A cross-sectional study comparing the rates of osteoarthritis, laxity, and quality of life in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

Approximately half of pediatric or adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction return to the same level of sport or higher: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarise the surgical techniques and clinical outcomes in paediatric and adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (r-ACLR).

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 29 July 2023. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, surgical details, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rates of instability, rupture and return to sport (RTS) were extracted.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 706 (711 knees) patients were included (48.7% female). The mean age at r-ACLR was 17.1 years (range: 16.5-18.0). Autografts (67.5%) were more common than allografts (32.2%) in revision, with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) being the most prevalent autograft source (59.6%). Bone grafts were used in seven patients (4.8% of 146 patients). The most common femoral and tibial fixation techniques were interference screws (37.6% and 38.1%, of 244 patients, respectively). The most common tunnelling strategy was anatomic (69.1% of 236 patients), and meniscus repairs were performed in 39.7% of 256 patients. The re-rupture rate was 13.0% in 293 patients. RTS at the same level or higher was 51.6% in 219 patients. The mean (SD) Lysholm score was 88.1 (12.9) in 78 patients, the mean (SD) Tegner score was 6.0 (1.6) in 78 patients, and the mean (SD) IKDC score was 82.6 (16.0) in 126 patients.

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR in paediatric and adolescent patients predominantly uses BPTB autografts and interference screw femoral and tibial fixation with concomitant meniscal procedures. Rates of re-rupture and RTS at the same level or higher were 13.0% and 51.6%, respectively. Information from this review can provide orthopaedic surgeons with a comprehensive understanding of the most commonly used operative techniques and their outcomes for revision ACLR in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Risk Factors for Revision or Rerupture After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The rerupture or need for revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a serious complication. Preventive strategies that target the early identification of risk factors are important to reduce the incidence of additional surgery.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate risk factors for revision or rerupture after ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to November 2021 and updated in January 2022. Quantitative, original studies reporting potential adjusted risk factors were included. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for potential risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 71 studies across 13 countries with a total sample size of 629,120 met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen factors were associated with an increase in the risk of revision or rerupture after ACLR: male sex (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.41), younger age (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.08), lower body mass index (BMI) (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06), family history (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.50-4.08), White race (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08-1.60), higher posterolateral tibial slope (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.26), preoperative high-grade anterior knee laxity (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.46-3.64), higher baseline Marx activity level (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13), return to a high activity level/sport (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.15-3.57), an ACLR within less than a year after injury (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.81-2.32), a concomitant medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.31-2.00), an anteromedial portal or transportal technique (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.51), hamstring tendon (HT) autografts (vs bone-patellar tendon-bone [BPTB] autografts) (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.40-1.82), allografts (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.65-4.19), and smaller graft diameter (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.38). The other factors failed to show an association with an increased risk of revision or rerupture after ACLR.

CONCLUSION

Male sex, younger age, lower BMI, family history, White race, higher posterolateral tibial slope, preoperative high-grade anterior knee laxity, higher baseline Marx activity level, return to a high activity level/sport, an ACLR within less than a year from injury, a concomitant MCL injury, an anteromedial portal or transportal technique, HT autografts (vs BPTB autografts), allografts, and smaller graft diameter may increase the risk of revision or rerupture after ACLR. Raising awareness and implementing effective preventions/interventions for risk factors are priorities for clinical practitioners to reduce the incidence of revision or rerupture after ACLR.

Double-bundle non-anatomic ACL revision reconstruction with allograft resulted in a low revision rate at 10 years

PURPOSE

This study aimed at reporting the long-term second revision rate and subjective clinical outcomes from a cohort of patients who underwent a double-bundle (DB) ACLR first revision with allograft at a single institution.

METHODS

The Institutional database was searched according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients that underwent DB-ACL first revision with Achilles tendon allograft, (2) surgery performed between January 2000 and December 2012, (3) age at revision ≥ 18 y/o. Patients' general information, history, surgical data, and personal contacts were extracted from charts. An online survey platform was implemented to collect responses via email. The survey questions included: date of surgeries, surgical data, date of graft failure and subsequent second ACL revision surgery, any other surgery of the index knee, contralateral ACLR, KOOS score, and Tegner scores.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included in the survival analysis, mean age at revision 32 ± 9.2 y/o, 71 males, mean BMI 24.7 ± 2.7, mean time from ACL to revision 6.8 ± 5.4 years, mean follow-up time 10.7 ± 1.4 years. There were 12 (15%) second ACL revisions during the follow-up period, three females and nine males, at a mean of 4.5 ± 3 years after the index surgery. The overall survival rates were 85% from a second ACL revision and 68% from all reoperations of the index knee. Considering only the successful procedures (61 patients), at final follow-up, the mean values for the KOOS subscales were 84 ± 15.5 for Pain, 88.1 ± 13.6 for Symptoms, 93 ± 11.6 for ADL, 75 ± 24.5 for Sport, and 71 ± 19.6 for Qol. Twenty-nine (48%) patients performed sports activity at the same level as before ACLR failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Double-bundle ACL revision with fresh-frozen Achilles allograft yields satisfactory results at long-term follow-up, with an 85% survival rate from a second ACL revision at mean 10 years' follow-up and good patient-reported clinical scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Current and future of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques

In recent years, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has generally yielded favorable outcomes. However, ACL reconstruction has not provided satisfactory results in terms of the rate of returning to sports and prevention of osteoarthritis (OA) progression. In this paper, we outline current techniques for ACL reconstruction such as graft materials, double-bundle or single-bundle reconstruction, femoral tunnel drilling, all-inside technique, graft fixation, preservation of remnant, anterolateral ligament reconstruction, ACL repair, revision surgery, treatment for ACL injury with OA and problems, and discuss expected future trends. To enable many more orthopedic surgeons to achieve excellent ACL reconstruction outcomes with less invasive surgery, further studies aimed at improving surgical techniques are warranted. Further development of biological augmentation and robotic surgery technologies for ACL reconstruction is also required.

Effect of Graft Rupture Prevention Training on Young Athletes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An 8-Year Prospective Intervention Study

Background:

There is a lack of research on the effects of a postoperative rehabilitation program on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture.

Hypothesis:

We hypothesized that a hip-focused rehabilitation protocol with graft rupture education and avoidance training (HIP-GREAT program) would demonstrate lower ACL graft rupture rates compared with a traditional physical therapy (PT) program.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

This study consisted of young athletes who had undergone ACL reconstruction at a single institution. Postoperatively, 136 participants (mean age, 16.9 ± 2.4 years) were enrolled in a traditional PT protocol between 2006 and 2010, and 153 participants (mean age, 17.0 ± 2.3 years) were enrolled in the HIP-GREAT protocol between 2011 and 2015. Follow-up rates were 31% (42/136) and 27% (41/153) in the traditional PT and HIP-GREAT groups, respectively, at 3 years postoperatively. The hazard ratio was calculated, and absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) analyses were performed to compare the 2 protocols.

Results:

ACL graft rupture occurred in 10 patients (7.4%) in the traditional PT group and 5 patients (3.3%) in the HIP-GREAT group. This difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.16; P = .09). The ARR was 0.041 (95% CI, –0.011 to 0.093), and the NNT was 24.5.

Conclusion:

This study did not demonstrate a statistically significant reduction of ACL graft rupture in patients in the HIP-GREAT group. However, high ARR values and low NNT values were found, which suggests the possible effectiveness of the HIP-GREAT protocol to reduce ACL graft ruptures in young athletes.

Age, time from injury to surgery and quadriceps strength affect the risk of revision surgery after primary ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

To identify preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors associated with revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) within 2 years of primary ACLR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary ACLR at our institution, from January 2005 to March 2017, were identified. The primary outcome was the occurrence of revision ACLR within 2 years of primary ACLR. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate preoperative [age, gender, body mass index (BMI), time from injury to surgery, pre-injury Tegner activity level], intraoperative [graft type, graft diameter, medial meniscus (MM) and lateral meniscus (LM) resection or repair, cartilage injury] and postoperative [side-to-side (STS) anterior laxity, limb symmetry index (LSI) for quadriceps and hamstring strength and single-leg-hop test performance at 6 months] risk factors for revision ACLR.

RESULTS

A total of 6,510 primary ACLRs were included. The overall incidence of revision ACLR within 2 years was 2.5%. Univariate analysis showed that age < 25 years, BMI < 25 kg/m², time from injury to surgery < 12 months, pre-injury Tegner activity level ≥ 6, LM repair, STS laxity > 5 mm, quadriceps strength and single-leg-hop test LSI of ≥ 90% increased the odds; whereas, MM resection and the presence of a cartilage injury reduced the odds of revision ACLR. Multivariate analysis revealed that revision ACLR was significantly related only to age < 25 years (OR 6.25; 95% CI 3.57-11.11; P < 0.001), time from injury to surgery < 12 months (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.25-4.17; P = 0.007) and quadriceps strength LSI of ≥ 90% (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.16-2.49; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Age < 25 years, time from injury to surgery < 12 months and 6-month quadriceps strength LSI of ≥ 90% increased the odds of revision ACLR within 2 years of primary ACLR. Understanding the risk factors for revision ACLR has important implications when it comes to the appropriate counseling for primary ACLR. In this study, a large spectrum of potential risk factors for revision ACLR was analyzed in a large cohort. Advising patients regarding the results of an ACLR should also include potential risk factors for revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Return to sports activity in the revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A 2-6 Year follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

and Objective: The risk of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in young patients and those with sports activity is increasing. Regarding the need of athletes with ACL re-rupture to return to sports, ACL revision surgery has received great importance. This study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of ACL reconstruction revision surgery in athletes.

METHOD

In general, 62 patients with primary surgery and 62 patients with revision ACL surgery were investigated in this study. The study subjects were matched in terms of age, gender, involved leg, injury mechanism, sports group, time of surgery, and the degree of cartilage injury and ankle meniscus rupture. The studied variables included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), sports group, infection, meniscus injuries, chondral lesion, time to return to sports, quality of return to sports, range of motion, Lachman's test, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lysholm, and Marx scores. They were obtained through the information in the patients' medical records and the questionnaire filled out by the participants and the examiner's physician through the follow-ups. Then, the collected data were imported into the SPSS software and underwent analysis.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up of patients was 49 months (in the range of 2-6 years). None of the patients had a chronic infection. The mean time to return to sports was 29.2 ± 3.2 and 35.3 ± 4.3 weeks in the primary surgery and revision surgery groups, respectively. In addition, 34 (54.8%) and 25 (40.3%) patients of the primary surgery and the revision surgery groups returned to the same level before injury, respectively. On the latest follow-up, the results of the Lachman test showed no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.222) whereas Lysholm, IKDC, MARX, and KOOS scores on the latest follow-up in primary surgery were significantly higher than those of revision surgery (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The rate of return to sports in revision surgery was 14.5% lower than that of primary surgery, and the average time of return to sports was six weeks. The rate of return to sports, similar to before the injury, was significantly lower in the revision group, females, the age group of over 25 years, and contact sports activity, and patients with a chondral lesion. All knee performance scores were also poorer in the revision surgery.

Does Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes to Primary ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

More revisionary reconstruction procedures are required following failing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, which are often regarded as a technique challenge with very limited goals. This study will be performed to compare the outcomes between groups of primary and revision knee reconstruction. Two observers conducted the literature retrieval from the platforms of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies which compared knee function and stability between primary and revisionary reconstructions were included. The data was synthesized by meta‐analysis with fixed‐ or random‐effects models as appropriate. A total of 10 eligible studies were included with 954 subjects in the primary group and 378 in the revision group. The International Knee Documentation Committee International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subscores, side‐to‐side difference, and Lysholm score were demonstrated to be significantly improved at final follow‐up in both groups, while Tegner score was not. The overall IKDC, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Lysholm scores were significantly inferior in the revision group compared to the primary group. However, knee laxity according to side‐to‐side difference was demonstrated to be similar between the two groups. Revision ACL reconstruction (RACLR) could provide patients with excellent restoration of knee outcomes compared to the status before revision. Also, while knee function in the revision group was inferior to the primary group, knee stability was equivalent between the two groups at the final follow‐up.

Hop tests and psychological PROs provide a demanding and clinician-friendly RTS assessment of patients after ACL reconstruction, a registry study

Background

There is growing interest in assessing psychological well-being in patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. It is unknown whether an assessment of psychological outcome in addition to tests of muscle function can facilitate decisions on return to sport (RTS). Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate passing rates in different physical RTS test batteries, with and without the inclusion of psychological outcome measures 1 year after ACL reconstruction.

Method

In this cross-sectional cohort study a total of 320 patients (51% men) aged 18–65 years were included 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Passing rates on different muscle function (MF) test batteries (with results presented as Limb Symmetry Index (LSI)), consisting of knee extension and flexion strength tests, 3 hop tests, and 2 psychological patient-reported outcomes (PROs); Quality of Life subscale from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS QoL) and ACL Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI), were evaluated 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Muscle function test batteries comprised: 2 MF tests (vertical hop and hop for distance; pass = 90% LSI); 2 MF tests and 2 PRO (pass = 90% LSI, 62.5 points on KOOS QoL and 76.6 points on ACL-RSI), 5 MF tests (2 strength and 3 hop tests, pass = 90% LSI), and 5 MF tests and 2 PRO (pass = 90% LSI, 62.5 points on KOOS QoL and 76.6 points on ACL-RSI).

Results

Passing rates in the different test batteries were 47% for 2 MF tests, 19% for 2 MF tests and 2 PROs, 29% for 5 MF tests and 13% for 5 MF tests and 2 PROs. The use of psychological PROs together with tests of muscle function gave the lowest passing rate (13%). There was a very strong correlation between passing 2 hop tests and 2 PROs and passing 5 MF tests (rφ = 0.41) as well as passing 5 MF tests and 2 PROs (rφ = 0.79).

Conclusion

The use of hop tests together with psychological PROs provides a clinician-friendly RTS test battery for assessment 1 year after ACL reconstruction as the passing rate was 19% when using 2 hop-tests combined with 2 PROs, compared with 29% when using 5 tests of MF requiring advanced testing equipment.

Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of anterior cruciate ligament injury - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

This clinical guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, endorsed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Japanese Orthopaedic Society of Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine (JOSKAS).

METHODS

The JOA ACL guideline committee revised the previous guideline based on "Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014", which proposed a desirable method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan. Furthermore, the importance of "the balance of benefit and harm" was also emphasized. This guideline consists of 21 clinical questions (CQ) and 23 background questions (BQ). For each CQ, outcomes from the literature were collected and evaluated systematically according to the adopted study design.

RESULTS

We evaluated the objectives and results of each study in order to make a decision on the level of evidence so as to integrate the results with our recommendations for each CQ. For BQ, the guideline committee proposed recommendations based on the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is intended to be used by physicians, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists, and athletic trainers managing ACL injuries. We hope that this guideline is useful for appropriate decision-making and improved management of ACL injuries.

Revision ACL reconstruction using quadriceps or hamstring autografts leads to similar results after 4 years: good objective stability but low rate of return to pre-injury sport level

PURPOSE

Due to the increased importance of revision ACL reconstruction, this study aims to evaluate the outcome 4 years after the surgery, compare two revision strategies and identify factors that influence the results.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients who received a revision ACL reconstruction were retrospectively evaluated. All patients were assessed with an average follow-up of 4.4 years (range 3.3-5.5 years). The results of patients treated with a quadriceps autograft were compared with those treated with a hamstring autograft.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of patients had a KT-1000 side-to-side difference of ≤ 5 mm (mean 1.7 ± 2.0 mm). Pivot-shift test was absent or minor in 95%. In the SLTH-test, 70% of patients reached 90% of the contralateral side. The mean Lysholm score on follow-up was 83 ± 12 (56% excellent/good). The mean IKDC 2000 subjective evaluation score was 81 ± 14 (58% normal/almost normal). The median Tegner activity score was 6 (range 3-10), a median of 2 levels worse than before the first injury. Return to sport rate was 89% but only 34% of patients reached their pre-injury sport level. Most common cause for this reduction was fear of another injury. Three patients suffered a re-rupture. Patients with a hamstring autograft performed pivoting sports more often, but had worse pivot-shift results compared to those with a quadriceps autograft. No significant influence was seen for other parameters. Young, male patients with a high activity level and no chondral damage had the best results.

CONCLUSION

Through revision ACL reconstruction, the goal of stabilizing the knee can be achieved in the majority of patients. However, a good function and a high activity level are significantly less common in these patients. The main reason for this is fear of a renewed ACL-injury. Both quadriceps and hamstring autografts were able to achieve a good outcome. Young, male, patients with a normal BMI, a high activity level and without cartilage damage seem to benefit the most from revision ACL surgery. The discrepancy between the good laxity restoration and the lower activity rate should therefore be a main point in clinical counseling when deciding for or against revision ACL-Reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Outcome After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the current literature related to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision in terms of surgical aspects, graft choices, concomitant injuries, patient-reported outcome, return to sport, and objective measurement outcome.

RECENT FINDINGS

An ACL rupture is a common knee injury, and the number of primary ACL reconstructions is increasing, implying a subsequent increase of ACL revisions in the future. It is widely accepted that an ACL revision is surgically challenging with a myriad of graft options to choose from. In many cases, simultaneous injuries to the index limb including meniscal and chondral lesions, respectively, are observed in the setting of a secondary ACL injury. Furthermore, the general understanding is that an ACL revision results in inferior outcome compared with a primary ACL reconstruction. Surgical treatment of an ACL revision can be performed as one-stage or two-stage procedure depending on, for example, the presence of limb malalignments, concomitant injuries, and tunnel widening. Nonirradiated allografts and autologous patella tendon, hamstring tendon, and quadriceps tendon are feasible options for ACL revision. Concomitant injuries to the affected knee such as intraarticular chondral lesions are more common in the setting of an ACL revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction while a lower presence of concomitant meniscal pathology is reported at ACL revision. Patients undergoing ACL revision have lower clinical and patient-reported outcome and lower rates of return to sport when compared with primary ACL surgery cases. However, long-term follow-ups with large study cohorts evaluating outcome of ACL revision are limited. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings of this review.

Hamstring Muscle Activity After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction-A Protective Mechanism in Those Who Do Not Sustain a Secondary Injury? A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Individuals who experience a subsequent ipsilateral anterior cruci (cruciate)ate ligament (ACL) reinjury may use hazardous muscle activation strategies after primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to compare electromyograms (EMGs) of the quadriceps, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius muscles during a dynamic hopping task among individuals with a single ACL injury (ACLx1), individuals who went on to have secondary ipsilateral ACL injury (ACLx2), and individuals who have never sustained an ACL injury (ACLx0).

HYPOTHESIS

We expected that individuals who went on to experience a secondary ACL injury would use less quadriceps muscle activity as compared with individuals who experienced a single ACL injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

Fourteen individuals that were returned to play post-ACLR and 7 non-ACL-injured individuals participated. Individuals who had undergone an ACLR were placed into groups depending on whether they had experienced a secondary ipsilateral ACL reinjury postprimary ACLR. EMG data of the vastus lateralis, biceps femoris, and lateral gastrocnemius were measured during 2 phases of a single-leg dynamic hopping task: preactivity (100 ms prior to ground contact) and reactivity (250 ms post-ground contact). Processed EMG data were compared across groups using 1-way analyses of variance, with post hoc independent t tests where appropriate (P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

At preactivity, ACLx1 (0.48% ± 0.2%max) was found to use significantly more hamstring activity than ACLx2 (0.20% ± 0.1%max, P = 0.018), but not than ACLx0 (0.38% ± 0.1%max, P > 0.05). At reactivity, both ACL groups were found to use less quadriceps activity than ACLx0 (ACLx1: 0.38% ± 0.1%max, P = 0.016; ACLx2: 0.40% ± 0.1%max, P = 0.033; ACLx0: 0.58% ± 0.1%max), but not than each other (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Quadriceps muscle activity during landing was diminished in all ACL participants as compared with participants who had never sustained an ACL injury. Individuals who did not experience a secondary ipsilateral ACL reinjury (ACLx1) used greater levels of hamstring activity prior to landing.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The higher hamstring activity in patients who did not experience a secondary injury may be interpreted as a protective mechanism that is used to dynamically stabilize the reconstructed limb.

Evidence-based recommendations for the management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture occurs most commonly in young and active individuals and can have negative long-term physical and psychological impacts. The diagnosis is made with a combination of patient's history, clinical examination, and, if appropriate, magnetic resonance imaging. The objectives of management are to restore knee function, address psychological barriers to activity participation, prevent further injury and osteoarthritis, and optimize long-term quality of life. The three main treatment options for ACL rupture are (1) rehabilitation as first-line treatment (followed by ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in patients, who develop functional instability), (2) ACLR and post-operative rehabilitation as the first-line treatment, and (3) pre-operative rehabilitation followed by ACLR and post-operative rehabilitation. We provide practical recommendations for informing and discussing management options with patients, and describe patient-related factors associated with a worse ACL-rupture outcome. Finally, we define evidence-based rehabilitation and present phase-specific rehabilitation recommendations and criteria to inform return to sport decisions.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores knee laxity but shows inferior functional knee outcome compared with primary reconstruction

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare knee laxity and functional knee outcome between primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the same cohort of patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary and revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, from 2000 to 2015, were identified in our local database. Inclusion criteria were: same patients who underwent primary hamstring tendons (HT) and revision bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft ACLR, no associated ligament injuries and no contralateral ACL injuries/reconstructions. The cause of revision ACLR was graft rupture for all patients. The KT-1000 arthrometer, with an anterior tibial load of 134-N, was used to evaluate knee laxity preoperatively and 6-month postoperatively. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients with primary and revision ACLR arthrometric laxity measurements were available (51.0% males; mean age at primary ACLR 21.7 ± 7.1 years and revision ACLR 24.3 ± 7.5 years). The mean preoperative and postoperative anterior side-to-side (STS) difference values were not significantly different between primary and revision ACLR. However, primary ACLR showed a significantly higher frequency of postoperative anterior STS difference > 5 mm compared with revision ACLR (8.4 vs 5.0%; P = 0.02). The KOOS was available for primary and revision ACLR for 73 patients (55.4% males; mean age at primary ACLR 21.6 ± 7 years and revision ACLR 24.7 ± 7.3 years). Preoperatively, revision ACLR showed significantly higher scores in all KOOS subscales, except for the activity of daily living (ADL) subscale. For the primary ACLR, the improvement from preoperatively to the 1-year follow-up was significantly greater in all KOOS subscales and, the postoperative scores were superior for Pain, ADL and Sports subscales compared with revision ACLR.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study showed that anterior knee laxity is restored with revision BPTB autograft ACLR after failed primary HT autograft ACLR, in the same cohort of patients. However, revision ACLR showed a significantly inferior functional knee outcome compared with primary ACLR. It is important for clinicians to inform and set realistic expectations for patients undergoing revision ACLR. Patients must be aware of the fact that having revision ACLR their knee function will not improve as much as with primary ACLR and the final postoperative functional outcome is inferior.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level III.

Single-stage versus two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Importance

Despite advances in surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitation, long-term anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture rate remains high. The increasing number of primary ACL reconstructions in an ageing population will lead to increasing revision reconstructions. Revision cases may have higher failure rates and worse patient-reported outcomes compared with primaries. While two-stage revisions may be indicated in certain complex cases, whether this is comparatively equivalent or even superior to revisions done in a single stage would assist preoperative planning.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review was to analyse and compare patient-reported outcomes and failure rate of single-stage versus two-stage revision ACL reconstruction.

Evidence review

Using PubMed, MEDLINE Complete and Ovid MEDLINE databases, a review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines to identify level I–IV outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.

Findings

Three studies reported outcomes of two-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 61.6 months, while 21 studies reported single-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 47.4 months. Pooled rate of two-stage revisions was 3.1% compared with 6.8% in single-stage (p=0.068). Clinical failure was reported in 5.1% of 79 two-stage patients compared with 13.8% of 533 single-stage patients (p<0.05). Within the single-stage cohort, there was a greater clinical failure rate (+8.7%, p<0.05) for patients with less than 48 months follow-up. Those with > 48 months follow-up had a higher rerupture rate (+5%, p<0.05) and a significantly greater sum of squared deviations (p<0.05) compared with those with < 48 months follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes have demonstrated two-stage revision patients with higher IKDC A and B scores than single-stage.

Conclusions and relevance

Although two-stage revisions may be performed in more complex cases, there are limited short-term data available regarding their outcomes. Two-stage revisions demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes and lower rate of revision surgery and clinical failure compared with single-stage revisions. Studies with shorter follow-up (24–48 months) showed higher clinical failure rates. Those with longer follow-up (>48 months) showed higher graft rerupture rates. The decision to perform staged reconstruction should made on whether adequate tunnel placement and fixation can be established in a single setting.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Risk Factors and Predictors of Significant Chondral Surface Change From Primary to Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A MOON and MARS Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Articular cartilage health is an important issue following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and primary ACL reconstruction. Factors present at the time of primary ACL reconstruction may influence the subsequent progression of articular cartilage damage.

HYPOTHESIS

Larger meniscus resection at primary ACL reconstruction, increased patient age, and increased body mass index (BMI) are associated with increased odds of worsened articular cartilage damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Subjects who had primary and revision data in the databases of the Multicenter Orthopaedics Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) were included. Reviewed data included chondral surface status at the time of primary and revision surgery, meniscus status at the time of primary reconstruction, primary reconstruction graft type, time from primary to revision ACL surgery, as well as demographics and Marx activity score at the time of revision. Significant progression of articular cartilage damage was defined in each compartment according to progression on the modified Outerbridge scale (increase ≥1 grade) or >25% enlargement in any area of damage. Logistic regression identified predictors of significant chondral surface change in each compartment from primary to revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were included, with a median age of 19.5 years at revision surgery. Progression of articular cartilage damage was noted in 34 patients (25.4%) in the lateral compartment, 32 (23.9%) in the medial compartment, and 31 (23.1%) in the patellofemoral compartment. For the lateral compartment, patients who had >33% of the lateral meniscus excised at primary reconstruction had 16.9-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact lateral meniscus ( P < .001). For the medial compartment, patients who had <33% of the medial meniscus excised at the time of the primary reconstruction had 4.8-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact medial meniscus ( P = .02). Odds of significant chondral surface change increased by 5% in the lateral compartment and 6% in the medial compartment for each increased year of age ( P ≤ .02). For the patellofemoral compartment, the use of allograft in primary reconstruction was associated with a 15-fold increased odds of progression of articular cartilage damage relative to a patellar tendon autograft ( P < .001). Each 1-unit increase in BMI at the time of revision surgery was associated with a 10% increase in the odds of progression of articular cartilage damage ( P = .046) in the patellofemoral compartment.

CONCLUSION

Excision of the medial and lateral meniscus at primary ACL reconstruction increases the odds of articular cartilage damage in the corresponding compartment at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Increased age is a risk factor for deterioration of articular cartilage in both tibiofemoral compartments, while increased BMI and the use of allograft for primary ACL reconstruction are associated with an increased risk of progression in the patellofemoral compartment.

What Is the Mid-term Failure Rate of Revision ACL Reconstruction? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

When anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction fails, a revision procedure may be performed to improve knee function, correct instability, and allow return to activities. The results of revision ACL reconstruction have been reported to produce good but inferior patient-reported and objective outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction, but the degree to which this is the case varies widely among published studies and may be influenced by heterogeneity of patients, techniques, and endpoints assessed. For those reasons, a systematic review may provide important insights.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a systematic review, we asked: (1) What is the proportion of revision ACL reconstruction cumulative failures defined as rerupture or objective failure using prespecified clinical criteria at mean followup of at least 5 years? (2) What are the most common complications of revision ACL reconstruction?

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We included studies that reported the clinical evaluation of revision ACL reconstruction with Lachman test, pivot shift test, side-to-side difference with KT-1000/2000 arthrometer, and with a mean followup of at least 5 years. We excluded studies that incompletely reported these outcomes, that reported only reruptures, or that were not in the English language. Extracted data included the number of graft reruptures and objective clinical failure, defined as a knee that met one of the following endpoints: Lachman test Grade II to III, pivot shift Grade II to III, KT-1000/2000 > 5-mm difference, or International Knee Documentation Committee Grade C or D. For each study, we determined the proportion of patients who had experienced a rupture of the revision ACL graft as well as the proportion of patients who met one or more of our clinical failure endpoints. Those proportions were summed for each study to generate a percentage of patients who met our definition of cumulative failure. Complications and reoperations were recorded but not pooled as a result of inconsistency of reporting and heterogeneity of populations across the included studies. Of the 663 screened studies, 15 articles were included in the systematic review. Because one study reported two separate groups of patients with different treatments, 16 case series were considered in the evaluation.

RESULTS

The proportion of reruptures (range, 0%-25%) was > 5% in only four of 16 series and > 10% in only one of them. The objective clinical failures (range, 0%-82%) was > 5% in 15 of 16 series and > 10% in 12 of them. The proportion exceeded 20% in five of 16 series. The cumulative failures (range, 0%-83%) was > 5% in all except one series and > 10% in 12 of 16 series; five series had a cumulative failure proportion > 20%. The most frequent complications were knee stiffness and anterior knee pain, whereas reoperations were primarily débridement and meniscectomies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering rerupture alone as a failure endpoint in patients who have undergone revision ACL reconstruction likely underestimates the real failure rate, because the percentage of failures noticeably increases when objective criteria are also considered. Whether patient-reported and subjective scores evaluating knee function, level of activity, satisfaction, and pain might also contribute to the definition of failure may be the focus of future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Analysis of the influence of anaesthesia on the clinical and quantitative assessment of the pivot shift: a multicenter international study

PURPOSE

The main goal of this work was to evaluate the pivot shift test in awake and anesthetized patients by using two different quantitative methodologies and comparing the results with the standard clinical grading, taking advantage of a multicenter international study.

METHODS

Patients between 16 and 50 years of age undergoing primary unilateral single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction were considered eligible. The pivot shift test was performed pre-operatively, with the patient awake and again with the patient under general anaesthesia. The pivot shift test was clinically graded as defined by the International Knee Documentation Committee. The instrumented assessment was performed by using two non-invasive acquisition systems; specifically, a system exploiting an inertial sensor and a video-based application developed on a commercial tablet using skin markers. Lateral compartment translation and the tibial acceleration reached during joint reduction were used as quantitative parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients were enrolled in the study. Statistically significant difference was found between the distributions of clinical grade evaluated in awake patients and those under general anaesthesia (P < 0.01). Comparing awake patients to those under general anaesthesia, lower values were found both for tibial acceleration (3.7 ± 1.5 vs 6.0 ± 4.6 m/s², P < 0.01) and lateral compartment translation of the involved limb (2.2 ± 1.7 vs 3.0 ± 2.2 mm, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that significant differences in the grading of the pivot shift test exist between awake and anesthetized patients, regardless of the use of quantitative instruments during the evaluation. Actual clinical assessment reported indeed its weakness, presenting subjective variability and dependence on tester's experience. However, several factors might influence the validity of awake examination such as experience level of examiner and cultural factors, as seen in this international multicenter study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective comparative study, Level II.

Does the type of graft affect the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? a meta-analysis of 32 studies

AIMS

Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis of the outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, comparing the use of different types of graft.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search was performed of Medline and Pubmed using the terms "Anterior Cruciate Ligament" and "ACL" combined with "revision", "re-operation" and "failure". Only studies that reported the outcome at a minimum follow-up of two years were included. Two authors reviewed the papers, and outcomes were subdivided into autograft and allograft. Autograft was subdivided into hamstring (HS) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB). Subjective and objective outcome measures were analysed and odds ratios with confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies used HS autografts, eight reported using BPTB autografts, two used quadriceps tendon autografts and eight used various types. Seven studies reported using allografts, while the two remaining used both BPTB autografts and allografts. Overall, 1192 patients with a mean age of 28.7 years (22.5 to 39) and a mean follow-up of 5.4 years (2.0 to 9.6) were treated with autografts, while 269 patients with a mean age of 28.4 years (25 to 34.6) and a mean follow-up of 4.0 years (2.3 to 6.0) were treated with allografts. Regarding allografts, irradiation with 2.5 mrad was used in two studies while the graft was not irradiated in the seven remaining studies. Reconstructions following the use of autografts had better outcomes than those using allograft with respect to laxity, measured by KT-1000/2000 (MEDmetric Corporation) and the rates of complications and re-operations. Those following the use of allografts had better mean Lysholm and Tegner activity scores compared with autografts. If irradiated allografts were excluded from the analysis, outcomes no longer differed between the use of autografts and allografts. Comparing the types of autograft, all outcomes were similar except for HS grafts which had better International Knee Documentation Committee scores compared with BPTB grafts.

CONCLUSION

Autografts had better outcomes than allografts in revision ACL reconstruction, with lower post-operative laxity and rates of complications and re-operations. However, after excluding irradiated allografts, outcomes were similar between autografts and allografts. Overall, the choice of graft at revision ACL reconstruction should be on an individual basis considering, for instance, the preferred technique of the surgeon, whether a combined reconstruction is required, the type of graft that was previously used, whether the tunnels are enlarged and the availability of allograft. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:714-23.

Knee Osteoarthritis after Reconstruction of Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Literature Review

Purpose  The aim of this review was to analyze the current literature on osteoarthritic evolution of knees without any combined meniscal or ligament lesions undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods  A PubMed/MEDLINE research was performed using the following keywords: “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction” [Mesh] AND “Osteoarthritis, Knee” [Mesh]. Only English language literature and articles published after 2005 were included. Studies including concomitant meniscal tears, posterior cruciate or collateral ligament injuries, previous surgery in the affected knees, infections, osteochondral defects, loose bodies, synovial plica syndrome, and posteromedial or posterolateral corner injuries were not considered in this review.

Results  Twelve studies were selected. These papers included 892 patients (mean age at the time of surgery was 22.3 years), with an average follow-up of 11 years. Imaging at follow-up was obtained with standard radiographs in nine studies, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in one study, and both X-rays and MRI in two studies. Eight studies reported osteoarthritic evolution, with different prevalence.

Conclusion  Only few high-quality studies focused on these specific patients have been published. When reconstructed, isolated ACL-deficient knees have a low risk of osteoarthritic evolution, but mild signs of joint degeneration are reported by the current literature.

Level of Evidence  Level IV, systematic review of level I to level IV studies.

Delaying ACL reconstruction and treating with exercise therapy alone may alter prognostic factors for 5-year outcome: an exploratory analysis of the KANON trial

Aim

Identify injury-related, patient-reported and treatment-related prognostic factors for 5-year outcomes in acutely ACL-ruptured individuals managed with early reconstruction plus exercise therapy, exercise therapy plus delayed reconstruction or exercise therapy alone.

Methods

Exploratory analysis of the Knee Anterior Cruciate Ligament, Nonsurgical versus Surgical Treatment (KANON) trial (ISRCTN84752559). Relationships between prognostic factors (baseline cartilage, meniscus and osteochondral damage, baseline extension deficit, baseline patient-reported outcomes, number of rehabilitation visits, graft/contralateral ACL rupture, non-ACL surgery and ACL treatment strategy) and 5-year Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain, symptoms, sport/recreation and quality of life (QOL) scores were explored using multivariable linear regression. Estimates were adjusted for sex, age, body mass index, preinjury activity level, education and smoking.

Results

For all participants (n=118), graft/contralateral ACL rupture, non-ACL surgery and worse baseline 36-item Short-Form Mental Component Scores were associated with worse outcomes. Treatment with exercise therapy alone was a prognostic factor for less knee symptoms compared with early reconstruction plus exercise therapy (regression coefficient 10.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 17.9). Baseline meniscus lesion was associated with worse sport/recreation function (−14.4, 95% CI −27.6 to –1.3) and osteochondral lesions were associated with worse QOL (−12.3, 95% CI −24.3 to –0.4) following early reconstruction plus exercise therapy. In the same group, undergoing additional non-ACL surgery and worse baseline KOOS scores were prognostic for worse outcome on all KOOS subscales. Following delayed reconstruction, baseline meniscus damage was a prognostic factor for less pain (14.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 27.9). Following exercise therapy alone, undergoing non-ACL surgery was prognostic for worse pain.

Conclusions

Treatment-dependent differences in prognostic factors for 5-year outcomes may support individualised treatment after acute ACL rupture in young active individuals.

Trial registration number

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84752559.

Activity preferences, lifestyle modifications and re-injury fears influence longer-term quality of life in people with knee symptoms following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a qualitative study

QUESTIONS

How do people with knee symptoms describe their quality of life and experiences 5 to 20 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)? What factors impact upon the quality of life of these people?

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen people with knee symptoms 5 to 20 years after ACLR and high (n=8) or low (n=9) quality of life scores were recruited from a cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted and transcribed. The data obtained from the interventions underwent inductive coding and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four consistent themes emerged from the interviews as common determinants of quality of life following ACLR: physical activity preferences; lifestyle modifications; adaptation and acceptance; and fear of re-injury. All participants described the importance of maintaining a physically active lifestyle and the relationship between physical activity and quality of life. Participants who avoided sport or activity reported experiencing reduced quality of life. Participants who suppressed or overcame re-injury fears to continue sport participation described experiencing a satisfactory quality of life while taking part in sport despite knee symptoms. For some participants, resuming competitive sport resulted in subsequent knee trauma, anterior cruciate ligament re-rupture or progressive deterioration of knee function, with negative impacts on quality of life following sport cessation. Participants who enjoyed recreational exercise often adapted their lifestyle early after ACLR, while others described adapting their lifestyle at a later stage to accommodate knee impairments; this was associated with feelings of acceptance and satisfaction, irrespective of knee symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Activity preferences, lifestyle modifications and fear of re-injury influenced quality of life in people with knee symptoms up to 20 years following ACLR. People with a preference for competitive sport who do not enjoy recreational exercise might be at heightened risk of poor quality of life outcomes and could benefit from support to facilitate a transition to a physically active, satisfying lifestyle.

Use of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in a Healthy United States Population

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome instruments are frequently used for assessing clinical outcomes after injury and surgery. Previously reported normative data for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) are limited to a narrow subset of ages and demographics or have not included patients who do not participate in sporting activities.

PURPOSE

To provide normative data for the KOOS in an 18- to 64-year-old population in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The KOOS was administered to 999 patients or accompanying family members seen in July 2014 at an outpatient orthopaedic clinic in a suburban metropolitan city for an orthopaedic issue unrelated to their knee. Participants were eligible if they self-reported a medical history negative for knee, ankle, or hip surgery and if they did not have a current issue with their knee, ankle, or hip. Means, SDs, medians, ranges, interquartile ranges, and percentiles on the KOOS were calculated by sex, age range, laterality, and history of knee injuries in the past year. Nonparametric statistical analysis and regression analysis were used to evaluate differences in KOOS values between 5 age ranges and between those with a history of knee injuries compared with uninjured participants.

RESULTS

There were 402 men and 597 women in the final study cohort. Men scored lower on the Symptoms subscale compared with other subscales (median score: 96.4 for Symptoms, 100.0 for all other subscales) in all age cohorts except the 56- to 64-year age group. Women also reported lower scores in the Symptoms subscale (median score: 96.4 for women aged 18-55 years, 92.9 for women aged 56-64 years). Median scores for the Pain and Knee-related Quality of Life subscales were lower in the 56- to 64-year female cohort (97.2 and 93.8, respectively), compared with the 18- to 55-year female cohort. The Symptoms, Pain, and Knee-related Quality of Life subscales showed the greatest variability for patients of both sexes, particularly in the youngest and oldest cohorts. Three percent of all participants reported a history of knee injuries in the past year, and all KOOS results were significantly lower (P < .05) in this population compared with uninjured participants.

CONCLUSION

This study provides normative reference values for the KOOS in an 18- to 64-year-old metropolitan United States population. Study findings can aid surgeons in counseling patients and in developing expectations after the treatment of injuries.

Does revision ACL reconstruction measure up to primary surgery? A meta-analysis comparing patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes, and radiographic results

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes, and radiographic results between patients who had had revision ACL reconstruction and those who had had primary ACL reconstruction.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus electronic databases were searched on 6 August 2015, using 3 main concepts: (1) revision ACL reconstruction, (2) primary ACL reconstruction and (3) treatment outcomes.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Articles that compared patient-reported or clinician-reported outcomes or radiographic results between patients who had had revision ACL reconstruction and those who had had primary surgery with a minimum of 2 years follow-up were included. The outcomes evaluated were the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) classification, Tegner Activity Scale, side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation measured with KT-1000/2000 arthrometer, pivot shift test, tibiofemoral osteoarthritis grading on plain radiographs and subsequent knee surgeries.

RESULTS

8 studies (300 revision ACL reconstructions and 413 primary ACL reconstructions) were included in the meta-analysis. Patients who had had revision surgery reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores (mean difference: 7.8 points), had inferior clinician-reported knee function as assessed with the objective IKDC classification (IKDC category A: 27% vs 57%; IKDC category C or D: 22% vs 8%) and pivot shift test (grade II or III: 7% vs 2%), and more radiographic evidence of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (50% vs 25%) compared with patients who had had primary surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision ACL reconstruction restored similar anterior-posterior knee laxity compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Patients who had had revision surgery reported inferior Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale scores, had inferior clinician-reported knee function and more radiographic signs of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis compared with patients with primary ACL reconstruction.

Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Unrealistic patient expectations have been shown to negatively influence patient-reported outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. Knowledge about patient expectations is important to associate preoperative expectations with the reasonable outcome of a specific procedure. The purpose of this study was to prospectively analyse and to compare patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to assess the factors associated with patient expectations.

METHODS

Preoperative expectations of 181 consecutive patients undergoing ACLR were assessed prospectively using a 5-item questionnaire. Primary ACLR (P-ACLR) was performed in 133 patients (73%), whereas 48 patients (27%) underwent revision ACLR (R-ACLR). The questionnaire assessed the expectation of the overall condition of the knee joint, return to sports, instability, pain, and risk of osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

All patients expected a normal (38%) or nearly normal (62%) condition of the knee joint. Return to sports at the same level was expected by 91%. With regard to instability (pain), no instability (pain) independent of the activity level was expected by 77% (58%). No or only a slightly increased risk of the development of osteoarthritis was expected by 98%. The R-ACLR group showed a significantly lower expectation of the overall condition (p = 0.001), return to sports (p < 0.001), and pain (p = 0.002). No statistically significant difference was found between female and male patients (n.s.). In the P-ACLR group, patients with a history of previous knee surgery showed inferior expectations of return to sports (p = 0.015) and risk of osteoarthritis (p = 0.011). Age, number of previous knee surgeries, and pre-injury sports level significantly influenced patient expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patient expectations of ACL reconstruction are high. Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction have lower but still demanding expectations. Younger patients, patients without a history of knee surgery, and highly active patients have higher expectations. Explicit patient information about realistic goals of ACL reconstruction seems to be necessary in order to prevent postoperative dissatisfaction despite a successful operation in the surgeons' point of view.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective case series, Level IV.

Patient Outcomes and Predictors of Success After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background:

Patient outcomes and predictors of success after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are currently limited in the literature. Existing studies either have a small study size or are difficult to interpret because of the multiple surgeons involved in the care of the study sample.

Purpose:

To determine patient outcomes and predictors of success or failure after a single-stage revision ACL reconstruction by a single fellowship-trained senior surgeon at a single institution.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A total of 78 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2014 were contacted and available for follow-up. The mean time from revision procedure to follow-up was 52 months. Those patients who were able to participate in the study sent in a completed Tegner activity level scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, and IKDC Current Health Assessment Form. The patients’ medical records were also thoroughly reviewed.

Results:

Five patients had subsequent failure after revision surgery. The median Tegner score was 6 at follow-up, and the mean subjective IKDC score was 72.5. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome scores when comparing revision graft type, body mass index, sex, need for bone grafting, and time from failure to revision. Patients with failures after primary ACL reconstruction secondary to a traumatic event were found to have statistically significantly higher IKDC scores (mean, 76.6) after revision when compared with nontraumatic failures (mean, 67.1), even when controlling for confounders (P < .017).

Conclusion:

Revision ACL reconstruction is effective in improving patient activity levels and satisfaction. However, the subjective IKDC results are quite variable and likely based on multiple factors. Patients with traumatic injuries contributing to graft failure after primary ACL reconstruction had a statistically significantly, although not clinically significant, higher IKDC score after revision surgery compared with nontraumatic failures. These data may be useful when counseling a patient on whether to pursue revision ACL reconstruction surgery.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport

PURPOSE

An increasing number of patients undergo revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, with the intention of returning to sport being a major indication. The aim of this study is to assess the available evidence for clinical improvement and return to sport, to understand the real potential of this procedure in regaining functional activity, and to facilitate improved counselling of patients regarding the expected outcome after revision ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

The search was conducted on the PubMed database. Articles reporting clinical results for revision ACL reconstruction were included. A meta-analysis was performed on return to sport, and results were compared to the literature on primary ACL reconstruction. Other specific clinical outcomes (Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC Objective scores) were also included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 503 identified records, a total of 59 studies involving 5365 patients were included in the qualitative data synthesis. Only 31 articles reported the rate of return to sport. Whereas 73 % of good objective results and satisfactory subjective results were documented, 57 % of patients did not return to the same level of sport activity, significantly inferior to that of a primary procedure.

CONCLUSION

The real potential of revision ACL reconstruction should not be overestimated due to the low number of patients able to return to their previous activity level, significantly inferior with respect to that reported for primary ACL reconstruction. This finding will help physicians in the clinical practice providing realistic expectations to the patients. Future studies should focus on participation-based outcome measures such as return to sport and in strategies to improve the results in terms of return to previous activities after revision ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis including Level IV studies, Level IV.

High Variability in Outcome Reporting Patterns in High-Impact ACL Literature

BACKGROUND

ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) reconstruction is one of the most commonly performed and studied procedures in modern sports medicine. A multitude of objective and subjective patient outcome measures exists; however, nonstandardized reporting patterns of these metrics may create challenges in objectively analyzing pooled results from different studies. The goal of this study was to document the variability in outcome reporting patterns in high-impact orthopaedic studies of ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

All clinical studies pertaining to ACL reconstruction in four high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals over a five-year period were reviewed. Biomechanical, basic science, and imaging studies were excluded, as were studies with fewer than fifty patients, yielding 119 studies for review. Incorporation of various objective and subjective outcomes was noted for each study.

RESULTS

Substantial variability in reporting of both objective and subjective measures was noted in the study cohort. Although a majority of studies reported instrumented laxity findings, there was substantial variability in the type and method of laxity reporting. Most other objective outcomes, including range of motion, strength, and complications, were reported in <50% of all studies. Return to pre-injury level of activity was infrequently reported (24% of studies), as were patient satisfaction and pain assessment following surgery (8% and 13%, respectively). Of the patient-reported outcomes, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scores were most often reported (71%, 63%, and 42%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variability in outcome reporting patterns exists among high-impact studies of ACL reconstruction. Such variability may create challenges in interpreting results and pooling them across different studies.

Over-the-Top Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Single- or Double-Strand Hamstrings Autograft

The purpose of this study is to (1) report the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a nonanatomical anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using an over-the-top (OTT) femoral route and (2) compare single-strand (1SHG) and double-strand (2SHG) hamstrings graft reconstruction. Fifty-one consecutive patients (mean age, 29.2±3.8 years) underwent nonanatomical ACL reconstruction using OTT femoral passage. Twenty patients underwent 1SHG reconstruction and 31 underwent 2SHG reconstruction. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner score, and KT-1000 (Medmetric Corporation, San Diego, California) evaluation were recorded at a mean follow-up of 12.1±1.6 years. At final follow-up, radiographic evaluation was performed according to the IKDC grading system. Mean IKDC subjective score at follow-up was 76.6±21.9 in the 1SHG group and 88.9±10.0 in the 2SHG (P=.009). Average KOOS was 82.6±18.7 in the 1SHG group and 92.4±9.2 in the 2SHG group (P=.016). Objective IKDC evaluation showed a higher percentage of normal knees in the 2SHG group (P=.018). Pivot shift testing revealed a significantly higher number of normal knees in the 2SHG group (P=.001). Radiographs showed fewer degenerative changes in the 2SHG group at final follow-up in the medial (P=.01) and lateral (P=.037) compartments. Nonanatomical ACL reconstruction using the OTT technique provided satisfactory results in terms of control of both static and dynamic instability at long-term follow-up, thus preventing degenerative joint disease. The 2SHG group showed better subjective and functional outcomes with fewer degenerative changes compared with the 1SHG group at long-term follow-up.

The Relationship between Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are a common injury, particularly in the athletic and youth populations. The known association between ACL injury and subsequent osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee merits a more in-depth understanding of the relationship between the ACL-injured knee and osteoarthritis. ACL injury, especially with concomitant meniscal or other ligamentous pathology, predisposes the knee to an increased risk of osteoarthritis. ACL insufficiency results in deterioration of the normal physiologic knee bending culminating in increased anterior tibial translation and increased internal tibial rotation. This leads to increased mean contact stresses in the posterior medial and lateral compartments under anterior and rotational loading. However, surgical reconstruction of the ACL has not been shown to reduce the risk of future OA development back to baseline and has variability based on operative factors of graft choice, timing of surgery, presence of meniscal and chondral abnormalities, and surgical technique. Known strategies to prevent OA development are applicable to patients with ACL deficiency or after ACL reconstruction and include weight management, avoidance of excessive musculoskeletal loading, and strength training. Reconstruction of the ACL does not necessarily prevent osteoarthritis in many of these patients and may depend on several external variables.

Long-term sequelae and management following anterior cruciate ligament injury

This article discusses a case in which a patient who sustained an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury returned with anterior knee pain in the same knee approximately 20 years later. He underwent reconstruction at the time of the injury and had a revision reconstruction performed 10 years later. The case highlights the long-term consequences of ACL injury and subsequent reconstruction for the knee joint, as this patient has developed anterior knee pain during his mid-40s. Additionally, non-operative management of knee osteoarthritis is discussed.

A prospective study to assess the outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

Continuously increasing numbers of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions invites a parallel increase in graft failures and need for revision ACL reconstruction surgery. High failure rates has previously stigmatised the revision surgery. We performed this study using multiple outcome measures together with clinical examination to offer a full assessment of the outcomes of this procedure.

METHODS

Twenty patients, with mean age of 29.4 years (17-50 years), were included in this study prior to their revision ACL reconstruction surgery. All patients were followed prospectively collecting the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner-Lysholm scores pre- and post-operatively together with clinical assessment of the antero-posterior knee laxity.

RESULTS

After a mean follow up interval of 30 months (16-60 months) significant post-operative improvement of IKDC, Tegner-Lysholm scores and knee antero-posterior laxity together with the Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Quality of Life (QOL) components of the KOOS score was noticed (P < 0.05). However, there was no similar improvement in pain and sports components of the KOOS score (P > 0.05). There was no difference in the outcomes of different graft types.

CONCLUSION

Good outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction surgery are achievable. The use of different graft types did not affect the outcome of the procedure. Most of the patients opted to less aggressive sports participation after the revision procedure.