Two-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

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°.

Inconsistent Return to Sport Despite Improved Outcomes After Re-revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature evaluating patient-reported outcomes and return to sport after re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) procedures. The secondary objectives were 2-fold: to identify the risk factors that lead to revision ACLR failure and to assess the secondary knee structure injuries after the initial revision ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane databases. The inclusion criteria were outcomes of re-revision ACLR, minimum of 2 years' follow-up, human studies, and English language. Basic science articles, epidemiologic studies, editorials, surgical technique articles, surveys, cadaveric studies, and animal studies were excluded.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered for review. There were 6 Level III and 9 Level IV studies that included 399 patients undergoing re-revision ACLR. The rate of concomitant meniscal lesions at the time of re-revision ranged from 35% to 90%. The prevalence of concomitant cartilaginous lesions at the time of re-revision ranged from 13.6% to 90%. Compared with preoperative scores, patient-reported outcomes overall improved after re-revision ACLR, with mean preoperative Lysholm scores ranging from 38.4 to 73.15 that improved to postoperative scores ranging from 68 to 87.8. However, return to sport at preinjury levels was inconsistent, with rates ranging from 12.5% to 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-revision ACLR was found to restore knee stability and improve functional outcomes. Despite this improvement, there was a low rate of return to sport at the preinjury level. Functional outcomes were also inferior when compared with primary ACLR. In addition, concomitant knee pathologies were found to rise in prevalence compared with revision and primary ACLR cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

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.

Difference of Knee Strength Recovery Between Revision and Primary ACL Reconstruction

Different grafting procedures are available to restore knee stability after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We compared knee strength recovery between ACL revision surgery and primary reconstruction. One hundred and ten patients with ACL revision surgery were matched with 110 patients with primary reconstruction based on the graft procedure. The isokinetic knee strength had been assessed for the first 9 months post-surgery. Knee laxity, function, and activity score were also evaluated. Limb symmetry index for knee extensor and flexor strength was not different at 4-, 6- and 9-months post-surgery between revision surgery and primary reconstruction. These results depended on ipsilateral or contralateral graft choice. Ipsilateral hamstring tendon (HT) and contralateral bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) graft procedures were similar for a revision of a BPTB graft failure. Contralateral HT procedure was better than ipsilateral BPTB procedure for a revision of a HT graft failure. The early recovery of isokinetic knee strength after ACL revision surgery regardless of the HT or BPTB procedures, was similar to the recovery after primary ACL reconstruction with the same graft technique. These results apparently depended on a temporary quadriceps arthrogenic muscle inhibition and on a persistent donor site morbidity, concerning the new and the previous grafts, respectively.

Satisfactory outcomes after one-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using rectangular tunnel technique

PURPOSE

One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with the anatomic rectangular tunnel (RT) technique using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) grafts results in anatomically precise tunnel placement and secure graft fixation. This study evaluated knee joint laxity and clinical outcomes in terms of femoral tunnel overlap. It was hypothesised that there would be no significant differences in knee joint laxity or clinical outcomes regardless of femoral tunnel overlap.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2021, a single surgeon conducted 196 one-stage revision ACLRs with the RT technique using BTB grafts. Patients were divided based on the presence of femoral tunnel overlap. Knee joint laxity was evaluated using the Lachman test, pivot shift test, and side-to-side difference measured with a KT-1000 arthrometer. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Lysholm score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Knee Examination Form 2000. Knee joint laxity and clinical outcomes were compared between groups after a median follow-up of 2.5 years (range 2.0-8.0).

RESULTS

The study included 30 and 73 patients in the overlap and non-overlap groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the results of the Lachman test, pivot shift test, or KT-1000 arthrometer as well as in the Lysholm, KOOS, or IKDC scores between the two groups. Based on the IKDC scores, all patients were graded as normal or nearly normal.

CONCLUSION

One-stage revision ACLR with the RT technique using BTB grafts improved knee joint laxity and had favourable clinical outcomes regardless of femoral tunnel overlap. To achieve optimal results in one-stage revision ACLR, it is crucial to create a tunnel within the anatomical attachment area and ensure proper graft fixation and tensioning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.

Are COL22A1 Gene Polymorphisms rs11784270 and rs6577958 Associated with Susceptibility to a Non-Contact Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Polish Athletes?

Understanding the risk factors and etiology of ACL ruptures (anterior cruciate ligament) is crucial due to the injury’s high occurrence, significant financial cost to the healthcare sector, and clinical consequences. In this study, we investigated the hypothesis that rs11784270 A/C and rs6577958 C/T SNPs (single gene polymorphism) within COL22A1 are associated with ACL ruptures (ACLR) in Polish soccer players. Methods: 228 athletes with ACLR (157 male, age 26 ± 4, 71 female, age 26 ± 6) and 202 control athletes (117 male, age 26 ± 6, 85 female, age 29 ± 2) engaged in the study. The buccal cell swabs were genotyped using TaqMan® pre-designed SNP genotyping assays, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. The R program and SNPassoc package were used to determine the genotype and allele frequency distributions under the various inheritance models (co-dominant, dominant, recessive, and over-dominant). Further, p-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. We found no association between the analyzed polymorphisms and the risk of non-contact ACL ruptures in any of the studied models. Although the genetic variants investigated in this study were not associated with the risk of non-contact ACL ruptures, we assumed that the COL22A1 gene remains a candidate for further investigations in musculoskeletal injuries.

A Comparison of Two-Year Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Clinical Outcomes Using All-Soft Tissue Quadriceps Tendon Autograft With Femoral/Tibial Cortical Suspensory Fixation Versus Tibial Interference Screw Fixation

PURPOSE

To contribute to future quadriceps tendon harvest and fixation guidelines in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by comparing 2-year patient-reported subjective knee outcome scores and incidence of graft-related complications between the shorter harvest all-inside tibial-femoral suspensory fixation (TFSF) approach versus the longer harvest standard tibial interference screw fixation technique.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with all soft tissue quadriceps tendon autograft from January 2017 to May 2019 were identified for inclusion. Patients were matched into 2 cohorts of 62 based on reconstruction technique. All patients completed baseline and minimum 2-year International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner Activity Level, and Lysholm questionnaires and were queried regarding subsequent procedures and complications to the operative knee.

RESULTS

Average graft length for the all-inside TFSF was 69.55 (95% confidence interval 68.99-70.19) mm versus 79.27 (95% confidence interval 77.21-81.34) mm in the tibial screw fixation cohort (P = .00001). Two-year Lysholm scores were greater in the TFSF cohort (P = .04) but were not clinically significant. There was no difference in 2-year International Knee Documentation Committee (P = .09) or Tegner (P = .69) scores between cohorts, but more patients in the TFSF cohort returned to or exceeded their baseline activity level compared with the tibial screw fixation cohort (73% vs 61%, P = .25). Seven patients in the TFSF cohort versus 13 in the tibial screw fixation cohort reported anterior knee pain or kneeling difficulty (P = .22). There were no differences in reported complications.

CONCLUSIONS

All-inside soft-tissue quadriceps tendon autograft with TFSF resulted in clinically comparable subjective outcome scores at 2 years to tibial screw fixation. There were also no differences in complications or reports of anterior knee pain or kneeling difficulty. All-inside TFSF can be a viable alternative to tibial screw fixation for all-soft tissue quadriceps autograft.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, comparative therapeutic trial.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Tibial Tunnel-First Graft-Sizing Technique

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) has become more common as the number of failed primary ACLRs increase. Although increasingly common, R-ACLR has a greater failure rate than a primary reconstruction. Technical errors, particularly in tunnel placement, account for a large proportion of graft failure in R-ACLR as well as re-revision cases. Tunnel placement and trajectory is particularly important in R-ACLR and becomes more challenging with each additional revision attempt. This is in part because any tunnels created for revision may converge with formerly drilled tunnels or face interference hardware creating, complicating proper graft fixation. While there are many approaches to revision ACL surgery, our technique describes a simple, tibial tunnel-first graft-sizing method initially reaming tunnels with very small diameters and sequentially working your way up to more anatomic diameters.

Multiple ACL Revision: Failure Analysis and Clinical Outcomes

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction represents one of the most successful orthopedic surgical procedures. Nevertheless, ACL revisions are still very frequent, with a small but relevant number of failures. The purpose of this study is to analyze the failure causes and the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent a re-revision ACL reconstruction. Between January 2009 and December 2017, 263 ACL revisions were performed by a single senior surgeon. Seventeen patients (12 males and 5 females) underwent re-revision ACL reconstruction meeting the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 28.4 years (range, 19-41 years). Before the re-revision, the patients were evaluated preoperatively and after a mean follow-up of 29 months (range, 13-58 months). Assessment included subjective and objective evaluations (Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]), KT-2000 arthrometer, radiographic study, and preoperative computed tomography scan. Five patients showed a too anterior previous femoral tunnel and seven a too vertical and posterior tibial tunnel; eight meniscal tears were found. Five patients had grade III-IV according to Outerbridge cartilage lesions. IKDC showed a statistically significant improvement (A + B 35%, C + D 65% preop, A + B 82%, C + D 18% postop, odds ratio: 0.1169; p = 0.0083). The mean Lysholm score ranged from 43 ± 9 to 87 ± 7 (p < 0.001). The KT-2000 arthrometer showed a statistically significant improvement from a mean of 5.8 ± 1.4 to 1.5 ± 1.1 (p < 0.001) at last follow-up. Out of 17 patients, only 4 returned to sports activity at the same preinjury levels. Postoperatively at the last follow-up after last revision surgery, no osteoarthritis evolution was observed. This study showed good clinical and radiological results after the last revision ACL surgery in patients with multiple failures of ACL reconstruction but only one-fourth of the patients returned to the same preoperative sport level. Traumatic events, technical errors, and untreated peripheral lesions are the main causes of multiple previous failures; the worst clinical outcomes were found in the patients with high grade of chondral lesions.

Allograft Bone Dowels Show Better Incorporation in Femoral Versus Tibial Tunnels in 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Computed Tomography-Based Analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the radiographic outcomes of allograft dowels used in 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to compare the incorporation rates of dowels placed in tibial and femoral tunnels.

METHODS

Prospective review of patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR with allograft bone dowels. Inclusion criteria were tibial/femoral tunnel diameter of ≥14 mm on preoperative computed tomography (CT) or overlapping of prior tunnels with planned tunnels. Second-stage timing was determined based on qualitative dowel integration on CT obtained at ∼3 months after the first stage. Quantitative analysis of incorporation rates was performed with the union ratio (UR) and occupying ratio (OR) on postoperative CT scans.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients, with a mean (SD) age of 32.1 (11.4; range, 18-50) years, were included. Second-stage procedures were performed at a mean (SD) of 6.5 (2.1; range, 2.4-11.5) months after first-stage revision. All dowels showed no signs of degradation at the host bone/graft junction at the second-stage procedure. The mean (SD) diameter of the dowels placed in tibial tunnels was greater than those placed in femoral tunnels (16.1 [2.3] mm vs 12.4 [1.6] mm; P < .05). CT was obtained at a mean (SD) of 121 (28; range, 59-192) days after the first-stage surgery. There was no difference between the OR of femoral and tibial tunnels (mean [SD], 87.6% [4.8%] vs 85.7% [10.1%]; P = .484), but the UR was significantly higher in femoral tunnels (mean [SD], 83% [6.2%] vs 74% [10.5%], P = .005). The intraclass correlation coefficients of OR and UR measurements indicated good reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

Allograft bone dowels are a viable graft choice to replenish bone stock in the setting of a staged revision ACL reconstruction. Allograft dowels placed in femoral tunnels had a higher healing union ratio than tibial tunnel allografts and no evidence of degradation at the bone/graft junction, with no difference seen in occupying ratio.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

One-Stage Anatomical Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results According to Tunnel Overlaps

PURPOSE

To present clinical results according to tunnel overlap in 1-stage anatomical revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

All patients who underwent revision ACLR performed by a single surgeon (J.H.A.) from 2012 to 2017 and were followed up for >24 months were retrospectively evaluated. The exclusion criteria were concomitant ligament injury, including medial collateral ligament injury, modified Outerbridge grade ≥3 cartilage lesion, and severe meniscus defects. Tunnel overlap was measured on 3-dimensionally reconstructed computed tomography images. Patients in the nonoverlapped femoral tunnel group (group NO, n = 52) were treated with new tunnel drilling that completely avoided previous tunnels, and those in the overlapped femoral tunnel group (group O, n = 41) were treated with a new tunnel that overlapped with previous tunnels. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores. Knee joint stability was measured using the Lachman and pivot shift tests. Patients with femoral tunnel widening of ≥14 mm underwent 2-stage ACLR.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration of 93 patients was 46.9 months (range, 24-97 months). All preoperative subjective and objective IKDC (P<0.001) and Telos stress test scores (P = .016) were significantly improved at the last follow-up. Forty-one patients had overlapping femoral tunnels, whereas 87 had overlapping tibial tunnels. At the last follow-up, subjective IKDC and Lysholm scores (73.6 ± 15.3 vs 74.9 ± 12.1, P = .799 and 80.0 ± 19.2 vs 81.44 ± 13.5, P = .505, respectively) and objective pivot shift (IKDC grade) in the Lachman test (P = .183 and P = .450, respectively) did not differ significantly between groups NO and O, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage anatomical revision ACLR significantly improved the clinical results. Most tibial tunnels (94%) and approximately one-half (44%) of the femoral tunnels overlapped. The overlapped femoral tunnel group did not show inferior outcomes or stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, cohort study.

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

BACKGROUND

The increased prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has led to an increased need for revision ACL reconstructions. Despite the growing body of literature indicating that single-stage revision ACL reconstruction can yield good outcomes, there is a lack of data for determining when and how to safely perform a single-stage revision.

PURPOSE

To assess the outcomes, graft failure rates, and return-to-play rates of a decision-making algorithm for single-stage revision ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

We reviewed a consecutive series of revision ACL reconstructions performed by the senior author between September 2009 and July 2016 with minimum 2-year follow-up. All patients were assessed, and decision making was undertaken according to the algorithm. Outcomes measured were further surgery, graft rerupture, re-revision, Tegner score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). For the elite athlete population, return-to-play time, duration, and level of play after surgery as compared with preinjury were also determined.

RESULTS

During this period, 93 procedures were performed in 92 patients (40 elite athletes). Two 2-stage procedures were undertaken, leaving 91 single-stage procedures (91 patients) to form the basis for further study. At a mean 4.3 years (SD, 2.2 years) after surgery, there had been 2 re-revisions (2.2%) and 2 further instances of graft failure that had not been re-revised (total graft failure rate, 4.4%). There were 17 subsequent procedures, including 6 arthroscopic partial meniscectomies, 5 removals of prominent implants, and 1 total knee arthroplasty. The mean Tegner score was 8.02 before graft rerupture and 7.1 at follow-up. At follow-up, the mean KOOS outcomes were 79.3 for Symptoms, 88.0 for Pain, 94.2 for Activities of Daily Living, 73.6 for Sport, and 68.9 for Quality of Life. Of 40 elite athletes, 35 returned to play at a mean 11.2 months (SD, 3.6 months) after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Single-stage revision ACL reconstructions can be performed reliably in the majority of patients, with good clinical outcomes, low rerupture rates, and high-return-to play rates, even in the elite athlete population.

Revision ACL Reconstruction: Principles and Practice

INTRODUCTION

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showed more laxity than revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum 2-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare patient demographics, associated lesions (concurrent meniscal and chondral injuries), and clinical outcomes between revision and re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision or re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2008 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Detailed patient demographic data, radiographic preoperative tunnel diameters, posterior tibia slope, and concurrent meniscal and chondral lesion were reviewed. Clinical scores and laxity tests' results were compared between the groups at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients (mean age, 33.8 ± 9.9 years; revision group, n = 62; re-revision group, n = 20) were included. The re-revision group showed a higher grade for preoperative arthritis (P < 0.001); more severe preoperative bone defects of the femoral (13.8 ± 2.6 vs 11.7 ± 2.7 mm, P = 0.004) and tibial tunnels (14.6 ± 2.4 vs 13.0 ± 2.3 mm, P = 0.010); and a higher prevalence of subtotal medial meniscectomy (P = 0.008) and chondral defects of the medial (P = 0.006) and lateral femoral condyles (P < 0.001), patella (P = 0.040), and trochlea (P = 0.036). At the final follow-up, the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the re-revision group showed more instability in the anterior drawer (P = 0.001), Lachman (P < 0.001), and pivot-shift (P < 0.001) tests, while a side-to-side difference was observed on the Telos stress radiographs (7.1 ± 4.7 vs 4.9 ± 3.7 mm, P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

These findings showed that the patients who underwent re-revision had poor prognostic factors as compared with those who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Although the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups, the re-revision group showed more laxity at the 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Cohort study; IV.

Two-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Bone Graft Options for Tunnel Augmentation

BACKGROUND

No consensus is available regarding the optimal choice of bone graft material for bone tunnel augmentation in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of different bone graft materials for staged revision ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were queried through use of the terms anterior cruciate ligament and revision to identify all studies reporting outcomes of bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction. Data extracted included indications for 2-stage surgery, surgical technique, graft material, time between surgeries, rehabilitation protocols, physical examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic and histologic findings.

RESULTS

The analysis included 7 studies with a total of 234 patients. The primary outcome in 2 studies was graft incorporation (mean follow-up, 8.8 months), whereas the other 5 studies reported clinical outcomes with follow-up mean ± SD of 4.2 ± 2.1 years. The indication for bone grafting and between-stage protocol varied among studies. Autograft was used in 4 studies: iliac crest bone autograft (ICBG, n = 3) and tibial bone autograft (TBA, n = 1). In 2 studies, the authors investigated the outcomes of allograft: allograft bone matrix (ABM) and allograft bone chips (AC). Finally, 1 study compared ICBG to a synthetic bone substitute. Radiographic evaluation of bone graft integration after the first stage was reported in 4 studies, with an average duration of 4.9 months. In 4 studies, the authors reported the time interval between first and second surgeries, with an average of 6.1 months for ICBG compared with 8.7 months for allogenic and synthetic grafts. Revision ACL graft failure rates were reported by 5 studies, including 1 study with ABM (6.1%), 1 study with AC (8.3%), 1 study with TBA (0%), and 2 studies with ICBG (0% and 2%).

CONCLUSION

The indications for staged ACL reconstruction and the rehabilitation protocol between stages need to be clearly established. The available data indicate that autograft for bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage ACL revision may be associated with a lower risk of revision ACL reconstruction graft failure compared with allograft bone.

Cancellous allogenic and autologous bone grafting ensure comparable tunnel filling results in two-staged revision ACL surgery

OBJECTIVES

Patients with recurrent instability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction often present with enlarged or misplaced tunnels and bone grafting is required prior to the actual revision reconstruction. Autologous bone grafting features limited quantity and donor site morbidity. These problems may be eliminated utilizing cancellous bone allografts, but their efficiency and reliability have not been investigated systematically. The aim of the present study was to compare tunnel filling rates attained by utilizing either allogenic or autologous cancellous bone grafts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 103 consecutive patients were enrolled retrospectively. All patients suffered from recurrent instability and underwent either allogenic or autologous cancellous bone grafting. Computed tomography (CT) was carried out before and after the bone grafting procedure. Based on preoperative CT scans, positioning and maximum diameter of the femoral and tibial tunnels were determined. Tunnel filling rates were calculated as a ratio of pre- and postoperative tunnel volumes. Primary outcome was the tibial tunnel filling rate. Femoral filling rates and density of the grafted bone were assessed secondarily.

RESULTS

Preoperative CT scans revealed no significant differences between the two groups regarding distribution of misplacement and widening of the femoral or tibial tunnel. Postoperative CT scans were conducted after an interval of 5.2 months. Tunnel filling rates of 74.5% (± 14.3) femoral and 85.3% (± 10.3) tibial were achieved in the allogenic compared to 74.3% (± 15.9) femoral and 84.9% (± 9.4) tibial in the autologous group. With p values of 0.85 at the femur and 0.83 at the tibia, there were no significant differences between the groups. The density of the grafted bone revealed significantly higher values in the allogenic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing cancellous bone allografts in two-staged revision ACL surgery provides for sufficient and reproducible filling of enlarged or misplaced tunnels. The filling rates are comparable to those achieved with autologous bone grafting. Advantages of allografts are the unrestricted quantity and the absence of any harvesting procedure.

Bacterial DNA is associated with tunnel widening in failed ACL reconstructions

PURPOSE

To determine if tunnel widening, defined as change in maximal tunnel diameter from the time of initial bone tunnel drilling to revision surgery is associated with bacterial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) presence and concentration in torn graft tissue from failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs).

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive revision ACLRs were included (mean age 27.3 years SD 10.9; median time to failure 4.9 years range 105 days-20 years). Graft selection of the failed reconstruction was 68% autograft, 26% allograft, and 6% autograft/allograft hybrid with a mean drilled tunnel diameter of 8.4 mm SD 0.8. Maximal tunnel diameters prior to revision were measured on pre-operative three-dimensional imaging and compared to drilled tunnel diameters at the time of the previous reconstruction. Tissue biopsies of the failed graft were obtained from tibial, femoral, and intraarticular segments. Sterile water left open to air during revision ACLRs and tissue from primary ACLRs were used as negative controls. Clinical cultures were obtained on all revision ACLRs and PCR with universal bacterial primer on all cases and negative controls. Fluorescence microscopy was used to confirm the presence and location of biofilms in two patients with retrieved torn graft tissue and fixation material. Amount of tunnel widening was compared to bacterial DNA presence as well as bacterial DNA concentration via Welch ANOVA.

RESULTS

Bacterial DNA was present in 29/34 (85%) revision ACLRs, 1/5 (20%) of primary ACLR controls and 0/3 (0%) sterile water controls. Cultures were positive (coagulase negative Staphylococcus sp.) in one case, which also had the greatest degree of tunnel widening. Femoral widening was greater in cases with detectable bacterial DNA (mean widening 2.6 mm SD 3.0) versus without (mean 0.3 mm SD 0.6) (p = 0.003) but was unaffected by bacterial DNA concentration (p = 0.44). Tibial widening was not associated with the presence of bacterial DNA (n.s.); however, higher bacterial DNA concentrations were observed in cases with tibial widening ≥ 3.0 mm (median 2.47 ng bacterial DNA/µg total DNA) versus widening < 3.0 mm (median 0.97 ng bacterial DNA/µg total DNA) (p = 0.046). Tunnel widening was not associated with time to failure, graft selection, or number of prior surgeries (n.s., all comparisons). Fluorescence microscopy confirmed the presence of biofilms on ruptured tendon graft as well as fixation material in 2/2 cases.

CONCLUSION

Bacterial DNA is commonly encountered on failed ACLR grafts and can form biofilms. Bacterial DNA does not cause clinically apparent infection symptoms but is associated with tunnel widening. Further research is needed to determine whether graft decontamination protocols can reduce graft bacterial colonization rates, ACLR tunnel widening or ACLR failure risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic III.

Two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

With the rising number of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, revision ACL reconstructions are becoming increasingly common. A revision procedure may be performed to improved knee function, correct instability, and facilitate a return to normal activities. When performing a revision reconstruction, the surgeon decides between a single-stage or a two-stage revision. Two-stage revisions are rarely performed, but are particularly useful when addressing substantial tunnel-widening, active infection, and concomitant knee pathology (e.g., malalignment, other ligamentous injuries, meniscal or chondral lesions). Among these potential scenarios requiring a two-stage revision, tunnel-widening is the most common cause; the first stage involves graft removal, tunnel curettage, and bone grafting, followed by revision ACL reconstruction in the second stage. The purpose of this article is to review the preoperative planning, surgical considerations, rehabilitation, and outcomes of two-stage revision ACL reconstructions and summarize the recent literature outlining treatment results.

Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction: a clinical review

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains a challenge, especially optimising outcome for patients with a compromised knee where previous autogenous tissue has been used for reconstruction. Allograft tissue has become a recognized choice of graft for revision surgery but questions remain over the risks and benefits of such an option. Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction with no higher risk of infection and equivalent failure rates compared to autografts provided that the tissue is not irradiated, or any irradiation is minimal. Best scenarios for use of allografts include revision surgery where further use of autografts could lead to high donor site morbidity, complex instability situations where additional structures may need reconstruction, and in those with clinical and radiologic signs of autologous tendon degeneration. A surgeon needs to be able to select the best option for the challenging knee facing revision ACL reconstruction, and in the light of current data, allograft tissue can be considered a suitable option to this purpose.Level of evidence IV.

Outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction secondary to reamer-irrigator-aspirator harvested bone grafting

INTRODUCTION

Patients with widened or misplaced tunnels may require bone grafting prior to revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Utilising reamer-irrigator-aspirator (RIA) harvested bone from the femur showed promising filling rates. Nevertheless, the procedure has neither been validated in a larger population nor been assessed with regards to radiological and clinical outcome of the subsequently conducted revision ACL reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate tunnel filling rates, positioning of the revision tunnels and outcome parameters of such two-staged revision ACL reconstructions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 15 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in this case series. CT scans were analysed before and after autologous RIA harvested bone grafting. Tunnel volumes and filling rates were calculated based on manual segmentation of axial CT scans. Revision ACL reconstruction was carried out after a mean interval of 6.2 months (±3.7) and positioning of the revision tunnels was assessed by plane radiographs. The mean follow-up was 19.8 months (±8.4) for objective evaluation and 37.1 months (±15.4) for patient reported outcomes. The clinical outcome was assessed by the quantification of the anterior tibial translation, the IKDC objective score, the Tegner activity scale and the Lysholm score.

RESULTS

Initial CT scans revealed mean tunnel volumes of 3.8cm³ (±2.7) femoral and 6.1cm³ (±2.4) tibial. Filling rates of 76.1% (±12.4) femoral and 87.4% (±5.9) tibial were achieved. Postoperative radiographs revealed significantly improved tunnel positioning with anatomical placement in all but one case at the femur and in all cases at the tibia. At follow up, patients showed significantly improved anterior tibial translations with residual side-to-side differences of 1.7 mm (±0.8) and significantly improved IKDC objective scores. Furthermore, significantly higher values were achieved on the Tegner activity scale (5.3 ± 1.4 vs. 2.8 ± 0.5) and the Lysholm score (85.4 ± 7.9 vs. 62.5 ± 10.5) compared to the preoperative status.

CONCLUSION

Autologous RIA harvested bone grafting ensures sufficient bone stock consolidation allowing for anatomical tunnel placement of the subsequently conducted revision ACL reconstruction. The two-staged procedure reliably restores stability and provides satisfying subjective and objective outcomes. Thus, RIA harvested bone grafting is an eligible alternative to autologous iliac crest or allogenic bone grafting.

Are MMP3, MMP8 and TIMP2 gene variants associated with anterior cruciate ligament rupture susceptibility?

OBJECTIVES

Anterior cruciate ligament rupture (ACLR) is a common and severe knee injury which typically occurs as a result of sports participation, primarily via a non-contact mechanism. A number of extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors, including genetics, have been identified thus far. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteases (TIMPs) play a crucial role in extracellular matrix remodeling of ligaments and therefore the genes encoding MMPs and TIMPs are plausible candidates for investigation with ACL rupture risk.

DESIGN

A case-control genetic association study was conducted on 229 (158 male) individuals with surgically diagnosed primary ACLR, ruptured through non-contact mechanisms and 192 (107 male) apparently healthy participants (CON) without any history of ACLR. All participants were physically active, unrelated, self-reported Caucasians.

METHODS

All participants were genotyped for four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP): MMP3 (rs591058C/T, rs679620 G/A), MMP8 (rs11225395C/T), and TIMP2 (rs4789932 G/A) using standard PCR assays. Gene-gene interactions were inferred. Single-locus association analysis was conducted using the Chi-square test. SNP-SNP interaction effects were analysed using multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) method.

RESULTS

Genotype frequencies did not significantly differ between cases and controls, however, the MMP3 rs679620 G and rs591058C alleles were significantly overrepresented in cases compared to controls (p=0.021, OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.05-1.81).

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the hypothesis that genetic variation within MMP3 contributes to inter-individual susceptibility to non-contact ACLR. However, these results need to be explored further in larger, independent sample sets.

Orthobiologics for Bone Healing

Orthobiologics are a group of biological materials and substrates that promote bone, ligament, muscle, and tendon healing. These substances include bone autograft, bone allograft, demineralized bone matrix, bone graft substitutes, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, platelet-rich plasma, bone morphogenetic proteins, platelet-derived growth factor, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D and calcium. Properties of orthobiologics in bone healing include osteoconduction, osteoinduction, and osteogenesis. This article discusses the important properties of orthobiologics in bone healing, many of the orthobiologics currently available for bone healing, the related literature, their current clinical uses in sports medicine, and systemic factors that inhibit bone healing.

One-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results According to Preoperative Bone Tunnel Diameter: Five to Fifteen-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Bone tunnel enlargement is one of the important factors that determine whether a revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) should be performed in 1 or 2 stages. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the mid-term to long-term outcomes of 1-stage revision ACLR according to the amount of preoperative tunnel enlargement.

METHODS

Between January 2002 and January 2012, 88 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the tunnel diameter (group A, <12 mm; group B, ≥12 mm). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score) and knee joint stability (as measured with the anterior drawer test, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, and measurement of the side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation on Telos stress radiographs) were evaluated preoperatively and 5 to 15 years postoperatively. The failure rate and survivorship were compared between groups A and B.

RESULTS

The mean time to final follow-up was 7.9 ± 2.6 years. There were 44 patients in each of the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in the postoperative IKDC subjective scores, Lysholm scores, or Tegner activity scores between the groups. However, group A showed superior results on all knee joint stability tests except for the anterior drawer test. There were 3 failures in group A (7%) and 6 in group B (14%). The overall survival rates with failure as the end point were 93.1% and 84.6%, respectively, at 15 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5 to 15-year clinical scores following revision ACLR did not differ significantly according to the preoperative amount of tunnel widening. However, the results of the postoperative Lachman and pivot-shift tests as well as the side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation on Telos stress radiographs were significantly superior in the group with a preoperative tunnel diameter of <12 mm compared with the group with a tunnel diameter of ≥12 mm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide-Sterilized Bone Allograft in the Treatment of Tunnel Defects in 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Histologic Evaluation

PURPOSE

To examine the histologic properties of supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO₂)-sterilized bone allograft for tunnel grafting and determine in vivo graft quality, as well as graft incorporation and remodeling, in 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery.

METHODS

Histologic evaluation was performed in 12 subjects undergoing 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction. In the first stage, the femoral and tibial tunnels were debrided, tunnel dimensions were measured, and tunnels were grafted with sCO₂-sterilized bone allograft. In the second stage, revision ACL reconstruction was performed and bone biopsy specimens were taken from the tibia. Tissue, bone, and graft volumes were measured, and histomorphometric analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The mean time between the 2 stages was 8.8 months (range, 5.6-21.3 months). In the second stage, bone graft material was easily identified by its necrotic appearance comprising mature lamellar bone devoid of osteocyte nuclei within osteocyte lacunae. In all tissue samples, host-bone apposition of predominantly mature lamellar bone was noted on the surface of graft fragments in keeping with "creeping substitution." In several regions in 3 cases, osteoblastic and osteoclastic activity was evident in keeping with ongoing creeping substitution and remodeling. The mean bone volume over tissue volume was 68% (range, 33%-92%), and the mean graft volume over bone volume was 41% (range, 19%-70%). The mean graft volume (8 cases) harvested at less than 7 months (44%; 95% confidence interval, 31.4%-56.8%) was not significantly different than the mean graft volume (4 cases) harvested at greater than 10 months (34%; 95% confidence interval, 14.3%-54.2%; P = .214).

CONCLUSIONS

The sCO₂-sterilized bone allograft showed graft incorporation and remodeling through creeping substitution.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The initial bone apposition and graft fragment bridging appear to provide a strong environment for ACL graft fixation resulting in technically successful 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction.

Arthroscopic Delivery of Injectable Bone Graft for Staged Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Bone defects caused by femoral and tibial tunnel enlargement can pose a significant technical challenge when planning to perform revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A number of options have been described for managing osseous deficiencies, including the use of large autograft or allograft bone dowels to provide sufficient tunnel fill and subsequent structural support for revision surgery. These techniques can be time-consuming and technically demanding to ensure proper tunnel fill and press-fit stability of the bone graft. We describe our preferred technique for arthroscopic bone grafting using a mixture of demineralized cortical bone graft augmented with platelet-rich plasma delivered through a simple delivery system.

Outcomes After 1-Stage Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is becoming increasingly common as the number of primary ACLR cases continues to rise. Despite this, there are limited data on the outcomes of revision ACLR and even less information specifically addressing the differences in 1-stage revision reconstruction versus those performed in a 2-stage fashion after primary reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes, patient satisfaction, and failure rates of 1-stage versus 2-stage revision ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

All patients who underwent revision ACLR between 2010 and 2014 by a single surgeon were collected, and skeletally mature patients over the age of 17 years were included. Patients were excluded if they were skeletally immature; had a previous intra-articular infection in the ipsilateral knee; underwent a prior alignment correction procedure, cartilage repair or transplant procedure, or meniscal allograft transplantation; or had an intra-articular fracture. An ipsilateral or contralateral bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft was the graft of choice. A BPTB allograft was considered for patients aged ≥50 years, for any patient with an insufficient ipsilateral or contralateral patellar tendon, or for those who chose not to have the contralateral patellar tendon graft harvested. Patients completed a subjective questionnaire preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of all knees were performed preoperatively to assess for associated injuries and to evaluate the ACLR tunnel size and location. Patients with malpositioned tunnels that would critically overlap with an anatomically placed tunnel or those with tunnels ≥14 mm in size underwent bone grafting.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. There were 39 patients in the 1-stage revision surgery group (19 male, 20 female) and 49 patients in the 2-stage revision surgery group who underwent tunnel bone grafting first (27 male, 22 female). In both groups, the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scale scores significantly improved from preoperatively to postoperatively. There was no significant difference in the SF-12 Mental Component Summary score before and after surgery in either group. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in failure rates or other demographic data between the groups. We observed 4 failures in the 1-stage reconstruction group (10.3%) and 3 failures in the 2-stage reconstruction group (6.1%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, objective outcomes and subjective patient scores and satisfaction were not significantly different between 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs. Both groups had significantly improved objective outcomes and patient subjective outcomes without notable differences in failure rates. Further longitudinal studies comparing 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs over a longer time frame are recommended.