Primary stability of single-stage revision reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in case of failure of dynamic intraligamentary stabilization depends on implant position during ACL repair

One-stage anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery after primary failed double-bundle reconstruction: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery after failed double-bundle (DB) reconstruction is a challenging procedure. This study aimed to systematically review the research on ACL revision surgery following failed DB reconstruction, providing an overview on indications, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes and potential pitfalls occurring while performing this therapeutic approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature published from exception to February 2023 was searched in the Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases. Studies in English reporting on patients who underwent ACL revision surgery after prior failed DB reconstruction were considered. Review articles and expert opinion or editorial pieces were excluded. Outcomes of interest included indications and pre-operative planning, surgical technique and associated procedures, type of revision surgery (either one- or two-stage), graft choice, clinical and functional outcomes, rate of complications, failure rate.

RESULTS

Overall, 4 studies met all the inclusion criteria for this review. All were published between 2007 and 2020. The search resulted in two retrospective comparative studies, one case series, and one case report. Average follow-up periods ranged from 24 to 45 months. From these studies, 66 patients (66 knees) were identified. One-stage revision surgery was performed in 64 on 66 patients (97%) with pathologic laxity following DB ACL reconstruction. Most frequently reported outcome was Lysholm score in five studies: average postoperative Lysholm score ranged from 90.5 to 91.0 while Tegner activity level ranged from 5.6 to 7.0. In 4 patients (6%) re-revision surgery was performed due to graft re-rupture.

CONCLUSIONS

One-stage ACL revision surgery following DB ACL reconstruction appears feasible providing satisfying outcomes and limited complications. The literature on this subject is limited and further comparative studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed, as high-level studies on this topic are still lacking.

Graft failure and revision rate after ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization. One-year results of a prospective case series of 155 patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess graft failure, revision rate, and functional outcomes after treatment of acute ACL rupture with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) Ligamys device one year post surgery. Additionally, differences in functional outcome between patients with and without anteroposterior laxity were assessed. It was hypothesized that the failure rate of DIS was non-inferior to that of previously reported ACL reconstruction (10%).

METHODS

In this prospectively designed multicenter study, including patients with an acute ACL rupture, DIS was performed within 21 days after rupture. Primary outcome was failure of the graft at 1 year post surgery, defined as 1) re-rupture of the graft, 2) revision of DIS, or 3) a > 3 mm side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation compared to the non-operated knee (∆ATT), measured by the KT1000 device. Additional analysis was performed using a 5 mm threshold. The subjective International Knee Documentation Committee Score (IKDC) and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for pain and confidence were used to evaluate functional outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients were included with a mean age at surgery of 27.8 years (SD 9.4). The mean interval from rupture to DIS was 16.4 days (SD 5.2). At a median follow-up of 13 months (IQR 12-18) the failure rate of the graft was 30.2% (95%CI:22.0-39.4); 11 patients (7%) required secondary reconstructive surgery and of the 105 patients who attended ATT measurement, 24 patients (23%) had an ∆ATT > 3 mm. Secondary analysis, based on a 5 mm threshold, revealed a failure rate of 22.4% (95%CI: 15.2; 31.1). A total of 39 patients (25%) reported at least one complication, comprising mainly arthrofibrosis, traumatic re-rupture and pain. In these patients, removal of the monoblock was performed in 21 cases (13.5%). At follow-up no significant differences in functional outcomes between patients with ∆ATT > 3 mm and stable ATT were observed.

CONCLUSION

This prospective multicenter study found a high failure rate at one year follow-up of 30% (7% revision surgery and 23% > 3 mm side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation) in patients treated by primary repair of the ACL with DIS, and did therefore not demonstrate non-inferiority to ACL reconstruction. For patients who did not require secondary reconstructive surgery, this study found good functional outcomes, also in case of persistent anteroposterior knee laxity (∆ATT > 3 mm).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Comparable Instrumented Knee Joint Laxity and Patient-Reported Outcomes After ACL Repair With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization or ACL Reconstruction: 5-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Technical innovation has led to the renaissance of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair in the past decade.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The present study aimed to compare instrumented knee joint laxity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ACL repair with those after primary ACL reconstruction for acute isolated ACL tears. It was hypothesized that ACL repair would lead to comparable knee joint stability and PROs at 5 years postoperatively in comparison with ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears were randomized to undergo either ACL repair using dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) or primary ACL reconstruction with a semitendinosus tendon autograft. The primary outcome was the side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation (ΔATT) assessed by Rolimeter testing at 5 years postoperatively. Follow-up examinations were performed at 1, 2, and 5 years. PROs were assessed using the Tegner activity scale, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and the Lysholm score. Furthermore, the rates of recurrent instability, other complications, and revision surgery were recorded. A power analysis was performed a priori, and the Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Bonferroni correction were applied for statistical comparisons with significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

The mean age at inclusion was 28.3 ± 11.5 years in the ACL repair group and 27.1 ± 11.5 years in the ACL reconstruction group. At 5 years postoperatively, a total of 64 patients (ACL repair: n = 34 of 43 [79%]; ACL reconstruction: n = 30 of 42 [71%]) were available for follow-up. At 5 years, ΔATT was 1.7 ± 1.6 mm in the ACL repair group and 1.4 ± 1.3 mm in the ACL reconstruction group (P = .334). Preinjury PROs were restored as soon as 1 year after surgery and plateaued until 2 and 5 years postoperatively in both groups. At the 5-year follow-up, the mean Lysholm score was 97.0 ± 5.4 versus 94.5 ± 5.5 (P = .322), respectively, and the mean IKDC subjective score was 94.1 ± 9.9 versus 89.9 ± 7.8 (P = .047), respectively, in the ACL repair group versus ACL reconstruction group. At 5 years postoperatively, 12 patients in the ACL repair group (35%; age <25 years: n = 10/12; Tegner score ≥7: n = 10/12) had recurrent instability, of whom 10 underwent single-stage revision ACL reconstruction. In the ACL reconstruction group, there were 6 patients with recurrent instability (20%; age <25 years: n = 6/6; Tegner score ≥7: n = 5/6); however, in 5 patients, staged revision was required. Differences between both groups regarding recurrent instability (P = .09) or ACL revision surgery (P = .118) were not statistically significant. Recurrent instability was associated with age <25 years and Tegner score >7 in both groups.

CONCLUSION

At 5 years after ACL repair with DIS, instrumented knee joint laxity and PROs were comparable with those after ACL reconstruction. Although no significant difference was found between repair and reconstruction, a critical appraisal of the rates of recurrent instability (35% vs 20%, respectively) and revision surgery (38% vs 27%, respectively) is needed. Young age and a high preinjury activity level were the main risk factors for recurrent instability in both groups. However, single-stage revision ACL reconstruction was possible in each case in the ACL repair group. Although ACL reconstruction remains the gold standard in the treatment of ACL tears, the present study supports the use of ACL repair with DIS as a feasible option to treat acute ACL tears in patients aged ≥25 years with low to moderate activity levels (Tegner score <7).

REGISTRATION

DRKS00015466 (German Clinical Trials Register).