More anatomic tunnel placement for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by surgeons with high volume compared to low volume

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Common Intraoperative Mistakes and Techniques for Error Recovery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a commonly performed procedure among general orthopedists, and is a logged procedure required for graduation from accredited orthopaedic residency programs.

RECENT FINDINGS

ACL reconstruction surgery has a number of critical steps, and intraoperative errors can significantly impact the success rate and morbidity of this operation. Technical errors are frequently cited as some of the most common reasons for ACL reconstruction failure. This narrative review provides low-volume surgeons and trainees with an overview of the common errors that can be made during the critical steps of an ACL reconstruction procedure. We suggest technical points for avoiding commonly-encountered errors and provide a description of evidence-supported error recovery techniques to address these errors if they occur intraoperatively. These key steps include femoral tunnel creation, tibial tunnel creation, graft harvest and preparation, and graft fixation within the tunnels. We discuss a number of primary and backup fixation strategies as well as all commonly used autografts (bone-patellar tendon-bone, hamstring, and quadriceps tendon). Additionally, we provide a brief overview on address intra-operative graft contamination citing currently available evidence.

Analysis of Changing Practice Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Multicenter, Single-Institution Database Analysis

PURPOSE

To identify trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), including graft choice, femoral tunnel drilling techniques, and augmentation techniques, and to assess how various surgeon factors impact these trends.

METHODS

A retrospective review of primary ACLRs performed between 2014 and 2022 was completed using a multicenter institutional database. Patient demographic characteristics, graft type, femoral drilling technique, use of extra-articular tenodesis, and use of suture augmentation were recorded from the medical record. Surgeon fellowship training (sports trained vs non-sports trained), experience (high [minimum of 15 years in practice] vs low), and volume (high [minimum of 15 ACLRs/year] vs low) were used to stratify technique utilization. The z test for proportions was used to compare categorical variables. Pearson correlation analyses identified trends and assessed statistical significance, defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 2,032 ACLRs performed in 2,006 patients. The average patient age was 28.3 ± 11.6 years, with more procedures performed in male patients (67.3%). The average length of surgeon experience was 19.7 ± 11.4 years, with an average annual procedural volume of 4.0 ± 5.4 ACLRs. Most surgeons were sports trained (n = 55, 64.7%), high experience (n = 44, 57.1%), and low volume (n = 80, 94.1%). There was an increasing annual proportion of ACLRs performed by sports-trained surgeons (R = 0.748, P = .020) and low-experience surgeons (R = 0.940, P < .001). Autograft reconstructions were most often performed by sports-trained (71.2%), low-experience (66.1%), and high-volume (76.9%) surgeons. There was an increasing proportion of autograft ACLRs that used quadriceps tendon among sports-trained (R = 0.739, P = .023), high-experience (R = 0.768, P = .016), and low-volume (R = 0.785, P = .012) surgeons. Independent drilling techniques were used in an increasing proportion of ACLRs performed by non-sports-trained (R = 0.860, P = .003) and high-volume (R = 0.864, P = .003) surgeons. Augmentation of ACLR with concomitant suture augmentation (n = 24, 1.2%) or extra-articular tenodesis (n = 6, 0.3%) was rarely performed.

CONCLUSIONS

In our multicenter institution, the quadriceps tendon autograft has been increasingly used in ACLR by sports-trained, low-volume, and high-experience surgeons. Independent drilling techniques have been increasingly used by non-sports-trained and high-volume surgeons.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons must stay current with the literature that affects their procedures to ensure that evidence-based medicine is being practiced.

Lower Surgical Volume Reduces the Odds of Performing Meniscus Repair for Tears During Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of surgical volume, and various patient-, injury-, and surgery-related factors, on meniscal treatment strategies in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed patients with concomitant meniscal injuries undergoing primary ACLR, from 2008 to 2022, using data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Surgeons and clinics were stratified by total caseload (cutoff: 50 ACLRs/surgeon, 500 ACLRs/clinic) and annual volume (cutoff: 29 ACLRs/year/surgeon, 56 ACLRs/year/clinic). To assess factors influencing medial meniscus or lateral meniscus repair, adjusted multivariable logistic regression was conducted, with results presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

In total, 20,699 patients undergoing primary ACLR with concomitant meniscal injuries were included. Lower percentages of meniscus repair were seen among surgeons with low caseload and annual volume (LCLV) (13.3%-20.8%) compared with high caseload and annual volume (HCHV) surgeons (19.0%-29.8%), and at LCLV clinics (11.1%-18.3%) compared to HCHV clinics (21.5%-33.8%), all P < .001. Significantly decreased odds of medial meniscus repair were seen for patients operated on by LCLV surgeons (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; P = .015) or at LCLV clinics (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50-0.64; P < .001. Similar results were seen for lateral meniscus repair with LCLV surgeons (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-1.01; P = .067) and LCLV clinics (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.72; P < .001). Additionally, younger age, female sex, shorter time from injury to surgery, and ACLRs performed more recently were associated with increased odds of repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower surgical volume significantly decreased the rates and odds of performing meniscal repair during primary ACLR. In contrast, ACLRs performed during more recent years, younger age, female sex, shorter time from injury to surgery, absence of chondral injuries, and injuries sustained during nonpivoting activities, positively influenced meniscal preservation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Nonanatomic femoral tunnel placement increases the risk of subsequent meniscal surgery after ACLR: Part II-Patients without recurrent ACL injury

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for subsequent meniscal surgery following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) in patients without recurrent ACL injury.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥14 years who underwent primary ACLR with minimum 1-year follow-up and without recurrent ACL injury were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and surgical data at the time of ACLR were collected. Postoperative radiographs were used to measure femoral and tibial tunnel position, and posterior tibial slope. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for subsequent meniscal surgery.

RESULTS

Of 629 ACLRs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, subsequent meniscal surgery was performed in 65 [10.3%] patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that medial meniscal repair at the time of ACLR, younger age, anterior femoral tunnel position and distal femoral tunnel position were significantly associated with subsequent meniscal surgery (p < 0.001, p = 0.016, p = 0.015, p = 0.035, respectively). The frequency of femoral tunnel placement >10% outside of the literature-established anatomic position was significantly higher in those who underwent subsequent meniscal surgery compared to those who did not (38.3% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.006). Posterior tibial slope and ACL graft type were not significantly associated with subsequent meniscal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Medial meniscal repair at the time of ACLR, younger age and nonanatomic femoral tunnel placement were risk factors for subsequent meniscal surgery in patients without recurrent ACL injury. Femoral tunnel placement <10% outside of the native anatomic position is important to reduce the risk of subsequent meniscal surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Surgical Techniques in Primary ACL Reconstruction: Getting It Right the First Time

The ideal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is an individualized anatomic approach aimed at restoring the native structure and function of the knee. Surgeons are tasked with difficult decisions during operative planning, including the optimal graft choice for the patient and appropriate anatomic tunnel placement. Special considerations should additionally be given for skeletally immature patients and those at high-risk for failure, including younger, active patients participating in pivoting sports. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the individualized approach to ACLR, including the necessary preoperative and operative considerations to optimize patient outcomes.

App-based analysis of the femoral tunnel position in ACL reconstruction using the quadrant method

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and interobserver variability of an app-based analysis of the femoral tunnel position using the quadrant method in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 12/2020 und 12/2021 50 patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Intraoperative strictly lateral fluoroscopic images of the knee with marked femoral tunnel were analyzed by four observers using the quadrant method. For retest reliability analysis, measurements were repeated once by 2 observers after 4 weeks.

RESULTS

The femoral tunnel position of all included patients averaged 27.86% in the depth relation and 15.61% in the height relation. Statistical analysis showed an almost perfect intra- and interobserver reliability in the depth and height relation. The ICC was 0.92 in the depth relation and 0.84 in the height relation. The Pearson's correlation coefficient in the depth and height relation of observer 1 (0.94/0.81) was only slightly different from the Pearson's correlation coefficient of observer 2 (0.92/0.85). The app-based tunnel analysis took on average 59 ± 16 s per measurement.

CONCLUSION

The femoral tunnel analysis with the app-based quadrant method has an almost perfect intra- and interobserver reliability. By smartphone camera, a fast and highly accurate, if necessary also intraoperative, control of the tunnel position can be performed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3-diagnostic retrospective cohort study.

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.

Long-term Outcomes of Multiligament Knee Injuries in American Football Players

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes for isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions in competitive American football athletes are well reported in the literature, but little data currently exist regarding multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction outcomes.

PURPOSE

To examine patient-reported and return-to-sport outcomes of competitive American football athletes who underwent primary, single-staged, multiligament knee reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

We identified patients from our institution's prospectively collected data repository between 2001 and 2020 who underwent single-staged surgical reconstruction of an MLKI sustained during competitive participation in American football. We assessed patient-reported outcomes at a minimum of 2 years after surgery using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form and questions regarding surgical satisfaction and return to sport. Successful return to sport was defined as a return to preinjury level of competition. We summarized all outcome data and compared outcomes between 2-ligament and >2-ligament groups and between ACL-only MLKI injury and bicruciate MLKI injury groups using independent t test for IKDC scores and chi-square test for return to sport. Additionally, we evaluated predictors of postoperative IKDC scores using linear regression and predictors of return to sport using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Outcome data were successfully collected for 53 of 73 total eligible patients (73%; mean follow-up time, 7.7 ± 4.0 years; all male; mean age at surgery, 18.1 ± 2.7 years). The mean postoperative IKDC score was 84 ± 16. The most common level of preinjury competition was high school (n = 36; 68%), followed by college (n = 10; 19%). Seven patients did not return to sport competition at any level due to limitations from their knee surgery, and 82% of patients that attempted to return to preinjury level of sport were able to do so. A total of 50 patients (94%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their surgical outcome. The 2-ligament (n = 39) and >2-ligament (n = 14) groups did not significantly differ in IKDC scores (P = .96) or proportions with successful return to sport (P = .77). Similarly, the ACL-MLKI injury (n = 39) and bicruciate MLKI injury (n = 14) groups did not significantly differ in IKDC scores (P = .89) or proportions with successful return to sport (P = .77). Age and body mass index were not significantly associated with IKDC scores or successful return to sport at follow-up (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

This study may represent the largest cohort of competitive American football athletes evaluated for longitudinal outcomes after multiligament knee reconstruction. Despite the severity of these injuries, we found good knee-related function and that the large majority of athletes who attempted to return to sport were successful. The majority of athletes (94%) were satisfied with their operative treatment.

Satisfactory 5-year functional outcomes following primary ACL reconstructions from the UK National Ligament Registry

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe the 10-year findings from the UK National Ligament Registry (NLR).

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for prospectively collected data on the NLR between January 2013 and December 2022. All patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on the registry were included. Surgical characteristics were analysed, including surgeon grade and case volume, concomitant knee procedures, venous thromboembolic prophylaxis, graft characteristics, femoral and tibial tunnel drilling, and fixation methods. Clinical outcomes were collected preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years following the index procedure.

RESULTS

During the study period, 17,492 unilateral ACLR procedures were recorded. Autograft was used in 98%, most commonly a combined semitendinosus and gracilis graft (77%) or patella tendon graft (31%). Allograft was used in only 1% of the patients. In 52% of cases, ACLR was associated with an additional procedure, with isolated medial meniscal surgery being the most common (21%). Femoral tunnel drilling was mostly performed through an anteromedial portal (73%) and tibial tunnel drilling using an outside-in technique (92%). The most common method of femoral graft fixation was with an Endobutton fixed loop suspensory device (77%), while interference screws predominated for tibial tunnel fixation (86%). Patients who underwent ACLR surgery showed significant improvement in their functional outcome scores at six months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Data from the NLR shows a detailed description of the current trends and evolution of ACLR in the United Kingdom over the last 10 years. Satisfactory functional outcomes were observed 5 years postoperatively. This study provides useful information on the prevalence of ACL-associated injuries and current surgical techniques with the aim of improving the quality of clinical care and patients' outcomes. Moreover, it provides surgeons with a benchmark against which to compare current practices and functional outcomes following ACLR across the United Kingdom.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Influence of Surgeon Experience and Clinic Volume on Subjective Knee Function and Revision Rates in Primary ACL Reconstruction: A Study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) performed by high-volume surgeons/clinics has been associated with increased graft individualization and decreased operating times, complication rates, and total costs.

Purpose

To investigate the influence of surgeon/clinic volume on subjective knee function and revision surgery rates at 2 years after primary ACLR.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry were used to study patients who underwent primary ACLR between 2008 and 2019. Surgeons/clinics were categorized based on a combination of total caseload volume (cutoff: 50 ACLRs/surgeon, 500 ACLRs/clinic) and annual volume (cutoff: 29 ACLRs/year/surgeon, 56 ACLRs/year/clinic). The thresholds of minimal important change (MIC), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) relative to the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and KOOS4 (mean score of the KOOS Pain, Symptoms, Sports/Rec, and QoL subscales) were applied. Adjusted multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess variables influencing the MIC, PASS, or TF of the KOOS and KOOS4. Adjusted Cox regression analysis was conducted to determine the hazard ratio of subsequent ACLR.

Results

Of 35,371 patients, 16,317 had 2-year follow-up outcome data and were included. Patients who underwent primary ACLR by high-volume surgeons had significantly higher MIC and PASS rates and lower TF rates when compared with patients who underwent the procedure by low-volume surgeons: MICKOOS4: 70.6% vs 66.3%; PASSKOOS4: 46.0% versus 38.3%; and TFKOOS4: 8.7% versus 11.8% (all P < .02). Significantly decreased odds of achieving MICKOOS4 (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.88) and PASSKOOS4 (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84) were found for ACLRs performed by low-volume surgeons. Clinic volume did not influence the odds of reaching MIC, PASS, or TF. Overall, 804 patients (2.3%) underwent subsequent ACLR at <2 years, with significantly higher revision rates among patients operated on at high-volume clinics (2.5% vs 1.7%; P < .001). However, in the adjusted Cox regression, surgeon/clinic volume had no influence on subsequent ACLR rates. High-volume surgeons/clinics had decreased time to surgery, operating time, perioperative complication rates, and use of thromboprophylaxis and nonroutine antibiotics (P < .001).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent primary ACLR by high-volume surgeons experienced increased improvement and satisfaction regarding subjective knee function. Factors other than surgical volume influenced subsequent surgery rates. Patients might benefit from undergoing primary ACLR by high-volume providers.

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.

The number of arthroscopies performed by trainees does not deduce the level of their arthroscopic proficiency

PURPOSE

It is reasonable to question whether the case volume is a suitable proxy for the manual competence of an arthroscopic surgeon. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the number of arthroscopies previously performed and the arthroscopic skills acquired using a standardized simulator test.

METHODS

A total of 97 resident and early orthopaedic surgeons who participated in arthroscopic simulator training courses were divided into five groups based on their self-reported number of arthroscopic surgeries: (1) none, (2) < 10, (3) 10 to 19, (4) 20 to 39 and (5) 40 to 100. Arthroscopic manual skills were evaluated with a simulator by means of the diagnostic arthroscopy skill score (DASS) before and after training. Seventy-five points out of 100 must be achieved to pass the test.

RESULTS

In the pretest, only three trainees in group 5 passed the arthroscopic skill test, and all other participants failed. Group 5 (57 ± 17 points; n = 17) scored significantly higher than the other groups (group 1: 30 ± 14, n = 20; group 2: 35 ± 14, n = 24; group 3: 35 ± 18, n = 23; and group 4: 33 ± 17, n = 13). After a two-day simulator training, trainees showed a significant increase in performance. In group 5, participants scored 81 ± 17 points, which was significantly higher than the other groups (group 1: 75 ± 16; group 2: 75 ± 14; group 3: 69 ± 15; and group 4: 73 ± 13). While self-reported arthroscopic procedures were n.s. associated with higher log odds of passing the test (p = 0.423), the points scored in the pretest were found to be a good predictor of whether a trainee would pass the test (p < 0.05). A positive correlation was observed between the points scored in the pretest and the posttest (p < 0.05, r = 0.59, r2 = 0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of previously performed arthroscopies is not a reliable indicator of the skills level of orthopaedic residents. A reasonable alternative in the future would be to verify arthroscopic proficiency on the simulator by means of a score as a pass-fail examination.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Revision Rates After Primary Allograft ACL Reconstruction by Allograft Tissue Type in Older Patients

Background

While there is extensive literature on the use of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there is limited clinical evidence to guide the surgeon in choice of allograft tissue type.

Purpose

To assess the revision rate after primary ACL reconstruction with allograft and to compare revision rates based on allograft tissue type and characteristics.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary allograft ACL reconstructions at a single academic institution between 2015 and 2019 and who had minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were missing surgical or allograft tissue type data. Demographics, operative details, and subsequent surgical procedures were collected. Allograft details included graft tissue type (Achilles, bone-patellar tendon-bone [BTB], tibialis anterior or posterior, semitendinosus, unspecified soft tissue), allograft category (all-soft tissue vs bone block), donor age, irradiation duration and intensity, and chemical cleansing process. Revision rates were calculated and compared by allograft characteristics.

Results

Included were 418 patients (age, 39 ± 12 years; body mass index, 30 ± 9 kg/m2). The revision rate was 3% (11/418) at a mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 1.4 years. There were no differences in revision rate according to allograft tissue type across Achilles tendon (3%; 3/95), BTB (5%; 3/58), tibialis anterior or posterior (3%; 5/162), semitendinosus (0%; 0/46), or unspecified soft tissue (0%; 0/57) (P = .35). There was no difference in revision rate between all-soft tissue versus bone block allograft (6/283 [2%] vs 5/135 [4%], respectively; P = .34). Of the 51% of grafts with irradiation data, all grafts were irradiated, with levels varying from 1.5 to 2.7 Mrad and 82% of grafts having levels of <2.0 Mrad. There was no difference in revision rate between the low-dose and medium-to high-dose irradiation cohorts (4% vs 6%, respectively; P = .64).

Conclusion

Similarly low (0%-6%) revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction were seen regardless of allograft tissue type, bone block versus all-soft tissue allograft, and sterilization technique in 418 patients with mean age of 39 years. Surgeons may consider appropriately processed allograft tissue with or without bone block when indicating ACL reconstruction in older patients.

Low-Volume Surgeons Use Allograft in Younger Patients and Show Greater Rates of Revision Following Primary Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Compared With High-Volume Surgeons

Purpose

To determine whether surgeon volume affects revision rate following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with allograft and to determine whether surgeon volume impacts allograft tissue type used.

Methods

All patients aged 14 years or older who underwent primary allograft ACLR at a large hospital system between January 2015 to December 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patients with double-bundle ACLR, multiligament reconstruction, and absent allograft type data were excluded. Surgeon volume was categorized as 35 or more ACLR/year for high-volume surgeons and less than 35 ACLR/year for low-volume surgeons. Revision was defined as subsequent ipsilateral ACLR. Patient characteristics, operative details, allograft type, and revision ACLR rates were retrospectively collected. Revision rate and allograft type were analyzed based on surgeon volume.

Results

A total of 457 primary allograft ACLR cases (mean age: 38.8 ± 12.3 years) were included. Low-volume surgeons experienced greater revision rates (10% vs 5%, P = .04) and used allograft in a younger population (37.6 vs 40.0 years old, P = .03) than high-volume surgeons. Subgroup analysis of the total cohort identified a significantly increased failure rate in patients <25 years old compared with ≥25 years old (30% vs 4%, P < .001). Allograft type selection varied significantly between surgeon volume groups, with low-volume surgeons using more bone-patellar tendon-bone (P < .001) and less semitendinosus allograft (P = .01) than high-volume surgeons. No differences in revision rate were observed based on allograft type (P = .71).

Conclusions

There was a greater revision rate following primary allograft ACLR among low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons. Low-volume surgeons also used allograft in a younger population than did high-volume surgeons.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

More anterior placement of femoral tunnel position in ACL-R is associated with postoperative meniscus tears

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between tunnel position in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and postoperative meniscus tears.

METHODS

This was a single institution, case-control study of 170 patients status-post ACL-R (2010-2019) separated into two matched groups (sex, age, BMI, graft type). Group 1-symptomatic, operative meniscus tears (both de novo and recurrent) after ACL-R. Group 2-no postoperative meniscus tears. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were measured by 2 authors via lateral knee radiographs that were used to measure two ratios (a/t and b/h). Ratio a/t was defined as distance from the tunnel center to dorsal most subchondral contour of the lateral femoral condyle (a) divided by total sagittal diameter of the lateral condyle along Blumensaat's line (t). The ratio b/h was defined as distance between the tunnel and Blumensaat's line (b) divided by maximum intercondylar notch height (h). Wilcoxon sign-ranks paired test was used to compare measurements between groups (alpha set at p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Group 1 had average follow up of 45 months and Group 2 had average follow up of 22 months. There were no significant demographic differences between Groups 1 and 2. Group 1-a/t was 32.0% (± 10.2), which was significantly more anterior than group 2, 29.3% (± 7.3; p < 0.05). There was no difference in average femoral tunnel ratio b/h or tibial tunnel placement between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A relationship exists between more anterior/less anatomic femoral tunnel position and the presence of recurrent or de novo, operative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Surgeons performing ACL-R should strive for recreation of native anatomy via proper tunnel placement to maximize postoperative outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Surgeon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction volume and rates of concomitant meniscus repair

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of surgeon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) volume on rates of ACLR with concomitant meniscus repair versus meniscectomy and subsequent meniscus surgeries.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted from a database of all ACLR performed between 2015 and 2020 at a large integrated health care system. Surgeon volume was categorized as < 35 ACLR per year (low-volume), and ≥ 35 ACLR per year (high-volume). Rates of concomitant meniscus repair and meniscectomy were compared between low-volume and high-volume surgeons. Subgroup analyses compared the rates of subsequent meniscus surgery and procedure time based on surgeon volume and meniscus procedure type.

RESULTS

A total of 3,911 patients undergoing ACLR were included. High-volume surgeons performed concomitant meniscus repair statistically significantly more often than low-volume surgeons (32.0% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001). Binary logistic regression indicated 4.15 times higher odds of meniscus repair among high-volume surgeons. Subsequent meniscus surgery occurred more commonly following ACLR with meniscus repair among low-volume surgeons (6.7% vs 3.4%, p = 0.047), but not high-volume surgeons (7.0% vs 4.3%, p = 0.079). Low-volume surgeons also had longer procedure times for concomitant meniscus repair (129.9 vs 118.3 min, p = 0.003) and meniscectomy (100.6 vs 95.9 min, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this study shows that surgeons with lower volume of ACLR select meniscus resection statistically significantly more often than higher-volume surgeons. However, an abundance of literature is available to show that meniscus loss negatively affects the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis in patients Therefore, as demonstrated in this study by high-volume surgeons, the meniscus should be repaired and protected whenever possible.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Freddie Fu's paradigm

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques have evolved over the past four decades. There is evidence that non-anatomic reconstruction techniques, such as traditional transtibial drilling, fail to recreate the native anatomy of the ACL, which can lead to increased rotatory knee instability, revision risk, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Anatomic ACL reconstruction has emerged as the gold standard, with the goal of restoring the patient's native anatomy and knee kinematics. This review will summarise the relevant anatomy, modern anatomic ACL reconstruction techniques, and literature supporting anatomic ACL reconstruction as the new paradigm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, review article.