 months for allogenic and synthetic grafts. Revision ACL graft failure rates were reported by 5 studies, including 1 study with ABM (6.1%), 1 study with AC (8.3%), 1 study with TBA (0%), and 2 studies with ICBG (0% and 2%).

CONCLUSION

The indications for staged ACL reconstruction and the rehabilitation protocol between stages need to be clearly established. The available data indicate that autograft for bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage ACL revision may be associated with a lower risk of revision ACL reconstruction graft failure compared with allograft bone.

Revision ACL reconstruction using quadriceps or hamstring autografts leads to similar results after 4 years: good objective stability but low rate of return to pre-injury sport level

PURPOSE

Due to the increased importance of revision ACL reconstruction, this study aims to evaluate the outcome 4 years after the surgery, compare two revision strategies and identify factors that influence the results.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients who received a revision ACL reconstruction were retrospectively evaluated. All patients were assessed with an average follow-up of 4.4 years (range 3.3-5.5 years). The results of patients treated with a quadriceps autograft were compared with those treated with a hamstring autograft.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of patients had a KT-1000 side-to-side difference of ≤ 5 mm (mean 1.7 ± 2.0 mm). Pivot-shift test was absent or minor in 95%. In the SLTH-test, 70% of patients reached 90% of the contralateral side. The mean Lysholm score on follow-up was 83 ± 12 (56% excellent/good). The mean IKDC 2000 subjective evaluation score was 81 ± 14 (58% normal/almost normal). The median Tegner activity score was 6 (range 3-10), a median of 2 levels worse than before the first injury. Return to sport rate was 89% but only 34% of patients reached their pre-injury sport level. Most common cause for this reduction was fear of another injury. Three patients suffered a re-rupture. Patients with a hamstring autograft performed pivoting sports more often, but had worse pivot-shift results compared to those with a quadriceps autograft. No significant influence was seen for other parameters. Young, male patients with a high activity level and no chondral damage had the best results.

CONCLUSION

Through revision ACL reconstruction, the goal of stabilizing the knee can be achieved in the majority of patients. However, a good function and a high activity level are significantly less common in these patients. The main reason for this is fear of a renewed ACL-injury. Both quadriceps and hamstring autografts were able to achieve a good outcome. Young, male, patients with a normal BMI, a high activity level and without cartilage damage seem to benefit the most from revision ACL surgery. The discrepancy between the good laxity restoration and the lower activity rate should therefore be a main point in clinical counseling when deciding for or against revision ACL-Reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone grafting for posterior or widening tibial tunnels restores stability of the knee and improves clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

Revision ACL surgery may be complicated by tunnel malposition and/or tunnel widening and often requires a staged treatment approach that includes bone grafting, a period of several months to allow bone graft incorporation and then definitive revision ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a single-staged ACL revision reconstruction technique using a cylindrical dowel bone graft for patients who have existing posteriorly placed and/or widened tibial tunnels in the tibia at a minimum of 2 years follow-up.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2014, patients undergoing single-stage revision ACL reconstruction with the described technique were prospectively enrolled and evaluated. At a minimum of 24 months, patients were evaluated by physical examination, multiple clinical outcome instruments including KOOS, Tegner and Lysholm, and preoperative and postoperative MRIs.

RESULTS

At a mean of 35.1 months, 18 consecutive patients had no revision surgery and no subjective knee instability. There were statistically significant improvements in the Tegner (median 2, interquartile range 2.25; p < 0.01), Lysholm (20.0 ± 15.0; p < 0.01), KOOS symptoms scale (12.9 ± 11.8; p < 0.01), KOOS pain scale (15.4 ± 18.7; p < 0.01), KOOS ADL scale (13.5 ± 19.0; p < 0.01), KOOS sports scale (32.8 ± 26.4; p < 0.01), and KOOS QoL scale (18.1 ± 16.9; p < 0.01). Postoperative MRI demonstrated statistically significant anteriorization of the tibial tunnel and a statistically significant decrease in tunnel widening.

CONCLUSION

Revision ACL reconstruction utilizing a single-staged tibial tunnel grafting technique resulted in improved knee pain, function, and stability at a minimum of 24-month follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Allogenic Tendon-Autologous Cartilage Cells Transplantation Enhances Adhesive/Growth Ability and Promotes Chondrogenesis in a Rabbit Model of Glenoid Labrum Damage

Background

Glenoid labrum injury of the shoulder commonly occurs in athletes, especially those who perform throwing motions. This study investigated the effects of the established allogenic tendon-autologous cartilage cells reconstruction approach in a rabbit model of glenoid labrum damage.

Material/Methods

The allogenic tendons were isolated and extracted using the chemical extraction method. Cartilage cells were isolated from New Zealand rabbits and identified by detecting type II collagenase. The allogenic tendon-autologous cartilage cells were transplanted to the damaged glenoid labrum. HE staining was used to observe inflammatory cells, Masson staining was used to observe muscle fibers, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to assess antigenicity of tendon tissues. PSA and AB staining were used to examine neutral protein mucopolysaccharide and acidic protein mucopolysaccharide, respectively. We assessed cartilage cell growth in autologous cartilage cells combined with allogenic tendon transplanted tissues.

Results

Allogenic tendons were well prepared using chemical extraction method due to use of HE staining, Masson staining, and SEM. TGF-β1 treatment induced cartilage cell formation and triggered expression of acidic and neutral protein mucopolysaccharides. HE staining, Masson staining, PAS staining, and AB staining methods showed that autologous cartilage cells combined with allogenic tendon transplanted tissues had better growth of cartilage cells.

Conclusions

This study establishes the allogenic tendon-autologous cartilage cells reconstruction and transplantation approach and illustrated higher adhesive ability and growth ability, and better chondrogenesis in a rabbit model of glenoid labrum damage.

Outcome After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the current literature related to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision in terms of surgical aspects, graft choices, concomitant injuries, patient-reported outcome, return to sport, and objective measurement outcome.

RECENT FINDINGS

An ACL rupture is a common knee injury, and the number of primary ACL reconstructions is increasing, implying a subsequent increase of ACL revisions in the future. It is widely accepted that an ACL revision is surgically challenging with a myriad of graft options to choose from. In many cases, simultaneous injuries to the index limb including meniscal and chondral lesions, respectively, are observed in the setting of a secondary ACL injury. Furthermore, the general understanding is that an ACL revision results in inferior outcome compared with a primary ACL reconstruction. Surgical treatment of an ACL revision can be performed as one-stage or two-stage procedure depending on, for example, the presence of limb malalignments, concomitant injuries, and tunnel widening. Nonirradiated allografts and autologous patella tendon, hamstring tendon, and quadriceps tendon are feasible options for ACL revision. Concomitant injuries to the affected knee such as intraarticular chondral lesions are more common in the setting of an ACL revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction while a lower presence of concomitant meniscal pathology is reported at ACL revision. Patients undergoing ACL revision have lower clinical and patient-reported outcome and lower rates of return to sport when compared with primary ACL surgery cases. However, long-term follow-ups with large study cohorts evaluating outcome of ACL revision are limited. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings of this review.

Contribution of Additional Anterolateral Structure Augmentation to Controlling Pivot Shift in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Several types of anterolateral structure (ALS) augmentation procedures in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have been reported. However, information is limited regarding the effect of additional ALS augmentation on rotatory stability in a clinical setting.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

This study aimed to investigate the contribution of additional ALS augmentation in ACL reconstruction in cases with a high risk of residual pivot shift. The 2 hypotheses were as follows. First, additional ALS augmentation would improve rotatory stability as compared with solely reconstructing the ACL. Second, graft tension changes would be different between the ACL and ALS during knee range of motion and against anterior or rotatory loads.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Fifteen patients who met at least 1 of the following criteria were included: (1) revision ACL reconstruction, (2) preoperative high-grade pivot shift, or (3) hyperextended knee. The pivot-shift test was performed preoperatively and during surgery after ACL reconstruction and after additional ALS augmentation with acceleration measurements from a triaxial accelerometer. The tension changes of the ACL and ALS grafts were also measured during knee range of motion and against manual maximum anterior tibial translation, internal rotation, and external rotation.

RESULTS

After ACL reconstruction, the pivot-shift acceleration was still greater than that of the uninjured knee. However, additional ALS augmentation further reduced acceleration when compared with ACL reconstruction alone in both primary and revision cases (P < .05 vs preoperative, P < .05 vs ACL). During knee flexion-extension, the tension of the ACL increased as the knee was extended, whereas that of the ALS did not change. Graft tension of the ACL and ALS became higher with internal rotation and lower with external rotation as compared with the neutral position. Tension of the ACL was significantly increased against anterior tibial translational loads, whereas that of the ALS was not.

CONCLUSION

Additional ALS augmentation further improved the rotatory stability during ACL reconstruction in patients with a high risk of residual pivot shift at the time of surgery. Significant differences in graft tension changes were also observed between the ACL and ALS against different loads. Additional ALS augmentation may be considered to eliminate the pivot shift in patients with a high risk of residual pivot shift.

Re-revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Evaluation From the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry

PURPOSE

To identify the rate of re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) to estimate the influence of patient-related factors on the risk of re-revision ACLR. The secondary aim of the study was to report the intra-articular findings and patient-related factors at the time of revision ACLR and to compare these with the findings in a matched controlled group of primary ACLR.

METHODS

Patients with primary ACLR without a subsequent need of revision and patients with a revision ACLR identified in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from June 2004 through September 2016 were included. Using age at operation, sex, activity at injury, and year of ACLR as covariates, a propensity score matched control group of primary ACLR patients for the revision ACLR patients was identified. For the revision ACLR patients, re-revision ACLR rates at 1, 2, 5, and 8 years were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis; the hazard ratio for a re-revision ACLR was estimated using a multivariable Cox regression model.

RESULTS

The cumulative estimated proportion of patients undergoing a re-revision ACLR at 1, 2, 5, and 8 years after the original revision ACLR was 0.4%, 3.0%, 6.5%, and 9.0% respectively. There was no significant difference between the control and revision ACLR groups regarding cartilage injury (P = .72) or associated ligament injury (P = .17). Revision ACLR patients did have fewer meniscal injuries (P < .001). There were no intraoperative findings or surgical techniques identified as a predictor for a higher risk of re-revision ACLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a review of a large ligament reconstruction registry,one can expect 9% of patients to undergo a re-revision ALCR at 8 years of follow up. Revision ACLR did not have an increase in cartilage injuries or associated ligament injuries and had significantly fewer meniscal injuries compared with a primary ACLR control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Nonathlete Population

BACKGROUND

There is considerable literature about revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in athletes vut there is little published evidence about the same in the nonathletes. The injury itself may remain underdiagnosed and untreated in nonsports persons. This study highlights the high incidence of ACL injury in the nonathletic patient cohort, revision rates, and the outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

856 nonathletic patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were asked on phone whether they had undergone revision surgery and whether they had symptoms severe enough to seek reintervention. Clinical assessment and preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scoring were used to followup patients who underwent revision intervention.

RESULTS

Clinically, symptomatic revision rate was 5.9% (51 out of 856 patients), and 33 out of these 856 patients (3.9%) underwent revision ACL reconstruction. The reasons for revision were rupture of the previous graft in 21 and laxity (incompetence) of the graft in 12 patients. The mean preoperative and postoperative IKDC scores were 44.1 and 69.8, respectively, and the improvement was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The IKDC score following revision ACL reconstruction was significantly better in those patients who underwent revision <1 year following the onset of recurrent symptoms (P = 0.015). Meniscal tears were present in 47.6%, and chondral injuries were seen in 33.3% of patients. The tibial tunnel positioning was abnormal in 70% of patients. Femoral tunnel positioning was aberrant in all the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The revision rate of primary ACL reconstruction of 5.9% in nonathletes and revision ACL reconstruction rate of 3.9% are similar to the reported revision rates of 2.9%-5.8% in athletic patients. Similar to athletes, suboptimal tunnel placement is the major contributor to failure in nonathletes also.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstrings and Extra-articular Tenodesis: A Mid- to Long-Term Clinical and Radiological Study

PURPOSE

To present the mid- to long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with doubled gracilis and semitendinosus (DGST) autograft and a lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with DGST and LET by a single surgeon between January 1997 and December 2013 were included. Revision was indicated by ACL failure noted on magnetic resonance imaging, persistent clinical instability, or laxity on clinical exam. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at latest follow-up by an independent board-certified orthopaedic surgeon. Outcomes included Lachman and pivot shift tests, validated clinical and patient reported outcomes scores, and radiographic analysis. The presence of previous meniscectomy or chondral injury was recorded intraoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 118/132 potential patients (89.4%) was available for follow-up at a mean 10.6 years (3-19 years) postoperatively. Lachman and pivot shift examinations as well as the side-to-side difference on an KT-1000 arthrometer demonstrated significant improvement at latest follow-up (P < .05) versus preoperative evaluation. Severe degenerative disease was present in 25% of patients on radiograph and correlated with worsened clinical outcomes. Previous meniscectomy was the only risk factor analyzed that correlated with worsened radiographic grade. No patients had a graft tear based on clinical and/or magnetic resonance imaging evaluation, but 9 (7.6%) failed based on a side-to-side difference of >5 mm on the KT-1000, a grade ≥2+ on pivot shift, or report of continued instability.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision ACL reconstruction with DGST and LET at mid- to long-term follow-up provides continued improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes from preoperative assessment. Meniscectomy was the only factor related to worsened radiological grades and clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Single-stage versus two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Importance

Despite advances in surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitation, long-term anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture rate remains high. The increasing number of primary ACL reconstructions in an ageing population will lead to increasing revision reconstructions. Revision cases may have higher failure rates and worse patient-reported outcomes compared with primaries. While two-stage revisions may be indicated in certain complex cases, whether this is comparatively equivalent or even superior to revisions done in a single stage would assist preoperative planning.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review was to analyse and compare patient-reported outcomes and failure rate of single-stage versus two-stage revision ACL reconstruction.

Evidence review

Using PubMed, MEDLINE Complete and Ovid MEDLINE databases, a review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines to identify level I–IV outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.

Findings

Three studies reported outcomes of two-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 61.6 months, while 21 studies reported single-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 47.4 months. Pooled rate of two-stage revisions was 3.1% compared with 6.8% in single-stage (p=0.068). Clinical failure was reported in 5.1% of 79 two-stage patients compared with 13.8% of 533 single-stage patients (p<0.05). Within the single-stage cohort, there was a greater clinical failure rate (+8.7%, p<0.05) for patients with less than 48 months follow-up. Those with > 48 months follow-up had a higher rerupture rate (+5%, p<0.05) and a significantly greater sum of squared deviations (p<0.05) compared with those with < 48 months follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes have demonstrated two-stage revision patients with higher IKDC A and B scores than single-stage.

Conclusions and relevance

Although two-stage revisions may be performed in more complex cases, there are limited short-term data available regarding their outcomes. Two-stage revisions demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes and lower rate of revision surgery and clinical failure compared with single-stage revisions. Studies with shorter follow-up (24–48 months) showed higher clinical failure rates. Those with longer follow-up (>48 months) showed higher graft rerupture rates. The decision to perform staged reconstruction should made on whether adequate tunnel placement and fixation can be established in a single setting.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Comparison of Knee Stability, Strength Deficits, and Functional Score in Primary and Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructed Knees

Comparing to primary surgery, revision ACL reconstruction is more technically demanding and has a higher failure rate. Theoretically, rehabilitation can improve knee function after ACL reconstruction surgery. This study aimed to compare knee stability, strength, and function between primary and revision ACL reconstructed knees. 40 primary and 40 revision ACL reconstruction surgeries were included between April 2013 and May 2016. Patients with revision surgery had a higher anteroposterior translation comparing those with primary reconstruction (median laxity, 2.0 mm vs. 3.0 mm, p = 0.0022). No differences were noted in knee extensor at 60°/sec or 180°/sec (p = 0.308, p = 0.931, respectively) or in flexor muscle strength at 60°/sec or 180°/sec between primary and revision ACL reconstruction knees (p = 0.091, p = 0.343, respectively). There were also no significant differences between functional scores including IKDC score and Lysholm score in primary versus revision surgeries at 12th months after index operation (p = 0.154, p = 0.324, respectively). In conclusion, despite having higher anteroposterior instability, patients with revision ACL reconstruction can have non-inferior outcomes in isokinetic knee strength and function compared to those with primary ACL reconstruction after proper rehabilitation.

Graft fixation influences revision risk after ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts

Background and purpose - A large number of fixation methods of hamstring tendon autograft (HT) are available for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Some studies report an association between fixation method and the risk of revision ACLR. We compared the risk of revision of various femoral and tibial fixation methods used for HT in Scandinavia 2004-2011. Materials and methods - A register-based study of 38,666 patients undergoing primary ACLRs with HT, with 1,042 revision ACLRs. The overall median follow-up time was 2.8 (0-8) years. Fixation devices used in a small number of patients were grouped according to design and the point of fixation. Results - The most common fixation methods were Endobutton (36%) and Rigidfix (31%) in the femur; and interference screw (48%) and Intrafix (34%) in the tibia. In a multivariable Cox regression model, the transfemoral fixations Rigidfix and Transfix had a lower risk of revision (HR 0.7 [95% CI 0.6-0.8] and 0.7 [CI 0.6-0.9] respectively) compared with Endobutton. In the tibia the retro interference screw had a higher risk of revision (HR 1.9 [CI 1.3-2.9]) compared with an interference screw. Interpretation - The choice of graft fixation influences the risk of revision after primary ACLR with hamstring tendon autograft.

Double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is effective in rescuing failed primary reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of a pair of cruciate ligaments in the human knee and is critical for knee stability, as it limits anterior tibial translation on the femur, restrains rotation and resists varus and valgus joint forces. The present study aimed to assess the effect of double-bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in improving the subjective and objective functions and re-introducing patients to physical activity after primary ACL reconstruction had failed. A total of 34 patients who underwent double-bundle ACL revision surgeries were included in the present retrospective study. Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scores as well as KT-2000 arthrometry measures were obtained pre- and post-operatively. The follow-up time was at least 2 years. The results indicated that the IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner scores as well as KT-2000 flexion scores were significantly improved after revision ACL reconstruction. All patients resumed to performing physical exercise activities after revision surgeries, 65% of whom reached pre-injury levels. In conclusion, these results demonstrated that double-bundle revision ACL reconstruction was consistently effective in rescuing failed primary ACL reconstruction and re-introducing patients to physical exercise.

Clinical Outcomes in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine overall objective graft failure rate, failure rate by graft type (allograft vs autograft reconstruction), instrumented laxity, and patient outcome scores following revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were collected for all studies meeting the study inclusion criteria, but lower-level studies (level III/IV) were not pooled for quantitative synthesis due to high levels of heterogeneity in these study populations.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. The primary outcome reported was graft failure. A meta-analysis comparing rate of failure by graft type was conducted using a random effects model. Studies also reported patient clinical outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS) and graft laxity.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 3,021 patients (56% male, 44% female) with an average age of 30 ± 4 years and mean follow-up time of 57 months were included. The overall objective failure rate was 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-12.3%). Mean instrumented laxity as side-to-side difference was 2.5 mm (95% CI, 1.9-3.1 mm). Mean IKDC subjective score was 76.99 (95% CI, 76.64-77.34), mean KOOS symptoms score was 76.73 (95% CI, 75.85-77.61), and mean Lysholm score was 86.18 (95% CI, 79.08-93.28). The proportion of patients with IKDC grade A or B was 85% (95% CI, 77%-91%). When the available data for failure rate were analyzed by graft type, autograft reconstruction had a failure rate of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.9%), similar to allograft reconstruction at 3.6% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, revision ACL reconstruction had failure rates similar to autograft or allograft reconstruction. Overall outcome scores for revision reconstruction have improved but appear modest when compared with primary ACL reconstruction surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Meta-analysis of Level II studies, Level II.

What Is the Mid-term Failure Rate of Revision ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

When anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction fails, a revision procedure may be performed to improve knee function, correct instability, and allow return to activities. The results of revision ACL reconstruction have been reported to produce good but inferior patient-reported and objective outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction, but the degree to which this is the case varies widely among published studies and may be influenced by heterogeneity of patients, techniques, and endpoints assessed. For those reasons, a systematic review may provide important insights.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a systematic review, we asked: (1) What is the proportion of revision ACL reconstruction cumulative failures defined as rerupture or objective failure using prespecified clinical criteria at mean followup of at least 5 years? (2) What are the most common complications of revision ACL reconstruction?

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included studies that reported the clinical evaluation of revision ACL reconstruction with Lachman test, pivot shift test, side-to-side difference with KT-1000/2000 arthrometer, and with a mean followup of at least 5 years. We excluded studies that incompletely reported these outcomes, that reported only reruptures, or that were not in the English language. Extracted data included the number of graft reruptures and objective clinical failure, defined as a knee that met one of the following endpoints: Lachman test Grade II to III, pivot shift Grade II to III, KT-1000/2000 > 5-mm difference, or International Knee Documentation Committee Grade C or D. For each study, we determined the proportion of patients who had experienced a rupture of the revision ACL graft as well as the proportion of patients who met one or more of our clinical failure endpoints. Those proportions were summed for each study to generate a percentage of patients who met our definition of cumulative failure. Complications and reoperations were recorded but not pooled as a result of inconsistency of reporting and heterogeneity of populations across the included studies. Of the 663 screened studies, 15 articles were included in the systematic review. Because one study reported two separate groups of patients with different treatments, 16 case series were considered in the evaluation.

RESULTS

The proportion of reruptures (range, 0%-25%) was > 5% in only four of 16 series and > 10% in only one of them. The objective clinical failures (range, 0%-82%) was > 5% in 15 of 16 series and > 10% in 12 of them. The proportion exceeded 20% in five of 16 series. The cumulative failures (range, 0%-83%) was > 5% in all except one series and > 10% in 12 of 16 series; five series had a cumulative failure proportion > 20%. The most frequent complications were knee stiffness and anterior knee pain, whereas reoperations were primarily débridement and meniscectomies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering rerupture alone as a failure endpoint in patients who have undergone revision ACL reconstruction likely underestimates the real failure rate, because the percentage of failures noticeably increases when objective criteria are also considered. Whether patient-reported and subjective scores evaluating knee function, level of activity, satisfaction, and pain might also contribute to the definition of failure may be the focus of future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Analysis of 2019 Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction From a Community-Based Registry

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of patient characteristics, surgical fixation, graft choice, outcomes, and concurrent injuries of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is limited.

PURPOSE

To describe the current cohort of revision ACLR captured by a community registry and the outcomes observed in the registered patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision ACLR registered between February 2005 and June 2014, by 200 surgeons in 46 hospitals, were evaluated. The Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry (KPACLRR) collected data intraoperatively and postoperatively using paper forms, electronic medical records, administrative claims data, and patient-reported outcomes. The KPACLRR cohort was longitudinally followed, and outcomes were prospectively ascertained. Outcomes (ie, revisions, subsequent operative procedures, deep surgical site infections, and deep venous thrombosis) were adjudicated via a chart review. Descriptive statistics were employed.

RESULTS

Of 2019 patients who underwent revision ACLR, at a median follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-3.8 years), 212 (10.5%) required subsequent operative procedures, and 86 (4.3%) were revised a second time. At the time of revision, 55.1% of the patients had at least 1 concurrent meniscal injury, and 26% of those were repairable. Cartilage injuries were present in 42.0% of patients. Deep surgical site infections occurred in 12 patients (0.6%), deep venous thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (0.3%), and 1 patient (0.1%) had a pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSION

Revision ACLR can be performed with a low short-term revision rate and relatively few complications. At the time of revision, nearly half of these patients had an irreparable meniscal injury, and slightly less than half had a cartilage injury. A large community-based ACLR registry is useful in informing surgeons of current treatment practices, prevalence of concurrent injuries, and outcomes associated with the procedures, especially infrequent procedures such as revision ACLR.

The long-term clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who suffer recurrent injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament after reconstruction

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term clinical and radiological outcome of patients who suffer recurrent injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) after reconstruction and require revision surgery.

Patients and Methods

From a consecutive series of 200 patients who underwent primary reconstruction following rupture of the ACL, we identified 36 who sustained a further rupture, 29 of whom underwent revision surgery. Patients were reviewed prospectively at one, two, seven, 15 and about 20 years after their original surgery. Primary outcome measures were the number of further ruptures, the posterior tibial slope (PTS), and functional and radiological outcomes. These were compared with a gender and age matched cohort of patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction only.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 18.3 years (14.3 to 20.2), 29 patients had undergone revision surgery and within this revision group 11 had sustained more than three ruptures of the ACL (3 to 6). The mean age at the time of revision reconstruction was 26.4 years (14 to 54). The mean PTS was significantly higher in those patients who suffered a further injury to the ACL (11°) compared with the control group (9°) (p < 0.001). The mean PTS in those patients who sustained more than three ruptures was 12°.

Conclusion

Patients who suffer recurrent injuries to the ACL after reconstruction have poorer functional and radiological outcomes than those who suffer a single injury. The causes of further injury are likely to be multifactorial but an increased PTS appears to have a significant association with recurrent ACL injuries. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:337–43.

Return to Sport After Primary and Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Comparative Study of 552 Patients From the FAST Cohort

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported the return-to-sport rate at 1-year follow-up after primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To compare the return-to-sport rate 1 year after primary and revision ACL reconstruction in the same cohort according to 2 modalities: any kind of sport and the patient's usual sport at the same level as before the injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction (French prospective Acl STudy [FAST]) was begun in 2012. A comparative study was performed based on a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively. Included were all athletes aged 18 to 50 years who underwent primary or revision isolated ACL reconstruction between 2012 and 2014. Two groups were formed: primary reconstruction and revision reconstruction. The main criterion was return to sport at 1-year follow-up (yes/no); secondary criteria were return to the usual sport at 1-year follow-up, knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] scores), and psychological readiness (ACL-Return to Sports after Injury [ACL-RSI] score) at 6 months and 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 552 patients (primary reconstruction group: n = 497, revision reconstruction group: n = 55) were included in the study. There were 373 men and 179 women (mean [±SD] age, 30.2 ± 8.4 years). No significant difference in the return-to-sport rate was found between the 2 groups at 1-year follow-up (primary reconstruction group: 90.9%, revision reconstruction group: 87.3%; P = .38), but patients in the primary reconstruction group resumed their usual sport significantly more often (primary reconstruction group: 63.6%, revision reconstruction group: 49.1%; P = .04). Eight (1.4%) retears occurred during a new sport-related injury within a mean 8.9 ± 2.9 months: 7 (1.4%) in the primary reconstruction group and 1 (1.8%) in the revision reconstruction group ( P = .8). At 1-year follow-up, functional scores were significantly better in the primary reconstruction group for subjective IKDC (82.6 ± 13.3 vs 78.4 ± 16.6; P = .04); KOOS Symptoms/Stiffness (73.3 ± 15.2 vs 67.7 ± 19.6; P = .02), Activities of Daily Living (96.3 ± 6.4 vs 94.3 ± 9.1; P = .04), Sport (79.7 ± 19.1 vs 69.1 ± 24.8; P = .0004), and Quality of Life (69.6 ± 22.7 vs 54.7 ± 24.8; P < .00001) subscales; and ACL-RSI (65 ± 23 vs 49.5 ± 24.8; P < .00001). On multivariate analysis, patients who were more likely to resume their usual sport at 1 year were high-level players (odds ratio [OR], 2.2) who underwent primary reconstruction (OR, 2.0) and had better KOOS Quality of Life (OR, 1.7) and subjective IKDC (OR, 2.1) scores at 6-month follow-up without complications or retears during the first postoperative year (OR, 2.6).

CONCLUSION

At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the return-to-sport rate between primary and revision ACL reconstruction. Patients who underwent primary reconstruction returned to their usual sport significantly more often.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02511158 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Return to sports and functional results after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by fascia lata autograft

INTRODUCTION

The surgical revision rate following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery is 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. Revision ACL surgery raises the question of the type of graft to be used. The present study assessed return to sports and functional results after revision ACL reconstruction by fascia lata graft. The hypothesis was that fascia lata provides a reliable graft in revision ACL surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective continuous study included 30 sports players with a mean age of 26.8±8 years undergoing surgical revision for iterative ACL tear between 2004 and 2013. Multi-ligament lesions were excluded. Type and level of sports activity were assessed preoperatively, after primary surgery and at end of follow-up. Clinical assessment used subjective IKDC, Lysholm and KOOS scores.

RESULTS

At a mean 4.6±1.6 years' follow-up, all patients had resumed sport activity, but only 12 with the same sport at the same level. Median subjective IKDC score increased from 57 [54.3; 58.5] preoperatively to 82 [68.3; 90] at last follow-up, and Lysholm score from 46 [42.3; 51] to 90.5 [80.8; 96.8]; KOOS score at last follow-up was 94.7 [83; 100].

CONCLUSION

Functional results in revision ACL reconstruction by fascia lata graft were satisfactory, with similar return-to-sports rates as with other techniques. Fascia lata provides a reliable graft in revision ACL surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Case series: Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using patellar tendon autografts

BACKGROUND

Using intra-operative findings and clinical results, including return to play (RTP) at the pre-injury level, this study investigated the causes of primary graft failure after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts.

METHODS

A total of 54 patients were followed for a mean of 38.2 ± 10.2 months post-surgery. Subjective and objective results were evaluated using single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) scores, Lachman tests, KT-2000 arthrometer results, and pivot-shift tests. The change in each patient's Tegner activity scale and RTP at the pre-injury level were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels was the most important reason (54%) for primary graft failure. After revision surgery, anterior knee stability was significantly improved (1.2 (mean) ± 1.2 (SD)mm vs 4.5(mean) ± 1.9 (SD)mm; P < 0.01). Two (4%) patients sustained revision graft ruptures while two (4%) sustained contralateral knee ACL tears. The rate of RTP at the pre-injury level was 67% (36 patients), and mean SANE scores at the time of RTP were higher than before surgery (74.8 ± 13.8 points vs 24.1 ± 16.4; P<0.001). The average time from primary graft failure to revision surgery was shorter (12.2 (mean) ± 4.0 (SD) vs 37.6 (mean) ± 8.8 (SD)months; P < 0.01) and the ratio of major cartilage injury was lower (39% vs 83%; P < 0.05) in the RTP group than that in the non-RTP group.

CONCLUSIONS

The time from primary graft failure to revision surgery and the extent of the cartilage injury are major factors in RTP after revision ACL reconstructions.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport

PURPOSE

An increasing number of patients undergo revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, with the intention of returning to sport being a major indication. The aim of this study is to assess the available evidence for clinical improvement and return to sport, to understand the real potential of this procedure in regaining functional activity, and to facilitate improved counselling of patients regarding the expected outcome after revision ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

The search was conducted on the PubMed database. Articles reporting clinical results for revision ACL reconstruction were included. A meta-analysis was performed on return to sport, and results were compared to the literature on primary ACL reconstruction. Other specific clinical outcomes (Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC Objective scores) were also included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 503 identified records, a total of 59 studies involving 5365 patients were included in the qualitative data synthesis. Only 31 articles reported the rate of return to sport. Whereas 73 % of good objective results and satisfactory subjective results were documented, 57 % of patients did not return to the same level of sport activity, significantly inferior to that of a primary procedure.

CONCLUSION

The real potential of revision ACL reconstruction should not be overestimated due to the low number of patients able to return to their previous activity level, significantly inferior with respect to that reported for primary ACL reconstruction. This finding will help physicians in the clinical practice providing realistic expectations to the patients. Future studies should focus on participation-based outcome measures such as return to sport and in strategies to improve the results in terms of return to previous activities after revision ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis including Level IV studies, Level IV.

After revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, who returns to sport? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Return to sport and to pre-injury level represents an important outcome after both primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

PURPOSE

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to determine the return to sport rate after revision ACL reconstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Databases. All the studies that reported return to sport, return to pre-injury sport level and return to high level/competitive sport was considered for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled mean of post-operative knee laxity and pooled rate of positive pivot-shift and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) categories was calculated as well.

RESULTS

Overall, 472 abstracts were identified and screened for inclusion and only 16 studies reported the rate of return to any level of sport activity at the final follow-up of 4.7 years (range 1.0-13.2 years), showing a pooled rate of 85.3% (CI 79.7 to 90.2). The return to pre-injury sport level was achieved in 53.4% (CI 37.8 to 68.7) of cases. Normal or quasi-normal objective IKDC, less than 5 mm of side-to-side difference at arthrometric evaluations and grade I-II pivot-shift test were reported in 84%, 88% and 93% patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of almost 8 patients out of 10 returning to sport after revision ACL reconstruction and showing good stability, only half of the patients returned to the same pre-injury sport level.

The Impact of the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Research on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Orthopaedic Practice

With an estimated 200,000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed annually in the United States, there is an emphasis on determining patient-specific information to help educate patients on expected clinically relevant outcomes. The Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network consortium was created in 2002 to enroll and longitudinally follow a large population cohort of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. The study group has enrolled >4,400 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from seven institutions to establish the large level I prospective anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes cohort. The group has become more than a database with information regarding anterior cruciate ligament injuries; it has helped to establish a new benchmark for conducting multicenter, multisurgeon orthopaedic research. The changes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practice resulting from the group include the use of autograft for high school, college, and competitive athletes in their primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Other modifications include treatment options for meniscus and cartilage injuries, as well as lifestyle choices made after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.