Computer-assisted surgery for knee ligament reconstruction

Technology-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves tunnel placement but leads to no change in clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of technology-assisted Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) on post-operative clinical outcomes and tunnel placement compared to conventional arthroscopic ACLR.

METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from January 2000 to November 17, 2022. Articles were included if there was intraoperative use of computer-assisted navigation, robotics, diagnostic imaging, computer simulations, or 3D printing (3DP). Two reviewers searched, screened, and evaluated the included studies for data quality. Data were abstracted using descriptive statistics and pooled using relative risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI), where appropriate.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included with total 775 patients and majority male participants (70.7%). Ages ranged from 14 to 54 years (391 patients) and follow-up ranged from 12 to 60 months (775 patients). Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores increased in the technology-assisted surgery group (473 patients; P = 0.02; MD 1.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.66). There was no difference in objective IKDC scores (447 patients; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06), Lysholm scores (199 patients; MD 1.14, 95% CI - 1.03 to 3.30) or negative pivot-shift tests (278 patients; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) between the two groups. When using technology-assisted surgery, 6 (351 patients) of 8 (451 patients) studies reported more accurate femoral tunnel placement and 6 (321 patients) of 10 (561 patients) studies reported more accurate tibial tunnel placement in at least one measure. One study (209 patients) demonstrated a significant increase in cost associated with use of computer-assisted navigation (mean 1158€) versus conventional surgery (mean 704€). Of the two studies using 3DP templates, production costs ranging from $10 to $42 USD were cited. There was no difference in adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcomes do not differ between technology-assisted surgery and conventional surgery. Computer-assisted navigation is more expensive and time consuming while 3DP is inexpensive and does not lead to greater operating times. ACLR tunnels can be more accurately located in radiologically ideal places by using technology, but anatomic placement is still undetermined because of variability and inaccuracy of the evaluation systems utilized.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Differences in Knee Shape between ACL Injured and Non-Injured: A Matched Case-Control Study of 168 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury prevention programs could be more effective if we could select patients at risk for sustaining an ACL rupture. The purpose of this study is to identify radiographic shape variants of the knee between patients with and patients without an ACL rupture.

METHODS

We compared the lateral and Rosenberg view X-rays of 168 prospectively followed patients with a ruptured ACL to a control group with intact ACLs, matched for gender, after knee trauma. We used statistical shape modeling software to examine knee shape and find differences in shape variants between both groups.

RESULTS

In the Rosenberg view X-rays, we found five shape variants to be significantly different between patients with an ACL rupture and patients with an intact ACL but with knee trauma. Overall, patients who had ruptured their ACL had smaller, flatter intercondylar notches, a lower lateral tibia plateau, a lower medial spike of the eminence, and a smaller tibial eminence compared to control patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients with an ACL rupture have smaller intercondylar notches and smaller tibial eminences in comparison to patients with an intact ACL after knee trauma.

Beneficial and limiting factors for return to work following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Evidence-based advice for return to work (RTW) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is not available. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine when patients achieve full RTW, and to explore the beneficial and limiting factors for fully RTW after ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed after ACL reconstruction among 185 patients in one hospital. Data from patient files and a questionnaire were used to explore whether patient-, injury-, surgery-, sports-, work- and rehabilitation-related factors are beneficial or limiting for fully RTW after ACL reconstruction, using a backward stepwise logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 125 (68%) patients that returned the questionnaire, 36 were not part of the working population. Of the remaining 89 patients, 82 patients (92%) had returned fully to work at follow-up. The median time to fully RTW was 78 days. In the final regression model, which explained 29% of the variance, a significant OR of 5.4 (90% CI 2.2-13.1) for RTW > 78 days was observed for patients performing heavy knee-demanding work compared to patients performing light knee-demanding work. In addition, a significant and positive OR (1.6, 90% CI 1.2-1.9) for the number of weeks walking with the aid of crutches for RTW > 78 days was observed in the final model.

CONCLUSION

After ACL reconstruction, 92% of the patients fully return to work at a median time of 78 days. The significant predictors for fully RTW > 78 days are performing heavy knee-demanding work and a longer period of walking aided with crutches after ACL reconstruction.

Current use of navigation system in ACL surgery: a historical review

PURPOSE

The present review aims to analyse the available literature regarding the use of navigation systems in ACL reconstructive surgery underling the evolution during the years.

METHODS

A research of indexed scientific papers was performed on PubMed and Cochrane Library database. The research was performed in December 2015 with no publication year restriction. Only English-written papers and related to the terms ACL, NAVIGATION, CAOS and CAS were considered. Two reviewers independently selected only those manuscripts that presented at least the application of navigation system for ACL reconstructive surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-six of 394 articles were finally selected. In this analysis, it was possible to review the main uses of navigation system in ACL surgery including tunnel positioning for primary and revision surgery and kinematic assessment of knee laxity before and after different surgical procedures. In the early years, until 2006, navigation system was mainly used to improve tunnel positioning, but since the last decade, this tool has been principally used for kinematics evaluation. Increased accuracy of tunnel placement was observed using navigation surgery, especially, regarding femoral, 42 of 146 articles used navigation to guide tunnel positioning. During the following years, 82 of 146 articles have used navigation system to evaluate intraoperative knee kinematic. In particular, the importance of controlling rotatory laxity to achieve better surgical outcomes has been underlined.

CONLUSIONS

Several applications have been described and despite the contribution of navigation systems, its potential uses and theoretical advantages, there are still controversies about its clinical benefit. The present papers summarize the most relevant studies that have used navigation system in ACL reconstruction. In particular, the analysis identified four main applications of the navigation systems during ACL reconstructive surgery have been identified: (1) technical assistance for tunnel placement; (2) improvement in knowledge of the kinematic behaviour of ACL and other structures; (3) comparison of effectiveness of different surgical techniques in controlling laxities; (4) navigation system performance to improve the outcomes of ACL reconstruction and cost-effectiveness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.