Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is believed to have an inferior outcome compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The available literature on the outcome of revision ACL reconstruction is sparse compared with that for primary reconstruction. The purpose of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the outcome of revision ACL reconstruction compares unfavorably with the historical outcome of primary ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies evaluating the outcome of revision ACL reconstructions with a minimum of two years of follow-up was performed. Pooled data were collected when appropriate and a mixed-effect-model meta-analysis was performed for important outcome measures that were reported in several studies (objective graft failure, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective score, and IKDC objective score). Objective failure was defined as repeat revision, a side-to-side difference of >5 mm measured with use of a KT1000 arthrometer, or a pivot-shift grade of 2+ or 3+.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, and 863 of the 1004 patients in these studies had a minimum of two years of follow-up and were analyzed. The pooled mean age of the patients at the time of the revision procedure was 30.6 years, and 66% were male. Objective failure occurred in 13.7% ± 2.7% of the patients (95% confidence interval, 8.0% to 19.4%). The mean Lysholm score in 491 patients was 82.1 ± 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 74.6 to 89.5) according to a mixed-model meta-analysis. The mean IKDC subjective score in 202 patients was 74.8 ± 4.4 (95% confidence interval, 62.5 to 87.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision ACL reconstruction resulted in a worse outcome compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Patient-reported outcome scores were inferior to previously published results of primary ACL reconstruction, but these differences may not be clinically important. A dramatically elevated failure rate was noted after revision ACL reconstruction; this rate was nearly three to four times the failure rate in prospective series of primary ACL reconstructions.

Medium to long-term follow-up after ACL revision

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study is to present epidemiology and clinical outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with an intermediate follow-up time of up to 9 years.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients treated with ACL revision from 2001 to 2007 at a university referral clinic was conducted. Study follow-up was performed in 2010; this follow-up included objective IKDC scores, KOOS, Tegner and SANE subjective scores, KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and registration of reoperations and complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-eight patients were available for follow-up. Median follow-up time was 6 (2-9) years. Mean age was 32 years, 50% were men. Eleven percent required staged procedures, 30% were reconstructed with allograft tendons and 23% had collateral ligament reconstruction in combination with the ACL revision. SANE knee global score (0-100) was 74 at follow-up, KOOS sub-scores were preoperatively 66, 69, 77, 42 and 39 for pain, symptoms, activity of daily living, sports and quality of life, respectively. At follow-up, scores were 70, 76, 81, 50 and 50, respectively. Sport and quality of life scores increased significantly. KT-1000 was 6.2 mm preoperatively and 2.5 at follow-up (P < 0.05). Six percent were re-revised and 2 patients had total knee replacements.

CONCLUSION

Despite objective findings of acceptable sagittal knee stability at follow-up, subjective outcome scores indicate significant knee impairment with low scores in sport and quality of life. A re-revision rate of 6% after 6 years is acceptable. It is imperative that patients eligible for ACL revision receive proper counseling in terms of outcome expectancies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Validation of a new technique to determine midbundle femoral tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3-dimensional computed tomography analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate and report on a new intraoperative measuring technique to place the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) femoral tunnel in the center of the native ACL femoral insertion site.

METHODS

We investigated a novel measuring technique based on identifying the proximal border of the articular cartilage and using a specific ruler parallel to the femoral axis to locate the origin of the ACL. The accuracy of this technique was validated by measuring tunnel position on postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography scans. Bony tunnels created by the ruler technique were compared with tunnels drilled by a traditional technique referenced from the back wall of the notch.

RESULTS

Fifty ACL reconstructions were performed by the novel measuring technique, with placement of the femoral tunnel at the center of the femoral insertion. The mean position for the center of the femoral tunnel measured by the ruler technique was 0.9 mm from the theoretic optimal center position but was a very distinct 5 mm from the mean position in the traditional tunnels.

CONCLUSIONS

The ruler technique produced femoral tunnels comparable to published radiographic criteria used for tunnel placement and is reproducible and accurate. We recommend placement of the femoral tunnel at the midpoint of the lateral femoral condyle when using the anatomic single-bundle technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis

PURPOSE

It has been reported that technical error in positioning the graft tunnel is the most common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate femoral and tibial tunnel positions and intra-articular graft orientation of primary ACL reconstruction in patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction. We postulated that this patient cohort had a nonanatomically positioned tunnel and graft orientation.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients who had undergone a revision ACL were investigated. Clinical magnetic resonance (MR) images prior to revision were analysed. Three-dimensional models of bones and tunnels on the femur and tibia were created. Intra-articular graft orientation was measured in axial, sagittal and coronal planes. Graft positions were measured on the tibial plateau as a percentage from anterior to posterior and medial to lateral; graft positions on the femur were measured using the quadrant method.

RESULTS

Sagittal elevation angle for failed ACL reconstruction graft (69.6° ± 13.4°) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of the native anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles of the ACL (AM 56.2° ± 6.1°, PL 55.5° ± 8.1°). In the transverse plane, the deviation angle of the failed graft (37.3° ± 21.0°) was significantly greater than native ACL bundles. The tibial tunnel in this patient cohort was placed posteromedially and medially to the anatomical AM and PL bundles, respectively. The femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly to the anatomical AM and PL bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that both the tibial and femoral tunnel positions and consequently the intra-articular graft orientation in this patient group with failed ACL reconstruction were nonanatomical when compared with native ACL values. The results can be used to improve tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction.

Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis

PURPOSE

It has been reported that technical error in positioning the graft tunnel is the most common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate femoral and tibial tunnel positions and intra-articular graft orientation of primary ACL reconstruction in patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction. We postulated that this patient cohort had a nonanatomically positioned tunnel and graft orientation.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients who had undergone a revision ACL were investigated. Clinical magnetic resonance (MR) images prior to revision were analysed. Three-dimensional models of bones and tunnels on the femur and tibia were created. Intra-articular graft orientation was measured in axial, sagittal and coronal planes. Graft positions were measured on the tibial plateau as a percentage from anterior to posterior and medial to lateral; graft positions on the femur were measured using the quadrant method.

RESULTS

Sagittal elevation angle for failed ACL reconstruction graft (69.6° ± 13.4°) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of the native anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles of the ACL (AM 56.2° ± 6.1°, PL 55.5° ± 8.1°). In the transverse plane, the deviation angle of the failed graft (37.3° ± 21.0°) was significantly greater than native ACL bundles. The tibial tunnel in this patient cohort was placed posteromedially and medially to the anatomical AM and PL bundles, respectively. The femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly to the anatomical AM and PL bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that both the tibial and femoral tunnel positions and consequently the intra-articular graft orientation in this patient group with failed ACL reconstruction were nonanatomical when compared with native ACL values. The results can be used to improve tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction.

Quadriceps muscle activation and radiographic osteoarthritis following ACL revision

PURPOSE

Quadriceps strength and activation may play an important role in the recovery from ACL revision surgery. The purpose of this study was to describe quadriceps strength and central activation ratio (CAR) and correlate with radiographic findings in patients with ACL revision surgery.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients who were on average 47.5 ± 21.1 months [range: 14-85 months] post-revision ACL reconstruction. We performed knee joint physical examination and radiographic evaluation. Quadriceps strength testing consisted of maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) with the knee bent to 90-degrees bilaterally. We calculated quadriceps central activation ratio using the superimposed burst technique. Radiographs (bilateral standing antero-posterior in knee flexion and lateral in full extension) were evaluated by a fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeon using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grading system.

RESULTS

Mean CAR was 83.9 ± 12.0% on the reconstructed limb and 85.5 ± 9.5% on the contralateral limb. Average, normalized MVIC torque was 2.5 ± 1.0 Nm/kg on the reconstructed limb and 2.7 ± 1.0 N m/kg for the contralateral limb. Patient age at the time of follow-up evaluation was related to severity of knee joint degeneration, particularly the medial, anterior and patellofemoral compartments. Younger patients with lower CARs tended to have more severe degeneration in the patellofemoral joint. Older patients with lower normalized MVIC torque values tended to exhibit more severely graded degeneration in the patellofemoral joint.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral quadriceps central activation deficits and radiographic osteoarthritis are evident in patients with revision ACL reconstruction.

What is the best femoral fixation of hamstring autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several methods are available for fixing the femoral side of a hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction and the best method is unclear. Biomechanical studies have shown varying results with regard to fixation failure.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked whether there were any differences with regard to graft failures and functional outcome measures with differing methods of femoral fixation of hamstring autografts in ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature using PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Controlled Trial Register databases with regard to interference screw fixation (aperture fixation) versus noninterference screw fixation (fixation away from the joint line). A meta-analysis was performed of those studies reporting on surgical failures and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee score. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria of Level I or II evidence.

RESULTS

Use of interference screws for femoral fixation resulted in a trend toward decreased risk of surgical failure (relative risk = 0.57; confidence interval, 0.1678-1.0918). When only Level I trials were evaluated, the same trend was noted toward a decreased risk of surgical failures using femoral interference screws (relative risk = 0.52; confidence interval, 0.1794-1.3122). There was no difference in postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee score with Level I and II studies (relative risk = 0.9940; confidence interval, 0.6230-1.5860) or only Level I studies (relative risk = 1.0380; confidence interval, 0.6381-1.6886).

CONCLUSIONS

The literature suggests a trend toward decreased surgical failures with femoral fixation at the joint line with an interference screw. However, there is no difference when postoperative functional outcomes are compared. Future studies are needed with standardized fixation methods and outcomes assessment to determine the importance of femoral fixation.