One-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are serious knee injuries that are frequently treated surgically in the form of arthroscopically assisted reconstruction with grafts from the patella or hamstrings tendons. We reviewed the evidence for the choice of arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction technique in terms of whether it should involve one incision (femoral tunnel drilled from inside the knee joint under arthroscopic visualisation) or two incisions (femoral tunnel drilled from outside to inside the knee joint).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists, and conference abstracts. The date of the search was 16 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched and selected studies, and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the eligible studies. We undertook limited pooling of data using the fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (four randomised and one quasi-randomised) evaluating a total of 320 participants who were mainly in their 20s. All participants underwent ACL reconstruction with patella tendon grafts. All five included trials were at a high risk of bias, particularly performance bias. Based on these limitations and the insufficiency of the available data resulting in imprecision of effect estimates, we judged the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. This means that we are uncertain of the findings of the review.We found very low-quality evidence of no clinically important differences between the two techniques in self reported knee function, measured using the Lysholm knee score (scale 0 to 100: best outcome), at short-term (3 months) (mean difference (MD) 2.73 favours one-incision technique, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to 8.15; 79 participants, 2 studies), intermediate-term (12 months) (MD -3.68 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -6.61 to -0.75; 79 participants, 2 studies), and long-term follow-up. The data available for long-term follow-up (2 to 5 years) was expressed in terms of the numbers of participants with excellent Lysholm scores (90 points or more); we found no difference between the two groups (42/45 versus 36/40; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; 1 study). There were no data for quality of life measures or for overall numbers of participants incurring an adverse event. We found very low-quality evidence of little between-group differences in individual adverse events such as infection, knee stiffness, reoperation, and graft failure.We found very low-quality evidence from one study (59 participants) of little difference between the two groups in activity levels measured using Tegner scores (scale 0 to 10: highest sport activity) at two years (MD -0.80 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -1.90 to 0.30). There was very low-quality evidence from four studies of minimal between-group difference in the number of participants with normal or nearly normal objectively measured knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee objective assessment grading) at intermediate follow-up (means 12 to 28 months): 56/78 versus 63/89; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; 167 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The very low-quality and often absent evidence means that we are uncertain whether one-incision arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction techniques yield better, worse, or equivalent results compared with two-incision techniques in terms of short-, intermediate-, or long-term subjective function, quality of life, adverse outcomes, activity levels, and objectively rated knee function. The evidence was available only for single-bundle ACL reconstruction using patella tendon grafts.When considering priorities for high-quality randomised trials on techniques for ACL reconstruction, it is important to note the insufficiency of the evidence available to inform this key comparison.

Arthroscopic Identification of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee

Intense interest has focused on the recent description of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. Advancing knowledge of its anatomy and function is leading to a realization of its importance in the rotatory control of the tibia in anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Reconstruction of this structure will increasingly become an important goal during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. However, preoperative assessment of this ligament is difficult. Clinical assessment of rotatory laxity has poor reproducibility, and it is difficult to define using current imaging techniques. This article is the first to describe a safe and reproducible arthroscopic technique to allow identification and examination of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. With the knee at 90° of flexion, the arthroscope is introduced through the anterolateral portal to allow clear visualization of the lateral gutter. Under direct vision, an accessory portal is made over the inferior limit of the lateral gutter. A shaver is then introduced through this portal and used to debride this synovial recess and define the anterolateral ligament. This allows the surgeon to examine the integrity of the anterolateral ligament, in particular its femoral insertion. If required, this additional information can facilitate the performance of a more accurate and effective extra-articular reconstruction.

Arthroscopically confirmed femoral button deployment

The anterior cruciate ligament TightRope RT (Arthrex, Naples, FL) is a graft suspension device for cruciate ligament reconstruction. It is an adjustable-length graft loop cortical fixation device designed to eliminate the requirement for loop length calculation and to facilitate complete graft fill of short femoral sockets that are common with anatomic anterior cruciate ligament placement. The adjustable loop length means "one size fits all," thus removing the need for multiple implant sizes and allowing graft tensioning even after fixation. However, the device has been associated with the same complications that have been described with EndoButton (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA) fixation. The button of the TightRope RT may remain in the femoral tunnel rather than flipping outside of the tunnel to rest on the lateral femoral cortex, or it may become jammed inside the femoral canal. Conversely, the button may be pulled too far off the femoral cortex into the overlying soft tissue and flip in the substance of the vastus lateralis. We describe a new and simple arthroscopic technique to directly visualize the deployment and seating of the TightRope button on the lateral cortex of the femur to avoid all the aforementioned complications.