Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Considerations for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A review of the current literature

Background

Failure rates among primary Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction range from 3.2 to 11.1 %. Recently, there has been increased focus on surgical and anatomic considerations which predispose patients to failure, including excessive posterior tibial slope (PTS), unaddressed high-grade pivot shift, and improper tunnel placement.

Methods

The purpose of this review was to provide a current summary and analysis of the literature regarding patient-related and technical factors surrounding revision ACLR, rehabilitation considerations, overall outcomes, and return to sport (RTS) for patients who undergo revision ACLR.

Results

In revision ACLR patients, those receiving autografts are 2.78 times less likely to experience a re-rupture compared to patients who receive allografts. Additionally, individuals with properly positioned tunnels and removable implants are considered strong candidates for one-stage revision procedures. Conversely, cases involving primary tunnel widening of approximately 15 mm are typically indicative of two-stage revision ACLR. These findings underscore the importance of graft selection and surgical approach in optimizing outcomes for patients undergoing revision ACLR.

Conclusion

Given the high rates of revision surgery in young, active patients who return to pivoting sports, the literature recommends strong consideration of a combined ACLR + anterolateral ligament (ALL) or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) procedure in this population. Unrecognized posterolateral corner (PLC) injury is a common cause of ACLR failure and current literature suggests concurrent operative management of high-grade PLC injuries. Excessive PTS has been identified as an independent risk factor for ACL graft failure. Consider revision ACLR with combined slope-reducing tibial osteotomy in cases of posterior tibial slope greater than 12°.

Computer Patient-Specific 3D Modeling and Custom-Made Guides for Revision ACL Surgery

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a challenging surgery occurring in 3 to 24% of primary reconstructions. A meticulous planning to study the precise size and location of both femoral and tibial bone tunnels is mandatory. The aim of the study was to evaluate the intra- and interoperator differences in the decision-making process between experienced surgeons after they were asked to make preoperative planning for ACL revision reconstruction with the use of both the computed tomography (CT) scan and a three-dimensional (3D)-printed model of the knee. Data collected from 23 consecutive patients undergoing revision of ACLR for graft failure at a single institute between September 2018 and February 2020 were prospectively reviewed. The double-blinded collected data were presented to three board-certificate attending surgeons. Surgeons were asked to decide whether to perform one-stage or two-stage revision ACLR based on the evaluation of the CT scan images and the 3D-printed custom-made models at two different rounds, T0 and T1, respectively, 7 days apart one from the other. Interoperator consensus following technical mistake was 52% at T0 and 56% at T1 using the CT scans, meanwhile concordance was 95% at T0 and 94% at T1 using the 3D models. Concordance between surgeons following new knee injury was 66% at T0 and 70% at T1 using CT scans, while concordance was 96% both at T0 and T1 using 3D models. Intraoperative variability using 3D models was extremely low: concordance at T0 and T1 was 98%. McNemar test showed a statistical significance in the use of 3D model for preoperative planning (p < 0.005). 3D-printed model reliability resulted to be higher compared with CT as intraoperator surgery technique selection was not modified throughout time from T0 to T1 (p < 0.005). The use of 3D-printed models had the most impact when evaluating femoral and tibial tunnels, resulting to be a useful instrument during preoperative planning of revision ACLR between attending surgeons with medium-high workflow.

Registry-based cohort study comparing percentages of patients reaching PASS for knee function outcomes after revision ACLR compared to primary ACLR

OBJECTIVES

Reaching the Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) threshold for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) has previously been reported to successfully identify individuals experiencing clinical success after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Thus, the objectives of this study were to examine and compare the percentages of patients meeting PASS thresholds for the different KOOS subscales 1 year postoperatively after primary ACLR compared with revision ACLR (rACLR) and multiply revised ACLR (mrACLR), and second, to examine the predictors for reaching PASS for KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Function in Sport and Recreation (Sport/Rec) after mrACLR.

DESIGN

Prospective observational registry study.

SETTING

The data used in this study was obtained from the Swedish National Ligament Registry and collected between 2005 and 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

The study sample was divided into three different groups: (1) primary ACLR, (2) rACLR and (3) mrACLR. Data on patient demographic, injury and surgical characteristics were obtained as well as mean 1-year postoperative scores for KOOS subscales and the per cent of patients meeting PASS for each subscale. Additionally, the predictors of reaching PASS for KOOS Sport/Rec, and QoL subscales were evaluated in patients undergoing mrACLR.

RESULTS

Of the 22 928 patients included in the study, 1144 underwent rACLR and 36 underwent mrACLR. Across all KOOS subscales, the percentage of patients meeting PASS thresholds was statistically lower for rACLR compared with primary ACLR (KOOS Symptoms 22.5% vs 32.9%, KOOS Pain 84.9% vs 92.9%, KOOS Activities of Daily Living 23.5% vs 31.4%, KOOS Sport/Rec 26.3% vs 45.6%, KOOS QoL 26.9% vs 51.4%). Percentages of patients reaching PASS thresholds for all KOOS subscales were comparable between patients undergoing rACLR versus mrACLR. No predictive factors were found to be associated with reaching PASS for KOOS QoL and KOOS Sport/Rec 1 year postoperatively after mrACLR.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing ACLR in the revision setting had lower rates of reaching acceptable symptom states for functional knee outcomes than those undergoing primary ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective observational registry study, level of evidence II.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Associated Procedures

Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common yet devastating complication due to inferior clinical outcomes associated with revision ACLR. Identifying the cause and associated risk factors for failure is the most important consideration during preoperative planning. Special attention to tunnel quality, concomitant injuries, and modifiable risk factors will help determine the optimal approach and staging for revision ACLR. Additional procedures including lateral extra-articular tenodesis and osteotomy may be considered for at-risk populations. The purpose of this review is to explore causes of ACLR failure, clinical indications and appropriate patient evaluation, and technical considerations when performing revision ACLR.

Younger age, hyperextended knee, concomitant meniscectomy and large prerevision anterior tibial translation are associated with graft failure after the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Purpose

Graft failure following revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is higher than after primary ACL reconstruction. However, data regarding revision surgery is scarce. We aimed to evaluate the associated factors for failure after revision ACL reconstruction.

Methods

Fifty-four patients (mean age: 24.7 ± 10.0 years) who underwent revision ACL reconstruction at our hospital with ≥1 year follow-up were retrospectively examined. Patients were divided into Group F (graft failure) and Group N (no graft failure) groups. Univariate analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with graft failure. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the optimal thresholds for differentiating between the two groups.

Results

Graft failure was observed in 7 of 54 patients (13.0%). In the univariate analysis, significant differences were observed for age at the initial surgery (Group F: 15.6 ± 1.5, Group N: 20.9 ± 8.1), age at the revision surgery (Group F: 18.0 ± 2.8, Group N: 25.7 ± 10.3), presence of hyperextended knee (Group F: 85.7%, Group N: 14.9%), concomitant meniscectomy (Group F: 42.9%, Group N: 14.9%), prerevision space for the ACL (sACL) (Group F: 7.2 ± 3.4 mm, Group N: 13.4 ± 4.7 mm) and preoperative anterior tibial translation (ATT) (Group F: 5.0 ± 1.4 mm, Group N: 2.7 ± 3.1 m). ROC analysis of preoperative sACL and preoperative ATT on one-leg standing plain radiograph showed that cutoff values of 6.9 and 4.2 mm were the optimal thresholds, respectively.

Conclusion

Younger patients with a hyperextended knee, concomitant meniscectomy, small sACL and large ATT before revision ACL reconstruction are predisposed to graft failure.

Level of Evidence

Level IV.

Evaluation of Failed ACL Reconstruction: An Updated Review

Failure rates among primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) range from 3.2% to 11.1%. Recently, there has been increased focus on surgical and anatomic considerations which predispose patients to failure, including excessive posterior tibial slope (PTS), unaddressed high-grade pivot shift, and improper tunnel placement. The purpose of this review was to provide a current summary and analysis of the literature regarding patient-related and technical factors surrounding revision ACLR, rehabilitation considerations, overall outcomes and return to sport (RTS) for patients who undergo revision ACLR. There is a convincingly higher re-tear and revision rate in patients who undergo ACLR with allograft than autograft, especially amongst the young, athletic population. Unrecognized Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PLC) injury is a common cause of ACLR failure and current literature suggests concurrent operative management of high-grade PLC injuries. Given the high rates of revision surgery in young active patients who return to pivoting sports, the authors recommend strong consideration of a combined ACLR + Anterolateral Ligament (ALL) or Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) procedure in this population. Excessive PTS has been identified as an independent risk factor for ACL graft failure. Careful consideration of patient-specific factors such as age and activity level may influence the success of ACL reconstruction. Additional technical considerations including graft choice and fixation method, tunnel position, evaluation of concomitant posterolateral corner and high-grade pivot shift injuries, and the role of excessive posterior tibial slope may play a significant role in preventing failure.

Effects of Kinesio taping on lower limb biomechanical characteristics during the cutting maneuver in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

To determine the effects of Kinesio taping (KT) on the biomechanical characteristics of the lower limbs during the 90° cutting maneuver in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) athletes.

METHOD

Eighteen ACLR athletes were recruited and subjected randomly to three taping conditions, KT, placebo taping (PT), and no taping (NT), followed by a 90° cutting test. A nine-camera infrared high-speed motion capture system (Vicon, T40, 200 Hz) was used to record the kinematic parameters of the lower limbs during the cutting maneuver, and a three-dimensional dynamometer (Kistler, 1000 Hz) was used to record the kinetic parameters of the lower limbs. A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to compare the differences in the lower limb kinematic and kinetic characteristics of ACLR athletes subjected to these interventions.

RESULTS

During the landing phase, the knee valgus angle reduced significantly with KT than with NT (95% confidence interval = -1.399 to -0.154; P = 0.025), whereas no significant difference was observed between PT and NT (95% confidence interval = -1.251 to 0.217; P = 0.236). No significant differences were observed in the other kinematic variables among the three taping conditions (P > 0.05). During the landing phase, no significant differences in the kinetic variables were observed among the three taping conditions (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although KT does not improve the kinetic variables of athletes after ACLR during the 90° cutting maneuver, it reduces the knee valgus angle, which could reduce the risk of secondary ACL injury.

Efficacy on knee function of Kinesio taping among individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate systematically the efficacy of Kinesio taping (KT) on the knee function of individuals who undergo anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

This study was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023399885) on February 26, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effects on the knee function of KT among individuals after ACLR were electronically searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and EBSCO from inception to July 02, 2023. The outcome measures included six continuous variables: quadriceps strength, hamstring strength, knee swelling, knee flexion angle, Lysholm knee function score, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores. The Cochrane Risk Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs including 278 patients who underwent ACLR were included in the systematic review. One of three (33%) studies found a remarkable increase in quadricep strength associated with the use of KT compared with the control group. Two of two (100%) studies found substantial increases in hamstring strength associated with KT. Two of four (50%) studies reported KT reduced knee swelling. Two of five (40%) studies reported considerable improvements in knee flexion angle in the groups that used KT. All three (100%) studies found KT did not improve Lysholm knee function scores. Three of four (75%) studies noted a significant reduction in VAS pain scores associated with KT.

CONCLUSION

KT may help improve hamstring strength and reduce knee swelling and pain in patients after ACLR. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of KT on quadricep strength and knee flexion angle.

Approximately half of pediatric or adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction return to the same level of sport or higher: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarise the surgical techniques and clinical outcomes in paediatric and adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (r-ACLR).

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 29 July 2023. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, surgical details, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rates of instability, rupture and return to sport (RTS) were extracted.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 706 (711 knees) patients were included (48.7% female). The mean age at r-ACLR was 17.1 years (range: 16.5-18.0). Autografts (67.5%) were more common than allografts (32.2%) in revision, with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) being the most prevalent autograft source (59.6%). Bone grafts were used in seven patients (4.8% of 146 patients). The most common femoral and tibial fixation techniques were interference screws (37.6% and 38.1%, of 244 patients, respectively). The most common tunnelling strategy was anatomic (69.1% of 236 patients), and meniscus repairs were performed in 39.7% of 256 patients. The re-rupture rate was 13.0% in 293 patients. RTS at the same level or higher was 51.6% in 219 patients. The mean (SD) Lysholm score was 88.1 (12.9) in 78 patients, the mean (SD) Tegner score was 6.0 (1.6) in 78 patients, and the mean (SD) IKDC score was 82.6 (16.0) in 126 patients.

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR in paediatric and adolescent patients predominantly uses BPTB autografts and interference screw femoral and tibial fixation with concomitant meniscal procedures. Rates of re-rupture and RTS at the same level or higher were 13.0% and 51.6%, respectively. Information from this review can provide orthopaedic surgeons with a comprehensive understanding of the most commonly used operative techniques and their outcomes for revision ACLR in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Internal brace augmentation reconstruction versus standard anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomised controlled clinical trial study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is one of the most common knee injuries in sports, and the gold standard for treating ACL rupture is tendon graft reconstruction. Internal brace technology is being used nowadays for ligament repair; however, more relevant in vivo clinical evidence is required for using internal brace technology in ACL reconstruction (ACLR). We conducted a randomised controlled trial to investigate the clinical efficacy of internal brace technology in ACLR.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomised, parallel-controlled trial included patients with ACL rupture who underwent inpatient surgery at the Department of Orthopaedics, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University. Random number table method was used to assign the participants to either the test or the control group. The test group underwent ACLR using the internal brace technique, whereas the control group underwent standard ACLR. Uniform postoperative rehabilitation protocol was used for both the groups. Patient-reported outcomes included preoperative baseline and postoperative recovery at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary outcome was International Knee Documentation Committee function from baseline (ACL rupture) to 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included (1) other patient outcome reporting metrics, Lysholm knee score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Visual Analog Scale; (2) the use of Kneelax3 knee stabiliser to assess knee stability; (3) occurrence of adverse events, such as graft refraction or symptomatic instability, postoperative infection and contralateral injury and (4) magnetic resonance images at 12 and 24 months after ACLR.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University on 26 October 2021. Data will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2200057526.

Risk Factors for Ipsilateral Versus Contralateral Reinjury After ACL Reconstruction in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reinjury after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) can occur on the ipsilateral or contralateral side. Limited evidence exists regarding the difference between the incidence of reinjury to either knee, which is important in developing interventions to prevent ACL reinjury.

Purpose

To compare the reinjury rate of the ACL on the ipsilateral side versus the contralateral side in athletes after ACLR and investigate the risk factors that may cause different reinjury rates between the sides.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A systematic review was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies that involved ACL reinjury in athletes after ACLR were reviewed. Considering several risk factors, including age and sex, a comparison of ACL reinjury incidence on the ipsilateral and contralateral sides was performed using a meta-analysis.

Results

Of the 17 selected studies, 3 were found to be at high risk of bias, and thus, 14 (n = 3424 participants) studies were included in the meta-analysis. In this athletic population, the contralateral ACL had a significantly higher rupture rate than the ipsilateral graft (risk ratio [RR], 1.41; P < .0001). Female athletes were found to have a greater risk of ACL reinjury on the contralateral versus the ipsilateral side (RR, 1.65; P = .0005), but different results were found in male athletes. (RR, 0.81; P = .21). There was no statistical difference in the incidence rate of ACL reinjury to either side in adolescent athletes (RR, 1.15; P = .28).

Conclusion

The contralateral ACL was more vulnerable to reinjury than the ipsilateral side in athletes after ACLR. Female athletes were more likely to reinjure their contralateral native ACL, while the same trend was not found in their male counterparts. The reinjury rate was comparable in both knees in adolescent athletes.

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.

Quadriceps tendon autograft has similar clinical outcomes when compared to hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts for revision ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Research regarding revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) with quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RACLR with QT and compare its patient outcomes to RACLR with hamstring tendon (HT) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts.

METHODS

Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search for studies using QT in RACLR was performed within PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL from database date of inception through December 26, 2022. Primary outcomes sought included: failure rate, Lysholm scores, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, IKDC grades, arthrometric knee side-to-side differences (STSD), pivot shift grade, donor site morbidity, return to sport, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included consisting of 606 RACLR: 349 QT, 169 HT, and 88 BTB. Overall failure rates were 7.6% QT, 13.3% HT, and 8.7% BTB. Mean weighted Lysholm scores were 85.8 ± 3.8 QT, 82.5 ± 3.8 HT and 86.6 ± 4.5 BTB. IKDC average scores were 82.3 ± 1.6 QT, 80.1 ± 1.7 HT, and 81.7 ± 5.5BTB. Combined rates of IKDC A/B grades were 88.4% and 80.0% for QT and HT, respectively. VAS average scores were 0.9 ± 1.1 QT, 1.4 ± 0.2 HT, and 0.7 ± 0.8 for BTB. Side-to-side difference was reported for QT and HT with average values of 1.7 ± 0.6 mm and 2.1 ± 0.5 mm, respectively. Grade 0 or 1 pivot shifts were reported in 96.2% of QT patients and 91.3% of HT. Donor site morbidity, only reported for QT and HT, was 14.6 ± 9.7% and 23.6 ± 14.1%, respectively. QT resulted in a mean Tegner score of 5.9 ± 1.5 versus HT 5.7 ± 1.5. Rate of return to pivoting sports was 38.0% QT, 48.6% HT, and 76.9% BTB. Across all outcomes, there was no significant difference when comparing QT to HT, QT to BTB, and QT compared to HT and BTB combined.

CONCLUSIONS

RACLR with QT yields satisfactory patient reported outcomes, satisfactory improvement in knee laxity, expected return to sport rates, and has an overall 7.6% failure rate. Outcomes are comparative to those of HT and BTB making it an acceptable graft choice for RACLR. Surgeons should consider using QT autograft for RACLR, especially when other autografts are unavailable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Self-reported knee function and activity level are reduced after primary or additional anterior cruciate ligament injury in female football players: a five-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Playing football involves a high risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and these may affect knee function and activity level.

OBJECTIVES

To measure changes in self-reported knee function, activity level, and satisfaction with knee function and activity level in female football players with or without an ACL-reconstructed knee.

METHODS

Female football players, age 19.9 (SD 2.6) years, with either a primary ACL-reconstruction 1.6 (SD 0.7) years after ACL-reconstruction (n = 186) or no ACL injury (n = 113) were followed prospectively for five years. Self-reported data collected at baseline and follow-up included knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form [IKDC-SKF]), activity level (Tegner Activity Scale), and satisfaction with knee function (Likert scale 1=happy; 7=unhappy) and activity level (1-10 scale). Information on any new ACL injury during the follow-up period was collected.

RESULTS

Players with ACL-reconstruction at baseline who either did (n = 56) or did not (n = 130) sustain an additional ACL injury, and players with no injury at baseline who remained injury free (n = 101) had a lower Tegner score at follow-up. Players with additional ACL injury had lower IKDC-SKF score (mean difference: -11.4, 95% CI: -16.0, -6.7), and satisfaction with activity level (mean difference: -1.5, 95% CI: -2.3, -0.7) at follow-up. Players with no additional ACL injury had higher satisfaction with knee function (mean difference: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3, 0.9) at follow-up. Players with no ACL injury had lower satisfaction with activity level (mean difference: -0.7, 95% CI: -1.1, -0.3) at follow-up. Players with additional ACL injury had larger decreases in all variables measured compared to the two other groups.

CONCLUSION

Primary, and even more so additional, ACL injuries decreased self-reported knee function, activity level, and satisfaction with knee function and activity level in female football players.

Outcomes of Slope-Reducing Proximal Tibial Osteotomy Combined With a Third Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Procedure With a Focus on Return to Impact Sports

BACKGROUND

An increased posterior tibial slope (PTS) is a proven risk factor for both native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and ACL graft insufficiency. Anterior closing wedge high tibial osteotomy (ACW-HTO) for PTS correction is a validated procedure in revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of combined ACW-HTO and at least a second revision ACLR procedure on knee stability, function, and sports performance in a large series of patients. The hypothesis was that patients would return to impact sports after ACW-HTO combined with a second or third revision ACLR procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients who underwent a second (or more) revision ACLR procedure and ACW-HTO between June 1, 2015, and June 1, 2019, and had a PTS >12° were included. The mean age was 29.60 ± 6.31 years, and the mean preoperative PTS was 13.79°± 1.50°. The cases were analyzed at a mean follow-up of 2.96 ± 0.83 years (range, 2-5 years). At the last follow-up, the rate of patients returning to impact sports (based on the University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA], activity scale), ACL graft status (per magnetic resonance imaging), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, Lysholm scores, and laxity measurements using a knee arthrometer were recorded.

RESULTS

The total number of patients participating in impact sports and high-impact sports was as follows: 43 and 30, respectively, before the injury; 0 and 0, respectively, preoperatively; and 31 and 12, respectively, postoperatively. At the last follow-up, the UCLA score was ≥8 in 48.44% of the patients, and only 16 patients returned to their preinjury level of activity. At a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, there was clinical improvement in the IKDC score from 37.98 ± 12.48 preoperatively to 69.06 ± 12.30 postoperatively (P < .0001), in the Lysholm score from 51.94 ± 14.03 preoperatively to 74.45 ± 11.44 postoperatively (P < .001), and in the UCLA score. However, this clinical improvement did not equate to preinjury values for all outcome scores (P < .001). The preinjury IKDC and Lysholm scores were 76.98 ± 11.71 and 89.26 ± 8.91, respectively. The mean change in anterior knee laxity using a knee arthrometer at 134 and 250 N was -4.03 ± 0.18 mm and -3.63 ± 0.16, respectively. There were 3 cases of a rerupture with a severe pivot shift on the clinical examination. None of these patients underwent revision per the patient's preference. Increased knee recurvatum was observed in one-third of the patients, but all were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of chronic ACL-deficient knees, PTS reduction (ACW-HTO) with revision ACLR restored knee stability and improved function with an acceptable rate of specific complications. Increased knee recurvatum was observed in one-third of the patients, but all were asymptomatic. Also, approximately half of the patients were able to return to impact sports.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the skeletally immature patient is a challenging procedure for pediatric patients with recurrent instability after primary ACL reconstruction. The pediatric population presents unique technical challenges and complications secondary to open physes compared with the adult population. Complications can include growth disturbances, recurrent graft failure, instability, and secondary chondral and/or meniscal injury. Moreover, identifying the etiology of graft failure is critical for a successful revision. Patients should undergo a complete history and physical examination with a focus on patient physiologic age, physeal status, mechanical axis, tibial slope, collagen status, injury mechanism, concomitant injuries, and previous surgical procedures. The surgeon must be adept at reconstruction with various grafts as well as socket or tunnel preparation and fixation, including over-the-top, all-epiphyseal, transphyseal, extra-articular augmentation, and staging approaches. Reported rates of return to sport are lower than those of primary reconstruction, with higher rates of cartilage and meniscal degeneration. Future research should focus on optimizing surgical outcomes and graft survivorship after primary ACL reconstruction with minimized trauma to the physis.

Association Between Posterior Tibial Slope and Clinical Outcomes After Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions

Background Increased posterior tibial slope (PTS) is an important risk factor for non-traumatic graft failure and revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. If a tibial posterior slope is an important factor for graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, does it affect clinical outcomes? This study aimed to evaluate the association between PTS and clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Material and methods Patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons in the clinic were evaluated retrospectively. Inclusion criteria were: patients with at least an 18-month follow-up period who were evaluated with the Tegner Lysholm scoring system, aged between 18 and 40 years, with only an anterior cruciate ligament rupture. PTSs were measured from the lateral radiographs of the knees. The patients were divided into two groups with a PTS of 10° or less. Results The mean Tegner Lysholm score was 86.8 ± 8.9. The mean PTS was 9.7° ± 1.5°. In total, 14 and 15 patients had a PTS of above 10° and below 10°, respectively. The mean age and follow-up time of patients were 28.5 ± 5.3 years and 24.6 ± 7.2 months in the group with a PTS of above 10° and 30.2 ± 5.3 years and 24.2 ± 5.18 months in the group with a PTS of below 10°, respectively. Tegner Lysholm scores were 88.2 ± 8.8 and 85.6 ± 9.1 in the group with values above 10° and below 10°, respectively. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the clinical outcomes of both groups. Conclusion PTS does not affect the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the early period.

Rotational stability can be enhanced in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the over-the-top augmentation technique compared to single bundle technique

PURPOSE

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is technically challenging due to mispositioned tunnels, bone loss, and tunnel enlargement, which may compromise graft fixation and result in failure. To obtain firm graft fixation and strength in one stage, we utilized an over-the-top augmentation technique using an Achilles tendon allograft in revision ACL reconstruction (OA-ACLR). This study compared OA-ACLR with single-bundle ACL reconstruction (SB-ACLR). We hypothesized that OA-ACLR would enhance the postoperative knee joint rotational stability.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 47 patients who underwent revisional OA-ACLR and 48 who underwent primary SB-ACLR with minimum follow-up of 6 months. Knee instability was evaluated with the anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift tests preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Side-to-side differences were compared with the non-affected side at the final follow-up. Function was evaluated using the IKDC subjective and Lysholm knee scores preoperatively and at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ in terms of sex, age, BMI, and etiology. There were no significant differences in concomitant surgical procedures, such as meniscectomy and meniscus repair, between the two groups (p = 0.335, > 0.99). Both groups significantly improved in the anterior drawer, Lachman, pivot shift tests, and IKDC and Lysholm knee scores after surgery (all p < 0.001). The OA-ACLR group showed significantly higher rotational stability in the pivot shift test than the SB-ACLR group (p = 0.017). The postoperative side-to-side difference, the IKDC and Lysholm scores showed no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.34, 0.301, 0.438).

CONCLUSIONS

OA-ACLR showed enhanced rotational stability with pivot shift test compared to SB-ACLR. It may be considered a useful alternative for revision ACL reconstruction.

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.

Nonoperative Treatment for Traumatic Partial Graft Rupture After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 2-Year Follow-up Study

Background

There are no studies on the nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates between nonoperative treatment and revision ACL reconstruction for traumatic partial ACL graft rupture. We hypothesized that the outcomes and failure rates would be comparable and that nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial ACL graft rupture can produce satisfactory outcomes.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 2114 patients treated for isolated ACL rupture between January 2000 and June 2020. Patients with traumatic partial graft rupture after ACL reconstruction with minimum 2-year follow-up data were included. Patients who met all the following conditions were candidates for nonoperative treatment: (1) Lachman or pivot-shift grade 0 or 1 at 6 months after ACL reconstruction, (2) ACL graft with low to intermediate signal intensity on 1-year postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and (3) MRI after reinjury showing definite evidence of trauma, some fibers remaining in continuity of the ACL graft, and no anterior tibial subluxation in the sagittal plane. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to treatment method: nonoperative treatment (group A) and revision ACL reconstruction (group B). Clinical scores, laxity test results, radiological outcomes, and graft failures were compared between the groups.

Results

In total, 47 patients had traumatic partial graft rupture (group A, n = 10; group B, n = 37). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of clinical scores, laxity tests, radiological outcomes, or graft failure.

Conclusion

The clinical and radiological outcomes of nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial graft rupture after ACL reconstruction were comparable with those of revision ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial ACL graft rupture can produce satisfactory outcomes in selected patients.

New Considerations in ACL Surgery: When Is Anatomic Reconstruction Not Enough?

➤ Clinicians should be careful to assess for associated injuries including anterolateral complex and medial meniscal ramp lesions or lateral meniscal posterior root tears.➤ Consideration of lateral extra-articular augmentation should be given for patients with >12° of posterior tibial slope.➤ Patients with preoperative knee hyperextension (>5°) or other nonmodifiable risk factors, including high-risk osseous geometry, may benefit from a concomitant anterolateral augmentation procedure to improve rotational stability.➤ Meniscal lesions should be addressed at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with meniscal root or ramp repair.

Anterior cruciate ligament failure and management

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure can be defined as abnormal knee function due to graft insufficiency with abnormal laxity or failure to recreate a functional knee according to the expected outcome. Traumatic ruptures have been reported as the most common reason for failure. They are followed by technical errors, missed concomitant knee injuries, and biological failures. An in-depth preoperative examination that includes a medical history, clinical examinations, advanced imaging, and other appropriate methods is of utmost importance. There is still no consensus as to the ideal graft, but autografts are the favorite choice even in ACL revision. Concomitant meniscal treatment, ligamentous reconstruction, and osteotomies can be performed in the same surgical session to remove anatomical or biomechanical risk factors for the failure. Patient expectations should be managed since outcomes after ACL revision are not as good as those following primary ACL reconstruction.

Comparison of Onlay Anchor Fixation Versus Transosseous Fixation for Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis During Revision ACL Reconstruction

Background

There is evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the Lemaire technique for lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the best fixation technique is unknown.

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of 2 fixation techniques after revision ACLR: (1) onlay anchor fixation, which would avoid tunnel conflict and physis injury, and (2) transosseous tightening and interference screw fixation. Pain at the area of LET fixation was also assessed.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

This was a retrospective 2-center study of patients with first-time revision ACLR and either LET with anchor fixation (aLET) with a 2.4-mm suture anchor or LET with transosseous fixation (tLET). Outcomes at minimum 12-month follow-up were assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale for pain at the LET fixation area, Tegner score, and anterior tibial translation (ATT). A subgroup analysis within the aLET group investigated passing the graft over or under the lateral collateral ligament (LCL).

Results

In total, 52 patients were included (26 patients in each group); the mean ± SD follow-up was 13.7 ± 3.4 months. No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups with respect to patient-reported outcome scores, clinical examination, or instrumented testing (side-to-side difference in ATT at 30° of flexion; aLET, 1.5 ± 2.5 mm; tLET, 1.6 ± 1.7 mm). Clinical failure was detected in 1 patient with aLET and none with tLET. Subgroup analysis revealed a small, nonsignificant flexion deficit in knees in which the iliotibial band strand was passed under (n = 42) or over (n = 10) the LCL. No clinically relevant tenderness was detected at the area of LET fixation in any group (aLET, 0.6 ± 1.3; tLET, 0.9 ± 1.7; over the LCL, 0.2 ± 0.6; under the LCL, 0.9 ± 1.6).

Conclusion

Onlay anchor fixation and transosseous fixation of the LET were equivalent with respect to outcome scores and instrumented ATT testing. Clinically, there were minor differences in passage of the LET graft over or under the LCL.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Plus Lateral Extra-Articular Procedure Results in Superior Stability and Lower Failure Rates Than Does Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision but Shows No Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes or Return to Sports

PURPOSE

To determine whether comparative clinical studies demonstrate significant advantages of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) combined with a lateral extra-articular procedure (LEAP), with respect to graft rupture rates, knee stability, return to sport rates, and patient-reported outcome measures, compared with isolated RACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses Guidelines. A PubMed search was conducted using the key words "revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" combined with any of the following additional terms, "lateral extra-articular tenodesis" OR "anterolateral ligament reconstruction" OR "Lemaire." All relevant comparative clinical studies were included. Key clinical data were extracted and evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies (seven Level III studies and a one Level IV study) were identified and included. Most studies reported more favorable outcomes with combined procedures with respect to failure rates (0%-13% following RACLR+LEAP, and 4.4%-21.4% following isolated RACLR), postoperative side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.3-3.9 mm following RACLR+LEAP and 1.8-5.9 mm following isolated RACLR), and high-grade pivot shift (0%-11.1% following RACLR+LEAP and 10.2%-23.8% in patients following isolated RACLR). There were no consistent differences between isolated and combined procedures with respect to return to sport or patient-reported outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrates that the addition of a LEAP to RACLR was associated with an advantage with respect to ACL graft failure rates and avoidance of high-grade postoperative knee laxity across almost all included studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic review of level III to IV studies.

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Revision and Primary ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis With 3-5 Years of Follow-up

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies designed by matching related factors to compare clinical outcomes and return to sport (RTS) between patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) and primary ACLR (P-ACLR).

PURPOSE

(1) To compare the outcomes between R-ACLR and P-ACLR in a matched-pair analysis with 3- to 5-year follow-up and (2) to evaluate patient-reported factors for not returning to preinjury-level sport.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent R-ACLR between September 2016 and November 2018 were propensity matched by age, sex, body mass index, passive anterior tibial subluxation, and generalized hypermobility in a 1:1 ratio to patients who underwent P-ACLR during the same period. By combining in person follow-up at 2 years postoperatively and telemedicine interview at the final follow-up (January 2022), knee stability and clinical scores were compared, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner. Status of RTS was requested, specifically whether the patient returned to preinjury level of sport. Patient-reported reasons for not returning were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 63 matched pairs in the present study. Knee stability was similar in terms of KT-2000 arthrometer, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test results between the groups at 2 years of follow-up. At the final follow-up, no significant difference was found between groups for postoperative clinical scores (IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm) (P > .05). There was a significant difference in total RTS: 53 (84.1%) in the P-ACLR cohort and 41 (65.1%) in the R-ACLR cohort (P = .014). No significant difference was shown in terms of RTS at the same level: 35 (55.6%) in P-ACLR and 31 (49.2%) in R-ACLR (P = .476). Significantly more patients showed fear of reinjury: 26 of 32 (81.3%) in the R-ACLR group as compared with 15 of 28 (53.5%) in the P-ACLR group (P < .021).

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR resulted in similar clinical scores (IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm) but significantly lower RTS versus P-ACLR at 3 to 5 years of follow-up. Fear of reinjury was the most common factor that caused sport changes in patients with R-ACLR.

Failure modes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The reason for graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is multifactorial. Controversies remain regarding the predominant factor and incidence of failure aetiology in the literature. This review aimed to provide a meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate the relative proportion of various failure modes among patients with ACLR failure.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases were searched for literature on ACLR failure or revision from 1975 to 2021. Data related to causes for ACLR surgical failure were extracted, and a random effects model was used to pool the results, which incorporates potential heterogeneity. Failure modes were compared between different populations, research methods, graft types, femoral portal techniques, and fixation methods by subgroup analysis or linear regression. Funnel plots were used to identify publication bias and small-study effects.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies were analyzed, including 33 cohort studies and six registry-based studies reporting 6578 failures. The results showed that among patients with ACLR failure or revision, traumatic reinjury was the most common failure mode with a rate of 40% (95% CI: 35-44%), followed by technical error (34%, 95% CI: 28-42%) and biological failure (11%, 95% CI: 7-15%). Femoral tunnel malposition was the most common cause of the technical error (29%, 95% CI: 18-41%), with more than two times higher occurrence than tibial tunnel malposition (11%, 95% CI: 6-16%). Traumatic reinjury was the most common factor for ACLR failure in European populations and in recent studies, while technical errors were more common in Asian populations, earlier studies, and surgery performed using the transtibial (TT) portal technique. Biological factors were more likely to result in ACLR failure in hamstring (HT) autografts compared to bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts.

CONCLUSION

Trauma is the most important factor leading to surgical failure or revision following ACLR. Technical error is also an important contributing factor, with femoral tunnel malposition being the leading cause of error resulting in failure.

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.

An Interrupted Time Series Analysis Measuring the Impact of Research and Education on Clinical Practice: Decreasing Allograft Use in Young Patients Using a Registry to Track Outcomes

BACKGROUND

We sought to evaluate whether allograft utilization for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) within our health-care system changed following the implementation of an allograft reduction intervention and whether revision rates within the health-care system changed following the initiation of the intervention.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series study using data from Kaiser Permanente's ACL Reconstruction Registry. In our study, we identified 11,808 patients who were ≤21 years of age and underwent primary ACLR from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2017. The pre-intervention period (15 quarters) was January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010, and the post-intervention period (29 quarters) was October 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to evaluate trends over time in 2-year revision rates according to the quarter in which the primary ACLR was performed.

RESULTS

Allograft utilization increased pre-intervention from 21.0% in 2007 Q1 to 24.8% in 2010 Q3. Utilization decreased post-intervention from 29.7% in 2010 Q4 to 2.4% in 2017 Q4. The quarterly 2-year revision rate increased from 3.0 to 7.4 revisions per 100 ACLRs pre-intervention and decreased to 4.1 revisions per 100 ACLRs by the end of the post-intervention period. Poisson regression found an increasing 2-year revision rate over time pre-intervention (rate ratio [RR], 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00 to 1.06] per quarter) and a decreasing rate over time post-intervention (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

In our health-care system, we saw a decrease in allograft utilization following the implementation of an allograft reduction program. During the same period, a decrease in the ACLR revision rate was observed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Tunnel Management in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Current Concepts

Bone tunnel-related complications are frequently encountered during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Issues with tunnel positioning, enlargement, containment, and hardware interference may complicate surgery and compromise outcomes. As a result, several strategies have emerged to address these issues and optimize results. However, a systematic, unified approach to tunnel pathology in revision ACLR is lacking. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current state of the literature on bone tunnel complications and, although extensive literature on the subject is lacking, present an updated approach to the evaluation and management of tunnel-related issues in revision ACLR.

Elevated Posterior Tibial Slope Is Associated With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association of posterior tibial slope (PTS) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reinjury following primary ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through March 1, 2021, to retrieve relevant studies. Comparative studies reporting PTS measurements in a cohort of patients experiencing ACL graft failure versus patients with intact primary ACL reconstruction or studies comparing patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction versus primary ACL reconstruction were included for analysis. A random-effects model was used to calculate the overall standardized mean difference (SMD) between groups. The following inclusion criteria were used: English language; full text available; Level I, II, or III evidence; studies in humans; and skeletally mature patients.

RESULTS

After we systematically screened 1,912 studies, 15 studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Radiographic measurements were used in 6 studies reporting medial PTS in 411 ACL failures versus 2808 controls. Patients with ACL failure had significantly greater medial PTS compared with controls (SMD 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.77; P < .001). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used in 9 studies reporting lateral PTS measurements in 641 patients with a failed ACL reconstruction compared with 705 controls. Seven of the MRI studies also measured medial PTS in 552 failures versus 641 controls. Patients with ACL failure had significantly greater lateral PTS on MRI (SMD 0.58; 95% CI 0.13-1.03; P = .012) and medial PTS on MRI (SMD 0.59; 95% CI 0.23-0.96; P = .001) compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with elevated PTS on radiographs and MRI are at increased risk for ACL graft failure after primary ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, meta-analysis of Level III studies.

Acceptable clinical outcomes despite high reoperation rate at minimum 12-month follow-up after concomitant arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and medial meniscal allograft transplantation

BACKGROUND

Single-stage medial meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a technically challenging procedure for management of knee pain and instability in younger patients, but clinical and functional outcomes data are sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess surgical and patient-reported outcomes following concomitant ACLR and medial MAT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series of patients who underwent medial MAT with concomitant primary or revision ACLR at our institution from 2010 to 2021 and had minimum 12-month follow-up. Complications, reoperations, visual analog scale (VAS) pain, satisfaction, Lysholm score, return to sport, and return to work outcomes were assessed. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference, Pain Intensity, and Physical Function Scores were used to measure patients' functional status relative to the US population. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 17 knees of 16 individual patients. The cohort was majority male (82.4%) with mean age of 31.9 years (range 19-49 years) and mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.9 kg/m² (range 22.5-53.3 kg/m²). Mean follow-up time was 56.8 months (range 13-106 months). Most patients underwent revision ACLR (64.7%). The 1-year reoperation rate was high (23.5%), with two patients (11.8%) tearing their meniscus graft. Patient-reported outcomes indicated low VAS pain (mean 2.2), high satisfaction (mean 77.9%), and fair Lysholm score (mean 81.1). Return to work rate was high (92.9%), while return to sport rate was low (42.9%). Postoperative PROMIS scores were comparable or superior to the national average and correlated significantly with patient satisfaction (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The concomitant ACLR and MAT procedure is associated with excellent knee pain and functional outcomes and high rate of return to work after surgery, though the 1-year reoperation rate is high and rate of return to sport is low.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament, Lateral Collateral Ligament Reconstruction, and Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation for Complex Knee Instability

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries rarely occur as an isolated event and often include associated meniscal, subchondral bone, and collateral ligament injuries. Concomitant pathology frequently complicates primary and revision ACL reconstruction and must be addressed to ensure comprehensive diagnosis and treatment. In this Technical Note, we describe our method for treatment of complex knee instability following multiple failed ACL reconstruction using a multiligament reconstruction technique with an osteochondral allograft transplantation to the lateral femoral condyle. This comprehensive repair technique restores the anatomic load bearing forces of the cruciate and collateral ligaments and promotes biological repair through incorporation of cartilage resurfacing to ultimately achieve optimal kinematics of the knee joint.

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.

'I was young, I wanted to return to sport, and re-ruptured my ACL' - young active female patients' voices on the experience of sustaining an ACL re-rupture, a qualitative study

Background

Despite anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) re-ruptures being common, research on patient experiences after knee trauma has primarily focused on the time after primary ACL reconstruction. Integrating qualitative research and patient experiences can facilitate researchers and clinicians in understanding the burden of an ACL re-rupture. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of an ACL re-rupture journey in young active females aiming to return to knee-strenuous sports after primary ACL reconstruction.

Method

Fifteen young (19[range 16–23] years old) active females who suffered an ACL re-rupture were interviewed with semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis using deductive approach based on Wiese-Bjornstal’s ‘integrated model of response to sport injury’ was used.

Results

The results are presented in two timelines 1) from first ACL injury to ACL re-rupture, and 2) from ACL re-rupture to present day, and further stratified according to the domains of the ‘integrated model of psychological response to injury’. Results in the first timeline are summarised into seven categories: Finding hope for the journey; Accepting my ACL injury; I succeeded; What matters now? Who am I?; Where will this end? What is going to happen? In the second timeline, eight categories were identified: Fighting spirit; A helping hand; Working hard; I am a new me; I am destroyed; Loneliness; Painful changes; and, I could have made it to the pro´s.

Conclusion

Young active females who suffered an ACL re-rupture did not express any positive experience following their first ACL injury, however, in contrast, expressed positive experiences and personal growth after going through the ACL re-rupture journey, characterized by a lot of struggling, and ultimately led to the experience of becoming a new, stronger person.

Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting

BACKGROUND

Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described.

PURPOSE

To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting-64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group (P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs (P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone-patellar tendon-bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure (P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft (P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) (P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group.

CONCLUSION

Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Influence of hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts on worsened patient reported outcome measurements in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparing outcomes between primary and revision reconstructions

Background

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and patient reported outcome measurement scales (PROMs) between hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) grafts in each primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Additionally, the clinical outcomes and PROMs between primary and revision surgeries were compared.

Methods

A total of 150 patients (109 primary and 41 revision ACL reconstructions) were enrolled and followed up for an average of 3.9 years (2 years minimum). Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS) were examined as PROMs. Side-to-side differences of anterior knee laxity were assessed using KT-1000 and were recorded at the final follow-up. After categorizing patients into HT and BTB reconstruction groups, regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between revision surgery and changes in KOOS.

Results

In patients who underwent primary surgery, there was no significant difference in side-to-side differences of anterior laxity and KOOS between HT and BTB grafts. In those who underwent revision surgery, BTB grafts had a higher KOOS for activities of daily living (ADL) than HT grafts (p = 0.032). Comparing primary and revision surgeries, postoperative side-to-side differences of anterior laxity in the revision group were significantly larger than those in the primary group (p = 0.001). The KOOS for sports after overall revision reconstruction was significantly lower than that after primary reconstruction (p = 0.026). Comparing the KOOS after dividing all patients into HT and BTB reconstruction groups, in the HT reconstruction group, postoperative KOOS results were not different in any subscale from BTB grafts. In contrast, the KOOS for sports (p = 0.008) and QOL (p = 0.039) were significantly lower in revision surgery than in primary surgery. Furthermore, regression analysis including multiple confounders in the HT reconstruction group showed revision surgery using HT graft was correlated with worsened KOOS for symptoms (p = 0.012) and sports (p = 0.010). Revision surgery using BTB graft was not correlated with decreased KOOS.

Conclusions

There were no differences between the clinical outcome and KOOS in primary and revision surgery, except for ADL scores following revision ACL reconstruction using BTB graft. Side-to-side difference of anterior laxity and KOOS for sports following revision ACL reconstruction were inferior to those following primary ACL reconstruction.Furthermore, revision ACL reconstruction using HT grafts were correlated with low scores in KOOS for symptoms and sports, while there was no difference of anterior laxity between BTB and HT grafts in revision surgery.

Prevalence and Incidence of Chondral and Meniscal Lesions in Patients Undergoing Primary and Subsequent Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of 213 Patients From the SANTI Group

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown a higher prevalence of meniscal and chondral lesions at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) compared with primary ACLR procedures. However, studies that follow the development of meniscal and chondral status through primary and subsequent R-ACLR are scarce.

PURPOSE

To compare the prevalence of meniscal and chondral injuries in patients undergoing primary ACLR and subsequent R-ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ACLR and subsequently needed R-ACLR between January 2009 and February 2018 in a single center were included. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 59.7 months. The mean age was 22 years at primary ACLR and 26.1 years at the time of revision. The proportion of meniscal tears was higher at the time of R-ACLR compared with the time of primary reconstruction (70.0% vs 44.6%, respectively; P < .001). Similarly, the prevalence of chondral lesions was significantly higher at the time of revision versus the primary reconstruction (15.5% vs 7.0%, respectively; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR is associated with a higher rate of concomitant meniscal and chondral lesions than primary ACLR.

Are Elite Collegiate Female Athletes PRIME for a Safe Return to Sport after ACLR? An Investigation of Physical Readiness and Integrated Movement Efficiency (PRIME)

Background

Elite female athletes who successfully return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) represent a high-risk group for secondary injury. Little is known about how the functional profile of these athletes compares to their teammates who have not sustained ACL injuries.

Purpose

To compare elite collegiate female athletes who were able to successfully return to sport for at least one season following ACLR to their teammates with no history of ACLR with regard to self-reported knee function, kinetics, and kinematics during a double limb jump-landing task.

Study Design

Cross-Sectional Study.

Level of Evidence

Level 3.

Methods

Eighty-two female collegiate athletes (17 ACLR, 65 control) completed the knee-specific SANE (single assessment numeric evaluation) and three trials of a jump-landing task prior to their competitive season. vGRF data on each limb and the LESS (Landing Error Scoring System) score were collected from the jump-landing task. Knee-SANE, vGRF data, and LESS scores were compared between groups. All athletes were monitored for the duration of their competitive season for ACL injuries.

Results

Athletes after ACLR reported worse knee-specific function. Based on vGRF data, they unloaded their involved limb during the impact phase of the landing, and they were more asymmetrical between limbs during the propulsion phase as compared to the control group. The ACLR group, however, had lower LESS scores, indicative of better movement quality. No athletes in either group sustained ACL injuries during the following season.

Conclusion

Despite reporting worse knee function and demonstrating worse kinetics, the ACLR group demonstrated better movement quality relative to their uninjured teammates. This functional profile may correspond to short-term successful outcomes following ACLR, given that no athletes sustained ACL injuries in the competition season following assessment.

Greater Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport, as Well as Greater Present and Future Knee-Related Self-Efficacy, Can Increase the Risk for an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Re-Rupture: A Matched Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To determine the psychological characteristics and strength outcomes of patients who sustained an early anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) re-rupture after their primary ACL reconstruction and cross-sectionally compare them with a matched cohort of patients who did not sustain a reinjury during the first 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

In this matched cohort study, data for quadriceps and hamstring strength and 3 hop tests and answers to standardized patient-reported outcomes (the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury scale and a short version of the Knee Self-Efficacy Scale) were extracted from a rehabilitation outcome registry. Data for patients suffering a re-rupture were extracted, and patients were matched in terms of sex, age, and activity level with patients not suffering an ACL re-rupture within 2 years of primary reconstruction. The groups were compared 10 weeks and 4, 8, and 12 months after the primary reconstruction.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients suffering an ACL re-rupture were matched with 108 patients not suffering a re-rupture after ACL reconstruction. Patients who suffered an ACL re-rupture had greater psychological readiness, that is, greater confidence in performance, lesser negative emotions, and lesser risk appraisal, to return to sport (RTS) at 8 months (81.2 vs 67.9 [95% Δconfidence interval {CI} 2.7-23.8) P = .014) and at 12 months (95.2 vs 67.1, (95% ΔCI 14.3-41.8) P ≤ .001), and greater knee-related self-efficacy at 8 months (8.6 vs 8.0 [95% ΔCI 0.1-1.2], P = .021) and 12 months (9.4 vs 8.1, [95% ΔCI 0.3-2.2] P = .012) after primary ACL reconstruction, compared with the matched group.

CONCLUSIONS

A stronger psychological profile, defined by a greater psychological readiness to RTS and knee-related self-efficacy, may be associated with an ACL re-rupture within 2 years of the primary reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Matched cohort study, level III.

Larger Prior Tibial Tunnel Size Is Associated with Increased Failure Risk following Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

We hypothesize that larger prior tunnel size is associated with an increased risk of failure of single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) as defined by the performance of a re-revision (third) ACLR on the index knee. Retrospective review identified 244 patients who underwent single-stage revision ACLR at a single center with available preoperative radiographs. Patient and surgical factors were extracted by chart review. The maximum diameter of the tibial tunnel was measured on lateral radiographs and the maximum diameter of the femoral tunnel was measured on anteroposterior radiographs. Record review and follow-up phone calls were used to identify failure of the revision surgery as defined by re-revision ACLR on the index knee. One hundred and seventy-one patients (70%) were reviewed with a mean of 3.9 years follow-up. Overall, 23 patients (13.4%) underwent re-revision surgery. Mean tibial tunnel size was 12.6 ± 2.8 mm (range: 5.7-26.9 mm) and mean femoral tunnel size was 11.7 ± 2.8 mm (range: 6.0-23.0 mm). Re-revision risk increased with tibial tunnel size. Tibial tunnels 11 mm and under had a re-revision risk of 4.2%, while tunnels > 11 mm had a risk of 17.1% (relative risk: 4.1, p = 0.025). No significant association between femoral tunnel size and re-revision risk was noted. Patients with prior tibial tunnels > 11mm in diameter at revision surgery had significantly increased risk of re-revision ACLR. Further studies are needed to explore the relationship between prior tunnel size and outcomes of revision ACLR.

Does Hamstring Graft Size Affect Functional Outcome and Incidence of Revision Surgery After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction?

Purpose

The primary outcome measure of this study was to determine the effect of hamstring graft size on the functional outcome of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) and the secondary outcome was to ascertain the effect on revision surgery at the two-year follow-up.

Methods

This is a prospective comparative study of 144 consecutive patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction using a hamstring autograft. All patients underwent graft harvesting and ACL reconstruction with the standard technique. The graft diameter was recorded intraoperatively using a graft sizer. All patients were followed up with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) recorded at preop, six weeks, six months, one year, and two years and whether they underwent revision during this period was documented.

Results

The mean KOOS for patients with a ≤ 7mm graft diameter was 80.5±13.1, which was significantly lower compared to those with graft > 7 mm of 88.3±8.5, respectively (p<0.001) at the two years follow-up. Patients with graft ≤ 7mm did poorly, especially with mean KOOS subscores of sports and recreation and quality of life (p<0.05). Twenty-three point one percent (23.1%; 3 out 13) of patients with a graft < 7mm underwent revision, whereas only 5.8% and 2.6% of patients underwent revision with a graft diameter of 7.1-8.0 and 8.1-9.0 (p=0.027).

Conclusions

The smaller Hamstring graft diameter leads to poorer functional outcomes of the patient’s ACL reconstruction. Though the number of revisions was high among those with a graft diameter of ≤ 7mm, multicentric studies with many revisions are required to confirm the relation.

Subsequent surgery after primary ACLR results in a significantly inferior subjective outcome at a 2-year follow-up

PURPOSE

To analyze minimal important change (MIC), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) and treatment failure after reoperation within 2 years of primary ACL reconstruction and compare them with patients without additional surgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective follow-up study of a cohort from a single-clinic database with all primary ACLRs enrolled between 2005 and 2015. Additional surgery within 2 years of the primary ACLR on the ipsilateral knee was identified using procedural codes and analysis of medical records. Patients who completed the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up were included in the study. MIC, PASS and treatment failure thresholds were applied using the aggregate KOOS (KOOS₄) and the five KOOS subscales.

RESULTS

The cohort included 6030 primary ACLR and from this 1112 (18.4%) subsequent surgeries were performed on 1018 (16.9%) primary ACLRs. 24 months follow-up for KOOS was obtained on 523 patients (54%) in the reoperation group and 2084 (44%) in the no-reoperation group. MIC; the no-reoperation group had a significantly higher improvement on all KOOS subscales, Pain 70.3 vs 60.2% (p < 0.01), Symptoms 72.1 vs 57.4% (p < 0.01), ADL 56.3 vs 51.2% (p < 0.01), Sport/Rec 67.3 vs 54.4% (p < 0.01), QoL 73.9 vs 56.3% (p < 0.01). PASS; 62% in the non-reoperation group reported their KOOS₄ scores to be satisfactory, while only 35% reported satisfactory results in the reoperated cohort (p < 0.05). Treatment failure; 2% in the non-reoperation group and 6% (p < 0.05) in the reoperation group considered their treatment to have failed.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent subsequent surgeries within 2 years of primary ACLR reported significantly inferior outcomes in MIC, PASS and treatment failure compared to the non-reoperated counterpart at the 2-year follow-up. This study provides clinicians with important information and knowledge about the outcomes after an ACLR with subsequent additional surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Quantifying graft impingement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLR) fail at a rate of 10-15%, with graft impingement often a cause. In this study we investigate the prevalence and causes of impingement seen during ACLR surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed consecutive primary ACLR from 2012-2018. Graft impingement was estimated intraoperatively by placing the arthroscope through the tibial tunnel and passively extending the knee, observing how much was obscured by the lateral femoral condyle from an anterior and lateral direction. Preoperative MRI scans were used to measure the intercondylar notch; Notch Width Index (NWI) and Notch Depth Index (NDI). Positioning of the tunnels was determined on postoperative radiographs.

RESULTS

There were 283 ACLRs performed with 33 failures diagnosed on MRI (11.7%). 257 patients had complete imaging and follow up (91%). The mean age was 28 (±9) years and mean follow-up 5.3 (±1.8) years. The mean NWI was 0.26(±0.03), and NDI was 0.49(±0.06). The tibial tunnel aperture was located 42(±6) % of the way from anterior-posterior and 39(±6) % from medial-lateral. Impingement requiring a notchplasty was observed in 80% of cases, with lateral impingement more prominent.

CONCLUSIONS

The amount of impingement did not correlate with tunnel position, which was located within the recommended area. There was a weak negative correlation between NWI and lateral impingement (r_s = -0.16, p = 0.01), and NDI and anterior impingement (r_s = -0.12, p = 0.04), therefore a smaller notch is associated with greater impingement. Despite optimal tunnel positioning, impingement still occurs in a significant number of cases therefore notchplasty should always be considered to keep revision rates low.

The Effect of Posterior Tibial Slope on the Risk of Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) later experience graft failure. Some studies suggest an association between a steep posterior tibial slope (PTS) and graft failure.

PURPOSE

To examine the PTS in a large cohort of patients about to undergo ACLR and to determine whether a steep PTS is associated with later revision surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a cohort undergoing isolated ACLR between 2002 and 2012 (with 8-19 years of follow-up) was conducted. Preoperative sagittal radiographs of knees in full extension were used for measurements of the PTS. There were 2 independent examiners who performed repeated measurements to assess the reliability of the method. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the PTS in the groups with and without later revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 728 patients, with a mean age of 28 years at the time of surgery, were included. Overall, 10% (n = 76) underwent revision surgery during the observation period. The group of injured knees had a significantly steeper PTS compared with the group of uninjured knees (9.5° vs 8.7°, respectively; P < .05). The mean PTS in the no revision group was 9.5° compared with 9.3° in the revision group (not significant). Dichotomized testing of revision rates related to PTS cutoff values of ≥10°, ≥12°, ≥14°, ≥16°, and ≥18° showed no association of PTS steepness (not significant) to graft failure. Patients with revision were younger than the ones without (mean age, 24 ± 8 vs 29 ± 10 years, respectively) and had a shorter time from injury to ACLR (mean, 14 ± 27 vs 24 ± 44 months, respectively) as well as a smaller graft size (8.2 vs 8.4 mm, respectively; P = .040).

CONCLUSION

The current study did not find any association between a steep PTS measured on lateral knee radiographs and revision ACL surgery. However, a steeper PTS was seen in the group of injured knees compared with the group of uninjured (contralateral) knees. Independent of the PTS, younger patients, those with a shorter time from injury to surgery, and those with a smaller graft size were found to undergo revision surgery more often.

"I don't opt out of things because I think I will get a sore knee, but I don't expose myself to stupid risks either": patients' experiences of a second ACL injury-an interview study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe women's experiences with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and a subsequent ACL rupture, and to identify potential facilitators and barriers for coping with rehabilitation after the second injury.

METHODS

Eight women between 17 and 36 years (mean 26, SD 6.5) who had experienced ACLR, followed by another ACL rupture, participated in the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

One overarching theme, "Rehabilitation after a second ACL injury-A lifelong adaptive coping process", emerged from analyses. Undergoing a second rehabilitation is described as a process of adaptation, beginning with the first injury and still ongoing, more than 5 years later. Participants applied different coping strategies to adapt to these life-altering injuries, but the common denominator was of major life adjustments with no return to previous activity levels. Initially, after the reinjury, it was about coping with the catastrophe of the dreaded second injury. Over time, they accepted their "new" life and reset their recovery/rehabilitation goal not just as "return to sport" but rather as a "personal life goal".

CONCLUSION

Undergoing a second ACL injury is a long process that challenges the patient's coping skills. Given these results, rehabilitation programs need to be more person centred according to the patients-adjusted life goals.

Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis in revision ACL reconstruction does not influence the outcome of patients with low-grade anterior knee laxity

INTRODUCTION

There is limited evidence on the indications of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in revision ACLR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the LET in patients with revision ACLR with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2018, 78 patients who underwent revision ACLR with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity [≤ 5 mm side-to-side difference (SSD)] were included in the retrospective cohort study. An additional modified Lemaire tenodesis was performed in 23 patients during revision ACLR and patients were clinically examined with a minimum of 2 years after revision surgery. Postoperative failure of the revision ACLR was defined as SSD in Rolimeter^® testing ≥ 5 mm or pivot-shift grade 2/3.

RESULTS

In total, failure of the revision ACLR occurred in 11.5% (n = 9) of the cases at a mean follow-up of 28.7 ± 8.8 (24-67) months. Patients with an additional LET and revision ACLR did not show a significantly reduced failure rate (13% vs. 11%) or an improved clinical outcome according to the postoperative functional scores or pain in regards to patients with an isolated revision ACLR (Tegner 5.7 ± 1.3 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5, n.s.; IKDC 77.5 ± 16.2 vs. 80.1 ± 14.9, n.s., Lysholm 81.9 ± 14.2 vs. 83.8 ± 14.5, n.s.; VAS 1.9 ± 2.2 vs. 1.2 ± 1.7, n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

An additional LET in patients with revision ACLR with low-grade anterior knee laxity does not influence patient-related outcomes or failure rates. Subjects with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity may not benefit from a LET in revision ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes after Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction using a Bone-patellar Tendon-bone Autograft and that Using a Double-Bundle Hamstring Tendon Autograft

PURPOSE

 The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft and that using a double-bundle hamstring tendon (HT) autograft.

METHODS

 Consecutive cases of revision ACLRs were reviewed. The Lysholm knee scale and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were recorded at the final follow-up. The pivot shift test, Lachman test, and anterior knee laxity measurement using an arthrometer were evaluated before revision ACLR and at final follow-up. Contralateral knee laxity was also evaluated, and side-to-side differences noted. The Lysholm knee scale, KOOS, the pivot shift test, Lachman test, and anterior knee laxity were compared between HT versus BPTB autograft recipient groups using the Mann-Whitney test or the t-test.

RESULTS

 Forty-one patients who underwent revision ACLR and followed up for at least 2 years were included. The graft source was a BPTB autograft in 23 patients (BPTB group) and a double-bundle HT autograft in 18 patients (HT group). The mean postoperative follow-up period was 44 ± 28 months in the BPTB group and 36 ± 18 in the HT group (p = 0.38). The HT group had significantly higher KOOS in the pain subscale (less pain) than the BPTB group at the final follow-up (BPTB group 84.2 vs. HT group 94.4; p = 0.02). The BPTB group showed significantly smaller side-to-side difference in anterior knee laxity (superior stability) than the HT group (0.3 vs. 2.6 mm; p < 0.01). The percentage of patients with residual anterior knee laxity in the BPTB group was significantly lower than that in the HT group (9.5% vs. 46.7%; odds ratio, 8.3; p = 0.02).

STUDY DESIGN

 This was a level 3 retrospective study.

CONCLUSION

 Revision ACLR with a BPTB autograft was associated with superior results regarding restoration of knee joint stability as compared with that with a double-bundle HT autograft, whereas double-bundle HT autograft was superior to BPTB autograft in terms of patient-reported outcomes of pain. The rest of the patient-reported outcomes were equal between the two groups.

Double-Layered Quadriceps Tendon Autografts Provide Lower Failure Rates and Improved Clinical Results Compared With Hamstring Tendon Grafts in Revision ACL Reconstruction

Background:

We developed a quadriceps-tendon graft technique using a double-layered, partial-thickness, soft tissue quadriceps tendon graft (dlQUAD) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). This technique allows simple femoral loop button fixation and a limited harvest depth of the quadriceps tendon.

Purpose:

To evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing revision ACLR using the dlQUAD technique compared with a hamstring tendon graft (HT).

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 114 patients who underwent revision ACLR between 2017 and 2018 were included in this retrospective case series. At a mean follow-up of 26.9 ± 3.7 months (range, 24-36), 89 patients (dlQUAD: n = 43, HT: n = 46) were clinically examined. In addition, patients completed the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Postoperative failure of the revision ACLR was defined as a side-to-side difference (SSD) in Rolimeter testing ≥5 mm or a pivot-shift grade of 2 or 3.

Results:

Nine patients (10.1%) were identified with a failed revision ACLR. There was a significantly lower failure rate with dlQUAD versus the HT group (2.3% vs 17.4%; P = .031). The mean postoperative SSD was significantly less in the dlQUAD group (1.3 ± 1.3 mm [range, 0-5] vs 1.8 ± 2.2 mm [range, 0-9]; P = .043). At the latest follow-up, Tegner and IKDC scores significantly improved in the dlQUAD group compared with the HT group (Tegner: 5.8 ± 1.8 vs 5.6 ± 1.5; P = .043; IKDC: 83.8 ± 12.2 vs 78.6 ± 16.8; P = .037). The pain VAS score was also significantly reduced in the dlQUAD group compared with the HT group (0.9 ± 1.1 vs 1.6 ± 2.0; P = .014).

Conclusion:

The dlQUAD and HT techniques both demonstrated significant improvement of preoperative knee laxity and satisfactory patient-reported outcome measures after revision ACLR. Compared with the HT grafts, the dlQUAD technique showed lower failure rates and small increases in Tegner and IKDC scores.