Placement of Double Tunnels in ACL Reconstruction Using Bony Landmarks Versus Existing Footprint Remnant: A Prospective Clinical Study With 2-Year Follow-up

Two-stage ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation as treatment of knee dislocation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of two-stage reconstruction (peripheral reconstruction in phase I and central anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) / posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction in phase II) with remnant preservation for patients with knee dislocation.

METHODS

A total of 70 patients (10 IIIM, 17 IIIL, and 43 IV) with knee dislocation were randomly divided into the remnant-preserved group and the simple reconstruction group. Patients underwent two-stage reconstruction, including the reconstruction of collateral ligament in phase I and the reconstruction of ACL/PCL in phase II (12 weeks after phase I). Grafts were harvested from the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons from both lower limbs. After the surgery, the joint flexion and extension, bone tunnel and ligament healing, and joint stability were evaluated.

RESULTS

After the surgery, the lateral stability recovered in all patients, and X-ray revealed a good position of bone tunnel. Follow-up was performed at 12 months postoperatively and ranged from 24 to 91 months. At the final follow-up, knee flexion angle, IKDC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores were all higher in both groups compared to the preoperative period. Notably, the remnant-preserved group showed superior results in these parameters compared to the simple reconstruction group. There was statistical significance between the two groups in terms of the Lachman test.

CONCLUSION

The knee function was well recovered after two-stage ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation.

The incidence of tibial tunnel coalition is higher than femoral tunnel coalition in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autografts: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Intra-operative and postoperative coalition of tunnels may occur in double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the incidence and effect on clinical outcomes of tunnel coalition following primary DB ACLR using a hamstring autograft has yet be analyzed, and thus remains unknown. The objective of this systematic review was to identify the incidence of tunnel coalition upon DB ACLR using hamstring autografts and to elucidate any clinical outcomes and/or complications that tunnel coalition may have postoperatively.

HYPOTHESIS

The incidence of tunnel coalition would increase in respect to time from the index surgery, and that tunnel coalition would be related to poorer clinical outcomes compared to non-coalition cases.

METHODS

Three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were searched in accordance with PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines on June 15, 2020. Relevant studies were screened in duplicate and data regarding patient demographics, incidence of femoral and tibial tunnel coalition, and outcomes were extracted. Coalition rate was also compared between follow up at 1 month or less defined as "shorter-term", and 6 months or greater as "longer-term". Coalition is defined as the missing of a bony bridge between the two tunnels.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies examining 1,574 patients, mean age 29.1 years, were included in this study. 29 studies (1,110 knees) reported the incidence of femoral coalition with a pooled rate of coalition of 8% (95% CI=4-12%). 28 studies (1,129 knees) reported an incidence of tibial coalition with a pooled rate of coalition of 21% (95% CI=13-30%). The incidence of tibial coalition was significantly higher than the incidence of femoral coalition across 21 comparative studies (OR=3.37, 95% CI=1.41-8.09, p=0.0065). Only two studies (111 knees) compared tunnel coalition and non-coalition groups for clinical outcome and no significant differences were observed with regards to Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and knee laxity measured with a KT-1000 arthrometer.

DISCUSSION

The rate of tibial tunnel coalition in DB ACLR is higher than femoral tunnel coalition, particularly at longer-term follow-up. Despite the higher radiographic evidence of coalition, the clinical effects of such remain to be ascertained, and further comparative studies are required to facilitate this understanding.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review.

Preservation of the Tibial Stump During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery Did Not Increase the Rate of Surgery for Symptomatic Cyclops Lesions

Background

Preservation of the tibial stump during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is controversial. While proposed benefits include enhanced graft revascularization, improved proprioception, and decreased graft rupture rates, a potential complication is the development of a symptomatic cyclops lesion. It is therefore important to determine whether any benefits outweigh potential complications.

Purpose

To determine whether greater preservation of the tibial stump remnant would be associated with a decreased graft rupture rate without a concomitant increase in the rate of surgery for symptomatic cyclops lesions at 2 years after ACLR.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A cohort of 658 patients in whom the amount of tibial stump preserved was classified as no stump (n = 228), <50% (n = 342), or >50% (n = 88) was followed up for 2 years, with graft ruptures and surgical treatment for cyclops lesions recorded. Contingency and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to determine trends among the 3 remnant preservation groups in terms of graft rupture rates and surgery for cyclops lesions. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to examine sex-based differences.

Results

There was no significant association between graft rupture rates and remnant preservation. There was a significant trend for fewer operations for symptomatic cyclops lesions with greater remnant preservation when the entire cohort was analyzed (P = .04) and also when only female patients were analyzed (P = .04).

Conclusion

Although preservation of the tibial stump remnant was not associated with a reduced graft rupture rate, it was also not associated with increased rates of surgery for symptomatic cyclops lesions.

Interbundle Impingement Pressure in Individualized and Nonindividualized Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study

Background:

Graft impingement is one of the main concerns in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLR). Impingement between the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles has been postulated to cause graft deterioration or rerupture, but this has not been thoroughly investigated, and the interbundle impingement pressure (IIP) has not been well researched.

Purpose:

To determine the IIP between the AM and PL bundles in the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and in DB-ACLR with individualized and nonindividualized double-tunnel placement.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

A total of 30 fresh-frozen, nonpaired, human cadaveric knees were randomly divided into 3 groups of 10 knees: native intact ACL (NI group), DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the preserved remnant procedure (individualized reconstruction) (PR group), and DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the bony landmark procedure (nonindividualized reconstruction) (BL group). Pressure sensors were inserted between the AM and PL bundles. The knee was moved passively from full extension to full flexion, and the IIP between the 2 ACL bundles was measured every 15°. Similarly, the impingement pressure was measured between the ACL and intercondylar roof and between the ACL and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL).

Results:

No significant differences were found in the maximum, mean, or minimum ACL-roof and ACL-PCL impingement pressures among the 3 groups. The IIP significantly increased when the knee joint was flexed >120° in all 3 groups (P < .001). Compared with the other 2 groups, the BL group had significantly higher maximum and mean IIP throughout the range of knee movement (P < .001) and from maximum extension to 120° of flexion (P < .001). The BL group also had significantly higher minimum IIP than the other 2 groups when knee flexion was >120° (P < .001). No significant differences were seen in maximum, minimum, or mean IIP between the NI and PR groups.

Conclusion:

The PR procedure (individualized DB-ACLR) was more consistent with the interbundle biomechanical conditions of the native ACL, whereas the BL procedure (nonindividualized DB-ACLR) had higher maximum and mean IIP. The IIP was higher than the ACL–intercondylar roof or ACL-PCL pressures, and it increased significantly when knee flexion was >120°.

Clinical Relevance:

These data suggest that surgeons can perform individualized DB-ACLR using preserved remnants for tunnel placement as impingement-free DB-ACLR.

Remnant preservation provides good clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association of remnant preservation (RP) and non-RP (NRP) with patient-reported outcome measures and subsequent graft rupture at a minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients in this retrospective study underwent primary isolated ACL reconstruction by the RP or NRP technique with a four- to five-strand hamstring tendon graft. Multivariate linear or logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were performed to compare the physical and psychological outcomes by the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form (IKDC-SKF) and the Japanese Anterior Cruciate Ligament questionnaire 25 (JACL-25), respectively; satisfaction rate; and prognosticators of graft rupture.

RESULTS

In total, 120 patients (mean age, 30.6 ± 12.7 years; 54 RP, 66 NRP) with a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 1.6 years were enrolled in this study. At the latest postoperative follow-up, the RP group showed a mean IKDC-SKF score of 92.3 ± 8.5 and mean JACL-25 score of 13.2 ± 11.2, while these scores in the NRP group were 86.4 ± 12.2 and 24.4 ± 19.5, respectively (P = 0.016 and 0.007, respectively). No significant differences were found in the return-to-sports rate (RP vs. NRP, 79.5% vs. 67.5%) or satisfaction rate (RP vs. NRP, 89.2% vs. 74.4%) (n.s.); however, a significant difference was found in the rate of return to the preinjury sports level (RP vs. NRP, 64.1% vs. 37.5%; P = 0.014). The graft rupture rate was significantly higher in the NRP than RP group (9/66 vs. 1/54; hazard ratio 9.29; 95% confidence interval 1.04-82.81). Younger age (≤ 18 years) was the other important risk factor for graft rupture (hazard ratio 8.67; 95% confidence interval 2.02-37.13).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with the RP technique obtained somewhat better physical and psychological results than those who underwent ACL reconstruction with the NRP technique. With respect to clinical relevance, patients treated with the RP technique may obtain better outcomes in terms of graft rupture and return to the preinjury sports level than those treated with the NRP technique, but with no differences in overall return to sports or satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Remnant-Preserving Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Remnant Envelope Technique

The awareness of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and their treatment is increasing among athletes and within the general population, so patients report early to orthopaedic surgeons. Because we encounter a thick ACL stump during arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, an attempt is made to preserve this stump. Remnant preservation-although promising in terms of graft healing because it enhances cell proliferation, revascularization, and regeneration of the proprioceptive organs in the reconstructed ACL-does not come without complications, such as cyclops lesions, impingement, and extension loss. These problems can be detrimental to an athlete's return to his or her preinjury level after ACL reconstruction. Therefore, we describe a technique in which the ACL is reconstructed using hamstring autograft and suture passes are made through the remnant with an antegrade suture-passing device. After anatomic tunnel drilling, the remnant is tensioned, along with the reconstructed ACL, at the femoral end without the use of an extra implant. Femoral-side fixation is achieved with an adjustable-loop button (Procinch; Stryker) and a bio-composite interference screw (Biosure Regenesorb; Smith & Nephew) on the tibial end. As the sutured remnant is tensioned and knots are made over the button, the remnant envelopes the graft in the orientation of the native ACL, which can be helpful for early and better ligamentization of the graft. The potential advantages of this technique are as follows: orientation of the remnant along the collagen of the ACL graft; no loose ACL stump in the notch, thus preventing cyclops lesions; retention of the proprioceptive organs in the ligament; and no extra implant.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation: current concepts

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are a common knee injury, and anatomic ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is now the standard of care to restore knee stability. Nevertheless, re-tear rates exceeding 5% are commonly reported, with an even higher percentage of patients unable to achieve preinjury knee function. As the torn ACL remnant contains elements (eg, cells, blood vessels and mechanoreceptors) essential to ACL function, it has been hypothesised that ACLR with remnant preservation may improve graft remodelling, in turn more quickly and completely restoring ACL structure and function. In this Current Concepts review, we summarise the present understanding of ACLR with remnant preservation, which includes selective bundle reconstruction of partial (one-bundle) ACL tears and single- and double-bundle ACLR with minimal to partial debridement of the torn ACL stump. Reported benefits of remnant preservation include accelerated graft revascularisation and remodelling, improved proprioception, decreased bone tunnel enlargement, individualised anatomic bone tunnel placement, improved objective knee stability and early mechanical support (with selective bundle reconstruction) to healing tissues. However, clinical studies of ACLR with remnant preservation are heterogeneous in the description of remnant characteristics and surgical technique. Presently, there is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of ACLR with remnant preservation over the standard technique. Future studies should better describe the ACL tear pattern, remnant volume, remnant quality and surgical technique. Progress made in understanding and applying remnant preservation may inform, and be reciprocally guided by, ongoing research on ACL repair. The goal of research on ACLR with remnant preservation is not only to achieve anatomic structural restoration of the ACL but also to facilitate biologic healing and regeneration to ensure a more robust and functional graft.

Is Remnant Preservation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Superior to the Standard Technique? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence that aims at comparing the clinical outcomes of remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and standard ACLR.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing remnant-preserving ACLR with standard ACLR with a minimum level of evidence of II was performed. Studies were included by strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Extracted data were summarized as preoperative conditions, postoperative clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications. When feasible, meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.3 software. Study methodological quality was evaluated with the modified Coleman methodology score (CMS).

Results

Eleven studies (n = 466 remnant-preserving and n = 536 standard) met the inclusion criteria. The mean modified CMS for all included studies was 85.8 (range: 77–92 on a 100-point scale). In total, 466 patients underwent remnant-preserving ACLR by 3 different procedures: standard ACLR plus tibial remnant tensioning (n = 283), selective-bundle augmentation (n = 49), and standard ACLR plus tibial remnant sparing (n = 134). Remnant-preserving ACLR provided a superior outcome of postoperative knee anterior stability (WMD = −0.42, 95% CI, −0.66, −0.17; P < 0.01) and Lysholm score (WMD = 2.01, 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.50; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to second-look arthroscopy (OR = 1.38, 95% CI, 0.53, 3.62; P=0.51), complications (OR = 1.24 95% CI, 0.76, 2.02; P=0.39), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subject scores, IKDC grades, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test.

Summary/conclusion

Remnant-preserving ACLR promotes similar graft synovial coverage and revascularization to standard ACLR. Equivalent or superior postoperative knee stability and clinical scores were observed for remnant-preserving ACLR compared with standard ACLR. No significant difference in the total complication rate between the groups was evident.

Evaluation parameters of graft maturation on second-look arthroscopy following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate and summarize the evaluation methods of graft maturation on second-look arthroscopy following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

A literature search was performed on articles before December 2017 to identify the literature that has evaluated graft maturation on second-look arthroscopy following ACL reconstruction. Only studies using human grafts, evaluating graft maturation with two or more gross findings were included. Study design, grafts, surgical techniques, follow-up period, evaluation parameters, and categories were compiled.

Results

Twenty-eight studies were included in this study. All studies evaluated graft maturation with two or more of the following three findings: graft integrity, tension, and synovial coverage. Two to four categories were used for evaluating each parameter, but the criteria for classification were slightly different for each study. Several studies reported neo-vascularization of grafts and the total maturation score by summing up the scores assigned to each evaluation parameter. Three studies reported that there was no correlation between second-look findings and patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusions

Graft integrity, tension, and synovial coverage were the most frequently evaluated for graft maturation on second-look arthroscopy. However, there is no uniform criterion for evaluation. Therefore, development of a valid, uinform criterion is required.

Level of evidence

Level IV, systematic review of level I–IV investigations.

Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

This meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through December 24, 2017, to identify randomized controlled studies that compared the use of the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique for primary ACL reconstruction. Statistical heterogeneity among the trials was evaluated with chi-square and I-square tests. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential differences according to type of ACL remnant tissue (remnant bundle or remnant fibers).

Results

Seven studies with a combined 412 patients (208 in the remnant preservation technique group and 204 in the standard technique group) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between the groups in Lysholm score (mean difference (MD), 2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95–3.45; P = 0.0006) and side-to-side difference (MD, − 0.71; 95% CI, − 0.87 to − 0.55; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the groups in subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, complications, pivot shift test, Lachman test, or overall IKDC score. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that for primary ACL reconstruction with preservation of remnant fibers, the remnant preservation technique was superior to the standard technique based on Lysholm scores (P < 0.01) and side-to-side difference (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Based on the current literature, using the remnant preservation technique showed a better clinical outcome than using the standard technique for patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with respect to Lysholm score and side-to-side difference. However, it remains unclear that there is a definite advantage to use the remnant preservation technique compared with the standard technique.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13018-018-0937-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Restoring tibiofemoral alignment during ACL reconstruction results in better knee biomechanics

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) aims to restore normal knee joint function, stability and biomechanics and in the long term avoid joint degeneration. The purpose of this study is to present the anatomic single bundle (SB) ACLR that emphasizes intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation that occurs after ACL injury. It was hypothesized that this technique leads to optimal outcomes and better restoration of pathological tibiofemoral joint movement that results from ACL deficiency (ACLD).

METHODS

Thirteen men with unilateral ACLD were prospectively evaluated before and at a mean follow-up of 14.9 (SD = 1.8) months after anatomic SB ACLR with bone patellar tendon bone autograft. The anatomic ACLR replicated the native ACL attachment site anatomy and graft orientation. Emphasis was placed on intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation by reducing anterior tibial translation (ATT) and internal tibial rotation. Function was measured with IKDC, Lysholm and the Tegner activity scale, ATT was measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer and tibial rotation (TR) kinematics were measured with 3Dmotion analysis during a high-demand pivoting task.

RESULTS

The results showed significantly higher TR of the ACL-deficient knee when compared to the intact knee prior to surgery (12.2° ± 3.7° and 10.7° ± 2.6° respectively, P = 0.014). Postoperatively, the ACLR knee showed significantly lower TR as compared to the ACL-deficient knee (9.6°±3.1°, P = 0.001) but no difference as compared to the control knee (n.s.). All functional scores were significantly improved and ATT was restored within normal values (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation that results after ACL injury is an important step during anatomic SB ACLR. The intraoperative correction of tibiofemoral subluxation along with the replication of native ACL anatomy results in restoration of rotational kinematics of ACLD patients to normal levels that are comparable to the control knee. These results indicate that the reestablishment of tibiofemoral alignment during ACLR may be an important step that facilitates normal knee kinematics postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cohort study.

Outcomes After Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE

To identify the risk factors predicting unsatisfactory postoperative clinical outcomes after double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using multivariate logistic regression.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were consecutive DB ACL reconstructions from January 2006 to September 2012 with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included (1) a delay to surgery from initial injury of more than 4 years (210 weeks); (2) contralateral knee pathology; (3) the lack of postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography; (4) single-bundle ACL reconstruction; (5) revision ACL reconstruction; (6) meniscus allograft transplantation after total or subtotal meniscectomy; (7) multiple ligament surgeries. According to the overall International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) rating at the last follow-up, we sorted all enrolled subjects into superior (IKDC grade A or B) and inferior outcome groups (IKDC grade C or D). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze risk factors, including age, gender, body mass index, time from injury to surgery, posterior tibial slope, notch width index, cartilage injury, meniscus injury, and femoral and tibial tunnel positions.

RESULTS

In comparison between the superior outcome group (n = 240) and inferior outcome group (n = 50), anterior (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.902, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.846-0.962) or distal (adjusted OR: 1.025, 95% CI: 1.006-1.060) femoral anteromedial tunnel position was a significant risk factor for the inferior outcomes. Partial meniscectomy of medial (adjusted OR: 49.002, 95% CI: 7.047-340.717) or lateral (adjusted OR: 14.974, 95% CI: 2.181-102.790) meniscus and delayed time from injury to surgery (adjusted OR: 1.062, 95% CI: 1.023-1.102) were also a significant predictor.

CONCLUSION

Anterior or distal anteromedial femoral tunnel position, partial meniscectomy of medial or lateral meniscus, and prolonged surgical delay of more than 11.5 weeks from injury were significant risk factors for the inferior clinical outcomes after DB ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective therapeutic case series.

Does anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction using hamstring autograft produce anterolateral meniscal root tearing?

Background

To determine if tibial tunnel reaming during anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring autograft can result in anterolateral meniscal root injury, as diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods

A case series of 104 primary anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstructions using hamstring autograft was retrospectively reviewed. Pre- and post-operative (>1 year) MRIs were radiologically evaluated for each patient, with a lateral meniscus extrusion > 3 mm at the level of the medial collateral ligament midportion on a coronal MRI, to establish anterolateral meniscal root injury.

Results

No patients presented radiological findings of anterolateral meniscal root injury in this case series.

Conclusions

Examining a single-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using hamstring autograft that considered tibial tunnel positioning in the center of the tibial footprint, this case series found no evidence of anterolateral meniscal root injury in patient MRIs, even more than 1-year post-operation.

Anterior cruciate ligament remnant and its values for preservation

Controversy surrounds the remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Advantages of remnant preservation have been reported in regard to better healing and knee function, although no consensus has been reached. This review article discussed the value and meaning of anterior cruciate ligament remnant preservation in several sections such as effects on healing, remnant classification, biomechanical evaluation, relation to proprioception, animal studies, and clinical studies. We hope that this review will facilitate further discussion and investigation for better treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. So far, the current reviews have not provided sufficient scientific evidence to support the value of preserving the remnant.