Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Experience With 91 Patients (40 Elite Athletes) Using an Algorithm

Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus: part II-surgical strategy

PURPOSE

The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion to improve the diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in Anterior Cruciate Ligament revision.

METHODS

Part 2, presented herein, followed exactly the same methodology as Part 1: the so-called ESSKA formal consensus derived from the Delphi method. Eighteen questions were ultimately asked. The quality of the answers received the following grades of recommendation: Grade A (high level scientific support), Grade B (scientific presumption), Grade C (low level scientific support) or Grade D (expert opinion). All answers were scored from 1 to 9 by the raters. Once a general consensus had been reached between the steering and rating groups, the question-answer sets were submitted to the peer-review group. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was then held to ratify the document.

RESULTS

The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the surgical strategy in cases of ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 18 questions, only 1 received a Grade A rating; 5, a Grade B rating; and 9, grades of C or D. The three remaining complex questions received further evaluations for each portion of the question and were looked at in more detail for the following grades: B and D; A, C and D; or A, B, C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.0 + - 1.1. The questions and recommendations are listed in the article.

CONCLUSION

ACL revision surgery, especially the surgical strategy, is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardization. Therefore, this international European consensus project is of great importance and clinical relevance for guiding the management of ACL revision in adults.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Management of Bone Loss and Tunnel Widening in Revision ACL Reconstruction

➤ Both mechanical and biological factors can contribute to bone loss and tunnel widening following primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.➤ Revision ACL surgery success is dependent on graft position, fixation, and biological incorporation.➤ Both 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACL reconstructions can be successful in correctly indicated patients.➤ Potential future solutions may involve the incorporation of biological agents to enhance revision ACL surgery, including the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate, platelet-rich plasma, and bone morphogenetic protein-2.

Failure Rates and Complications After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Comparison of the Over-the-Top and Transportal Drilling Techniques

Background

Multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) presents several technical challenges, often due to residual hardware, tunnel widening, malposition, or staged surgeries.

Purpose

To compare failure and complication rates between the over-the-top (OTT) and transportal drilling (TD) techniques in patients undergoing surgery for failed revision ACLR.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The medical records of patients with at least 2 revision ACLRs using either the OTT or TD technique were reviewed retrospectively. Data on patient demographics, graft characteristics, number of revisions, concomitant procedures, complications, and failures were collected. Between-group comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were conducted with the independent-samples t test and the Fisher exact or chi-square test, respectively.

Results

A total of 101 patients undergoing multiple-revision ACLR with OTT (n = 37, 37%) and TD (n = 64, 63%) techniques were included for analysis. The mean follow-up time was 60 months (range, 12-196 months). There were no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, laterality, or follow-up length between groups (P > .05). Allograft was the graft used most frequently (n = 64; 67.3%) with no significant differences between groups in graft diameter (P > .05). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding rate of concurrent medial and lateral meniscus, cartilage, or lateral extra-articular procedures (P > .05). There was also no significant66 between-group difference in complication rate (OTT: n = 2 [5.4%]; TD: n = 8 [13%]) or graft failure rate (OTT: n = 4 [11%]; TD: n = 14 [22%]) (P > .05 for both).

Conclusion

The results of this study showed notably high failure and complication rates in challenging multiple-revision ACLR. Complication and failure rates were similar between techniques, demonstrating that the OTT technique is a valuable alternative that can be used in a revision ACLR, particularly as a single-stage approach when the single-stage TD technique is not possible.

Clinical outcomes and return to sport after single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by bone-patellar tendon autograft combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis

PURPOSE

The anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure rate continues to increase. Involvement of a young population with a desire to return to sport, explains the increased need for ACLR (revACLR) revision. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome, complications, failure rate and return to sport of a single-stage revACLR using bone patellar tendon-bone (BTBT) combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 36 patients who underwent revACLR. Knee stability was assessed by Lachman and Pivot shift test. Objective anterior laxity was determined by KT-2000 arthrometer. The IKDC subjective, Lysholm, ACL-RSI Scores, level of sport activity and Forgotten Joint Score-12 were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 36 patients, we collected data from 17 who underwent single-stage revACLR with autologous BTBT combined with LET, performed using an extra-articular MacIntosh procedure as modified by Arnold-Coker. The side-to-side difference in Lachman test and Pivot shift test significantly improved postoperatively. The subjective IKDC, Lysholm and ACL-RSI significantly improved from 71.4 ± 9.03 to 92 ± 6.9, from 58.3 ± 19.3 to 66.8 ± 27.7 and from 50.4 ± 12.2 to 68.6 ± 24.5, respectively during the post-operative follow-up. Ten patients (58.8%) returned to their desired level of sport. One patient was considered a failure because of the postoperative laxity.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage revACLR with BPTB combined with LET is a safe procedure that shows good objective and subjective outcomes, and a high rate of return to the same level of sport. Reducing rotational instability and strain on intra-articular reconstructed structures results in a low rate of complications and failure.

Tibial tunnel enlargement is affected by the tunnel diameter-screw ratio in tibial hybrid fixation for hamstring ACL reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

There is no evidence on screw diameter with regards to tunnel size in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using hybrid fixation devices. The hypothesis was that an undersized tunnel coverage by the tibial screw leads to subsequent tunnel enlargement in ACLR in hybrid fixation technique.

METHODS

In a retrospective case series, radiographs and clinical scores of 103 patients who underwent primary hamstring tendon ACLR with a hybrid fixation technique at the tibial site (interference screw and suspensory fixation) were obtained. Tunnel diameters in the frontal and sagittal planes were measured on radiographs 6 weeks and 12 months postoperatively. Tunnel enlargement of more than 10% between the two periods was defined as tunnel widening. Tunnel coverage ratio was calculated as the tunnel diameter covered by the screw in percentage.

RESULTS

Overall, tunnel widening 12 months postoperatively was 23.1 ± 17.1% and 24.2 ± 18.2% in the frontal and sagittal plane, respectively. Linear regression analysis revealed the tunnel coverage ratio to be a negative predicting risk factor for tunnel widening (p = 0.001). The ROC curve analysis provided an ideal cut-off for tunnel enlargement of > 10% at a tunnel coverage ratio of 70% (sensitivity 60%, specificity 81%, AUC 75%, p < 0.001). Patients (n = 53/103) with a tunnel coverage ratio of < 70% showed significantly higher tibial tunnel enlargement of 15% in the frontal and sagittal planes. The binary logistic regression showed a significant OR of 6.9 (p = 0.02) for tunnel widening > 10% in the frontal plane if the tunnel coverage ratio was < 70% (sagittal plane: OR 14.7, p = 0.001). Clinical scores did not correlate to tunnel widening.

CONCLUSION

Tibial tunnel widening was affected by the tunnel diameter coverage ratio. To minimize the likelihood of disadvantageous tunnel expansion-which is of importance in case of revision surgery-an interference screw should not undercut the tunnel diameter by more than 1 mm.

The Addition of Either an Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or an Iliotibial Band Tenodesis Is Associated With a Lower Failure Rate After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparative Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the failure rate in patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction alone or associated with an extra-articular procedure. Secondary objectives were to compare ACL laxity, patient-reported outcome measures, and complication rates in these patients and, subsequently, to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction associated with anatomical anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).

METHODS

This was a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified into 2 groups, according to whether (group 2) or not (group 1) an extra-articular reconstruction was performed. Patients who underwent an extra-articular procedure were further divided into ALL reconstruction (group 2A) and LET (group 2B). Baseline demographic variables, operative data and postoperative data were evaluated.

RESULTS

The groups with (86 patients) and without (88 patients) an associated extra-articular reconstruction had similar preoperative data. Group 2 had a lower failure rate (4.6% vs 14.7%; P = .038), better KT-1000, better pivot-shift, and better Lysholm. There was no difference regarding complications, except more lateral pain in group 2. Regarding the groups who underwent ALL reconstruction (41 patients) and LET (46 patients), group 2A showed better Lysholm scores. Both groups had similar failure rates and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a laterally based augmentation procedure had a lower failure rate than patients who underwent isolated revision ACL reconstruction. KT-1000 and pivot-shift examination were also significantly better when a lateral augmentation was performed. Complications were similar except for an increase in lateral pain in the augmented group. No clinically important differences were found when comparing the LET group to the ALL group other than a statistical improvement in the Lysholm functional scale, likely not clinically meaningful, favoring the ALL group and an increased duration of post-operative lateral pain in the LET group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Rates and Levels of Elite Sport Participation at 5 Years After Revision ACL Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data regarding return to play (RTP), level of competition, and longevity of play after revision of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) in elite athletes.

PURPOSE

To report RTP rates and competition levels in elite athletes at the point of RTP, as well as at 2 and 5 years after revision ACLR, and the effect of meniscal and chondral pathology at revision surgery on these outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a consecutive series of all revision ACLRs undertaken by the senior author between 2009 and 2019, with a minimum 2-year follow-up, was carried out. Outcome measures were RTP rates and competition level.

RESULTS

A total of 49 knees in 48 elite athletes met the inclusion criteria. After revision ACLR, 43 (87.8%) elite athletes achieved RTP, of whom 75.5% were at the same level. At 2 years after surgery, 39 (79.6%) were still playing, 25 (51%) at the same level; at 5 years after surgery, 20 (44.4%) were still playing, 9 (20%) at the same level. Elite athletes with <50% thickness or no articular cartilage lesions were more likely to RTP (94.6% vs 66.7%; P = .026), as well as return to the same competition level (83.8% vs 50%; P = .047), compared with those with ≥50% thickness chondral lesions. Those without medial meniscal pathology were more likely to RTP at the same level after revision surgery (94.4% vs 64.5%; P = .036). The median time elite athletes continued to play after revision ACLR was 73 months (95% CI, 43.4-102.6); 23 months at the same level (95% CI, 13.6-32.4). The probability of still playing at 5 years after surgery was 55.9%, with a 22.5% chance of maintaining preinjury competition level.

CONCLUSION

In elite athletes, RTP rates and competition level decreased over time after revision ACLR. The presence of >50% thickness chondral pathology was associated with lower RTP rates and competition level at RTP time, while medial meniscal pathology was associated with lower competition level at RTP.

Controversies in ACL revision surgery: Italian expert group consensus and state of the art

Background

Revision ACL reconstruction is a complex topic with many controversies and not-easy-to-make decisions. The authors’ aim is to provide some feasible advice that can be applied in daily clinical practice with the goal of facilitating the decision-making process and improving the outcomes of patients subjected to revision ACL reconstruction.

Methods

A national survey with seven questions about the most controversial topics in revision ACL reconstruction was emailed to members of two societies: SIOT and SIAGASCOT. The participants’ answers were collected, the most recent literature was analyzed, and a consensus was created by the authors, according to their long-term surgical experience.

Conclusions

The decision-making process in revision ACL reconstruction starts with a standardized imaging protocol (weight-bearing radiographs, CT scan, and MRI). One-stage surgery is indicated in almost all cases (exceptions are severe tunnel enlargement and infection), while the choice of graft depends on the previously used graft and the dimensions of the tunnels, with better clinical outcomes obtained for autografts. Additional procedures such as lateral extra-articular tenodesis in high-grade pivot-shift knees, biplanar HTO in the case of severe coronal malalignment, and meniscal suture improve the clinical outcome and should be considered case by case.

Level of evidence

V (Expert opinion).

Combined Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction

There has been a substantial increase in the number of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions performed in the past decade. This Technical Note describes combined revision ACL and anterolateral ligament reconstruction using outside-in drilling, which avoids the need for 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction because it allows unconstrained anatomic placement.