Effect of Early Residual Laxity After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction on Long-term Laxity, Graft Failure, Return to Sports, and Subjective Outcome at 25 Years: Response

Bilateral changes in knee joint laxity during the first year after non-surgically treated anterior cruciate ligament injury

OBJECTIVES

Analyse changes in knee laxity between 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after non-surgically treated ACL injury and to analyse associations between knee laxity and knee function, self-reported knee stability, ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI), fear and confidence at different timepoints during recovery.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

125 patients (67 males, mean age 25.0 ± 7.0 years) with acute ACL injury.

MAIN OUTCOME

Laxity was measured using KT-1000 arthrometer. Self-reported knee function was assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF). Confidence and fear were assessed with questions from the ACL-RSI scale. Subjectively knee stability was assessed using SANE.

RESULTS

Knee laxity increased bilaterally from 3 to 12 months, and in the non-involved knee from 3 to 24 months (p˂0.05), although mean change was below 1 mm. Side-to-side difference in knee laxity was correlated with IKDC-SKF (r = -0.283) and knee stability in rehabilitation/sport activities (r = -0.315) at 6 months, but not with confidence/fear.

CONCLUSION

Knee laxity increased bilaterally during the first year after non-surgically treated ACL injury, though, the mean change in knee laxity was below 1 mm and the clinical significance is unknown. Knee laxity was weakly associated with knee function and perceived knee stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02931084.

Latin American formal consensus on the appropriate indications of extra-articular lateral procedures in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

To create a practice guideline for the appropriate indications of an extra-articular procedure in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

The formal consensus method described by the Haute Autorité de Santé was used. The Latin American Society of Arthroscopy, Articular Replacement, and Sports Injuries (SLARD) recruited three groups of experts on ACLR. Initially, the steering group, consisting of eight surgeons, performed a systematic review of the literature and elaborated on 192 scenarios for primary ACLR. The rating group, composed of 23 surgeons, rated each scenario in two rounds, with an in-between in-person meeting for discussion. Median scores and agreement levels were estimated to classify each scenario as inappropriate, uncertain or appropriate for adding anterolateral reconstruction. Finally, the lecture group, consisting of 10 surgeons, revised each stage of the method, results and interpretation.

RESULTS

Of the scenarios, 11.97% were rated as appropriate for adding an extra-articular lateral procedure, 7.81% as inappropriate and 80.21% as uncertain. The key recommendations for the addition of extra-articular lateral techniques were as follows: it is appropriate when the patient is under 25 years of age, has high-grade physical examination findings, practises a pivoting sport and has hyperlaxity; meanwhile, it is inappropriate when the patient has low-grade physical examination findings, has normal laxity and does not practise a pivoting sport.

CONCLUSIONS

The appropriate indications of extra-articular lateral procedures in primary ACLR were determined on the basis of the best available evidence and expert opinion following a formal consensus method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.