Failed Meniscal Repairs After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Increases Risk of Revision Surgery

Comparison of Improvement in Patient-Reported Knee Function After Revision and Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction Compared With Primary ACL Reconstruction

Background

Graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a debilitating complication often requiring revision surgery. It is widely agreed upon that functional knee outcomes after revision ACLR (r-ACLR) are inferior compared with those after primary reconstruction. However, data are scarce on outcomes after multiple-revision ACLR (mr-ACLR).

Purpose

To compare patient-reported knee function in terms of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR and evaluate the pre- to postoperative improvement in KOOS scores for each procedure.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry who underwent their index ACLR between 2005 and 2020 with a minimum age of 15 years at the time of surgery were included in this study. All patients had pre- and postoperative KOOS data. The 1-year postoperative KOOS and the pre- to postoperative changes in KOOS were assessed between patients who underwent primary ACLR and those who underwent subsequent r-ACLR and mr-ACLR.

Results

Of 20,542 included patients, 19,769 (96.2%) underwent primary ACLR, 760 (3.7%) underwent r-ACLR, and 13 (0.06%) underwent mr-ACLR. Patients who underwent r-ACLR had significantly smaller pre- to postoperative changes on all KOOS subscales compared with patients undergoing primary ACLR (P < .0001 for all). Furthermore, patients in the mr-ACLR group had significantly smaller changes in the KOOS-Pain subscale compared with patients in the r-ACLR group (-9 ± 23.3 vs 2.5 ± 18; P = .024).

Conclusion

The study results indicated that while improvement is seen after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR, the greatest improvement in functional outcomes is observed after primary ACLR. Patients who underwent at least 1 r-ACLR, specifically mr-ACLR, had lower postoperative outcome scores, indicating that primary ACLR may provide the best chance for recovery after ACL injury.

Meniscal and Articular Cartilage Predictors of Outcome After Revision ACL Reconstruction: A 6-Year Follow-up Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient's outcome at 6-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction.

RESULTS

An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation (P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores (P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years.

CONCLUSION

Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

Evidence-based rationale for treatment of meniscal lesions in athletes

Meniscal injuries in elite athletes are a common cause of missed game time and even have the potential to be career shortening. In this patient group, care must be paid not only to the pathology, but also to a player's contract status, time in the season, specific demands of his/her sport and position on the field, and future consequences. Successful treatment requires the clinician to understand the player's goals and needs, communicate effectively between all stakeholders, and a have knowledge of the challenges posed by the different types of meniscal tear seen in this population. Paramount is the distinction between injuries to the medial and lateral meniscus. Deficiency of the lateral meniscus, as a result of a tear or a meniscectomy, leads to frequent early problems and inexorably to chondral degeneration thereby affecting an athlete's ability to perform. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to repair the majority of lateral meniscal tears. Medial meniscal tears pose a more challenging treatment dilemma, as the success of partial meniscectomy in achieving reproducible, early return to play must be balanced against the long-term degenerative consequences. Many meniscal tears are correctly treated non-operatively.Level of evidence V.

Patient-Reported Outcome, Return to Sport, and Revision Rates 7-9 Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From a Cohort of 2042 Patients

BACKGROUND

Long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rates of return to sport, and revision risk after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) are not well understood.

PURPOSE

To provide long-term follow-up of PROMs, return-to-sport rates, and revision rates after ACLR and to identify predictors for poor outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 2042 patients were included in an institutional ACL registry (2009-2013) and longitudinally followed. PROMs were completed preoperatively and at all follow-up time points. Questions regarding return to sport and knee stability were completed at final follow-up. Predictors for poor outcome on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score were estimated in a regression model incorporating risk factors such as patient characteristics, graft choice, and concomitant injuries. Revision rates and risk of subsequent non-ACL surgeries were calculated.

RESULTS

Autografts were used in 76% of the patients (patellar tendon, 62%; hamstring grafts, 38%). Allografts were used in 24% of patients. The questionnaires were returned by 1045 (51.2%) patients at a mean of 7.2 years (range, 5.0-9.8 years) after surgery. Improvements in IKDC score of >30 points were sustained for all patient categories. The strongest predictor for lesser improvement in IKDC score was a cartilage lesion >2 cm2 identified during surgery. Male sex and college education completion were associated with improved IKDC scores. Meniscal lesions did not predict change) in the IKDC score. A total of 69% of patients had returned to sport after 8.1 years (range, 6.7-9.8 years). The main reason for not returning to sport was fear of reinjury. The revision rate was 7.2% after 9 years (range, 8-11 years), 13% of patients needed subsequent ipsilateral non-ACL surgery, and 6% underwent contralateral ACLR. The absence of a meniscal tear, younger age, and male sex were predictors for revision. Graft choice did not predict PROM results or revision risk.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in IKDC scores were sustained 7 years after ACLR. The strongest predictor for poor outcome was a cartilage lesion >2 cm2. Patients can expect a 70% return-to-sport rate and an 87% chance of their knee feeling stable during daily and athletic activities after 8 years. Young male patients have better PROM scores but a higher risk of revision. There is a 26% chance of subsequent knee surgery within 9 years, including a revision rate of 7%, subsequent non-ACL surgery to the operated knee in 13%, and a 6% chance of contralateral ACLR.