Relationship Between Sports Participation After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Four-year comparative analysis of return to sport and psychological recovery following ACL revision: Artificial ligament vs. anterior tibial tendon allograft

Background

Research on return to sport and psychological recovery in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision remains scarce. The clinical efficacy of artificial ligament in ACL revision requires further exploration. Our objectives were (1) to compare the midterm clinical outcomes of artificial ligament versus allogenic tendon graft in ACL revision and (2) to analyze the effects of employing artificial ligament on return to sport and psychological recovery in ACL revision.

Methods

This cohort study included the cases receiving ACL revision from 2014 to 2021 in Sports Medicine Department of Huashan Hospital. The grafts used were Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) and ATT allograft. We recorded patients' baseline data. The final follow-up assessment included subjective scales, physical examination, and return to sport status. We recorded the rates and timings of return to sport. Subjective scales included the 2000 International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm Knee Scaling Score (LKSS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner activity score, Marx activity rating score, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI). Anterior knee stability was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer.

Results

Fifty cases (LARS group: 27; ATT group: 23) enrolled and 45 (LARS group: 23; ATT group: 22) completed evaluations with a median follow-up period of 49 months. At recent follow-up, LARS group outperformed in knee stability (1.0 ± 1.9 mm vs. 2.6 ± 3.0 mm, P = 0.039), confidence (86.7 ± 12.4 vs. 69.4 ± 18.6, P < 0.001), emotion (82.7 ± 11.3 vs. 70.7 ± 16.2, P < 0.001), KOOS knee function (78.7 ± 8.8 vs. 69.5 ± 11.0, P = 0.003), quality of life (79.1 ± 16.1 vs. 66.4 ± 19.5, P = 0.014), Tegner score (6.3 ± 1.9 vs. 5.2 ± 2.1, P < 0.001), and Marx activity score (10.7 ± 3.7 vs. 7.9 ± 4.0, P = 0.012). The LARS group had significantly higher return rates: recreational (91.3 % vs. 63.6 %, P = 0.026), knee cutting and pivoting (87.0 % vs. 59.1 %, P = 0.035), competitive (78.3 % vs. 45.5 %, P = 0.023), and pre-injury (56.5 % vs. 27.3 %, P = 0.047). For return timings, the LARS group was earlier at recreational (11.2 ± 3.9 vs. 27.8 ± 9.0 weeks, P < 0.001), knee cutting and pivoting (17.2 ± 5.8 vs. 35.6 ± 13.8 weeks, P < 0.001), competitive (24.8 ± 16.2 vs. 53.2 ± 22.0 weeks, P < 0.001), and pre-injury levels (32.8 ± 11.0 vs. 72.8 ± 16.9 weeks, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In ACL revision, using LARS demonstrated improved joint stability and functionality compared to using allogenic ATT four years postoperative. Patients accepting the LARS procedure exhibited higher rates and earlier timings of return to various levels of sport, indicating enhanced confidence and emotional resilience.

The translational potential of this article

In ACL revision, the choice of artificial ligament to shorten recovery time, thereby enabling patients to return to sport more quickly and effectively, is thought-provoking. The research value extends beyond mere graft selection, guiding future clinical trials and studies. This research enhances our understanding of the application value of artificial ligament in ACL revision, emphasizing the importance of psychological recovery and updating our perceptions of return to sport levels post-revision. It stimulates exploration into personalized rehabilitation programs and treatment strategies, aiming to optimize clinical outcomes and meet the real-world needs of patients with failed ACL reconstruction.

The influence of body mass index on physical activity engagement following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic literature review

Background

The objective of this study was to summarize available literature that explored the impact of body mass index (BMI) on physical activity participation among individuals who were subjected to the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

Methods

A total of three electronic databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, were comprehensively searched to identify relevant investigations. The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) study design was observational; (2) participants underwent the ACLR; (3) BMI was estimated as a predictor variable; and (4) outcomes evaluated referred to physical activity. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.

Results

After a database search, 787 studies were found, and only 10 of them met each of the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. Regarding respondents' characteristics, 7171 individuals underwent ACLR, 4080 males and 3091 females, with a mean age of 25.5 years. Most importantly, the average BMI of the examined population was 24.9 kg/m2. In all studies, physical activity was evaluated subjectively using the Tegner activity scale and the Marx activity scale. The main findings unambiguously demonstrated that a negative relationship between BMI and physical activity engagement was observed. More specifically, there is convincing evidence that BMI over 25 kg/m2 harmfully affected subjectively assessed physical activity in individuals with a history of ACLR.

Conclusion

The results obtained in the presented research indicated that increased values of BMI were a factor that correlated with reduced physical activity levels in the ACLR population. Hence, taking into account the clinical and health implications of reduced physical activity participation, stimulation of a healthy lifestyle, such as a combination of adequately designed physical exercise and nutrition, seems necessary for the analyzed population.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure from rupture, attenuation, or malposition may cause recurrent subjective instability and objective laxity, and occurs in 3% to 22% of ACL reconstruction (ACLr) procedures. Revision ACLr is often indicated to restore knee stability, improve knee function, and facilitate return to cutting and pivoting activities. Prior to reconstruction, a thorough clinical and diagnostic evaluation is required to identify factors that may have predisposed an individual to recurrent ACL injury, appreciate concurrent intra-articular pathology, and select the optimal graft for revision reconstruction. Single-stage revision can be successful, although a staged approach may be used when optimal tunnel placement is not possible due to the position and/or widening of previous tunnels. Revision ACLr often involves concomitant procedures such as meniscal/chondral treatment, lateral extra-articular augmentation, and/or osteotomy. Although revision ACLr reliably restores knee stability and function, clinical outcomes and reoperation rates are worse than for primary ACLr.

Returning to Activity After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Surgery: An Analysis of the Multicenter Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Study (MARS) Cohort at 2 Years Postoperative

BACKGROUND

Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires postoperatively compared to cohorts with primary ACL reconstruction. In a previously active population, it is unclear if patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with a return to activity (RTA) or vary by sports participation level (higher level vs. recreational athletes).

HYPOTHESES

Individual RTA would be associated with improved outcomes (ie, decreased knee symptoms, pain, function) as measured using validated PROs. Recreational participants would report lower PROs compared with higher level athletes and be less likely to RTA.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

There were 862 patients who underwent a revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) and self-reported physical activity at any level preoperatively. Those who did not RTA reported no activity 2 years after revision. Baseline data included patient characteristics, surgical history and characteristics, and PROs: International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A binary indicator was used to identify patients with same/better PROs versus worse outcomes compared with baseline, quantifying the magnitude of change in each direction, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate risk factors for not returning to activity, the association of 2-year PROs after rACLR surgery by RTA status, and whether each PRO and RTA status differed by participation level.

RESULTS

At 2 years postoperatively, approximately 15% did not RTA, with current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.3; P = .001), female patients (aOR = 2.9; P < .001), recreational participants (aOR = 2.0; P = .016), and those with a previous medial meniscal excision (aOR = 1.9; P = .013) having higher odds of not returning. In multivariate models, not returning to activity was significantly associated with having worse PROs at 2 years; however, no clinically meaningful differences in PROs at 2 years were seen between participation levels.

CONCLUSION

Recreational-level participants were twice as likely to not RTA compared with those participating at higher levels. Within a previously active cohort, no RTA was a significant predictor of lower PROs after rACLR. However, among patients who did RTA after rACLR, approximately 20% reported lower outcome scores. Most patients with rACLR who were active at baseline improved over time; however, patients who reported worse outcomes at 2 years had a clinically meaningful decline across all PROs.

Quadriceps tendon autograft is becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate trends in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R), with emphasis on intra-articular findings, grafts, and concurrent procedures. It was hypothesized that revision ACL-Rs over time show a trend toward increased complexity with increased use of autografts over allografts.

METHODS

This was a two-center retrospective study including patients undergoing revision ACL-R between 2010 and 2020. Demographic and surgical data including intra-articular findings and concurrent procedures were collected and compared for the time periods 2010-2014 and 2015-2020. All collected variables were compared between three pre-defined age groups (< 20 years, 20-30 years, > 30 years), right and left knees, and males and females. A time series analysis was performed to assess trends in revision ACL-R.

RESULTS

This study included 260 patients with a mean age of 26.2 ± 9.4 years at the time of the most recent revision ACL-R, representing the first, second, third, and fourth revision ACL-R for 214 (82%), 35 (14%), 10 (4%), and 1 (< 1%) patients, respectively. Patients age > 30 years showed a significantly longer mean time from primary ACL-R to most recent revision ACL-R (11.1 years), compared to patients age < 20 years (2.2 years, p < 0.001) and age 20-30 years (5.5 years, p < 0.05). Quadriceps tendon autograft was used significantly more often in 2015-2020 compared to 2010-2014 (49% vs. 18%, p < 0.001). A high rate of concurrently performed procedures including meniscal repairs (45%), lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET; 31%), osteotomies (13%), and meniscal allograft transplantations (11%) was shown. Concurrent LET was associated with intact cartilage and severely abnormal preoperative knee laxity and showed a statistically significant and linear increase over time (p < 0.05). Intact cartilage (41%, p < 0.05), concurrent medial meniscal repairs (39%, p < 0.05), and LET (35%, non-significant) were most frequently observed in patients aged < 20 years.

CONCLUSION

Quadriceps tendon autograft and concurrent LET are becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL-R. Intact cartilage and severely abnormal preoperative knee laxity represent indications for LET in revision ACL-R. The high rate of concurrent procedures observed demonstrates the high surgical demands of revision ACL-R.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Reconstruction

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is used in patients with recurrent instability after primary ACL reconstruction. Identifying the etiology of graft failure is critical to the success of revision reconstruction. The most common etiologies include technical errors, trauma, failure to recognize concomitant injuries, young age, incomplete rehabilitation, and hardware failure. Patients should undergo a complete history and physical examination with a specific focus on previous injury mechanism and surgical procedures. A revision ACL reconstruction is a technically demanding procedure, and the surgeon should be prepared to address bone tunnel osteolysis, concurrent meniscal, ligamentous, or cartilage lesions, and limb malalignment. Surgical techniques described in this article include both single-stage and two-stage reconstruction procedures. Rates of return to sport after a revision reconstruction are lower than after primary reconstruction. Future research should be focused on improving both single-stage and two-stage revision techniques, as well as concomitant procedures to address limb malalignment and associated injuries.

Revision ACL Reconstruction: Principles and Practice

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) surgeries is increasing and so is the number of revision surgeries for a failed ACLR. The spectrum of ACL failure includes symptoms of recurrent instability, pain, and/or stiffness.

DISCUSSION

Factors contributing to ACL failure may be classified as patient-related, surgeon-related, and biological factors. Of these, tunnel malposition and recurrent trauma are the most common causes. Detailed patient assessment, imaging, and studying details of the index surgery are critical prior to planning revision surgery. Infection has to be ruled out prior to planning any reconstructive surgical procedure. Osseous malalignment in the coronal or sagittal planes would also need correction along with or prior to revision ACL surgery. Revision ACL reconstruction maybe performed as a one-stage or two-stage procedure. Severe tunnel dilatation, infection, or arthrofibrosis necessitates a two-stage approach. Autografts are preferred for revision ACL due their lesser re-tear rates and better outcomes. Associated meniscus tears and cartilage injuries are more common in revision than in primary surgery and need to be managed appropriately. Extra-articular reconstruction for controlling anterolateral instability is frequently required as well.

CONCLUSION

Revision ACL reconstruction is a complex undertaking due to limited graft options, compromised anatomy and high frequency of associated injuries. Patient expectations must be tempered because functional outcomes and return to pre-injury sports are inferior to a primary surgery.

[Mid-term effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament revision]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the mid-term effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision and to analyze the relevant factors that may affect the surgical outcomes.

METHODS

The clinical data of 24 patients who underwent ACL revision surgery between April 2009 and July 2018 and were followed up for more than 2 years were retrospectively analyzed. There were 20 males and 4 females with a median age of 30 years [interquartile distance (IQR) was (25, 36) years]. The median body mass index was 24.45 kg/m 2 and IQR was (22.93, 25.93) kg/m 2. The median time between ACL revision and reconstruction was 41 months and IQR was (15, 85) months. The direct cause of the failure of reconstruction surgery included 14 cases of trauma, 8 cases of no obvious cause, and 2 cases of infection. During the revision operation, 14 patients had a poor bone tunnel position, all of which were drilled with new tunnels, the remaining 10 patients were freshly modified on the basis of the original bone tunnel. Seventeen patients used autogenous tendon revision, 7 patients used LARS ligament; 16 patients had cartilage injury. The Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and the Tegner sports rating score were used for functional evaluation before operation, at 1 year after operation, and at last follow-up. The Likert satisfaction score was recorded at last follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients were followed up with a median time of 47 months and IQR was (32, 61) months. The Lysholm score, IKDC score, and Tegner sports rating score were significantly improved at 1 year after operation and at last follow-up when compared with preoperative scores ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference between at last follow-up and at 1 year after operation ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the median Likert satisfaction score was 4.0 and IQR was (3.0, 4.5). According to the presence or absence of cartilage damage and the type of graft, the above scores at last follow-up were compared between the groups, and the differences were not significant ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, 2 patients had graft fractures due to trauma again, and autogenous iliac bones were taken to fill the bone tunnel, and the second stage was revised; the rest of the patients recovered satisfactorily.

CONCLUSION

With preoperative identification of the cause of ACL reconstruction failure, the stability and function of knee joint can be significantly improved by selecting appropriate bone tunnels and grafts during the revision and by active rehabilitation exercises.