Consistent Indications and Good Outcomes Despite High Variability in Techniques for Two-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Computer Patient-Specific 3D Modeling and Custom-Made Guides for Revision ACL Surgery

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a challenging surgery occurring in 3 to 24% of primary reconstructions. A meticulous planning to study the precise size and location of both femoral and tibial bone tunnels is mandatory. The aim of the study was to evaluate the intra- and interoperator differences in the decision-making process between experienced surgeons after they were asked to make preoperative planning for ACL revision reconstruction with the use of both the computed tomography (CT) scan and a three-dimensional (3D)-printed model of the knee. Data collected from 23 consecutive patients undergoing revision of ACLR for graft failure at a single institute between September 2018 and February 2020 were prospectively reviewed. The double-blinded collected data were presented to three board-certificate attending surgeons. Surgeons were asked to decide whether to perform one-stage or two-stage revision ACLR based on the evaluation of the CT scan images and the 3D-printed custom-made models at two different rounds, T0 and T1, respectively, 7 days apart one from the other. Interoperator consensus following technical mistake was 52% at T0 and 56% at T1 using the CT scans, meanwhile concordance was 95% at T0 and 94% at T1 using the 3D models. Concordance between surgeons following new knee injury was 66% at T0 and 70% at T1 using CT scans, while concordance was 96% both at T0 and T1 using 3D models. Intraoperative variability using 3D models was extremely low: concordance at T0 and T1 was 98%. McNemar test showed a statistical significance in the use of 3D model for preoperative planning (p < 0.005). 3D-printed model reliability resulted to be higher compared with CT as intraoperator surgery technique selection was not modified throughout time from T0 to T1 (p < 0.005). The use of 3D-printed models had the most impact when evaluating femoral and tibial tunnels, resulting to be a useful instrument during preoperative planning of revision ACLR between attending surgeons with medium-high workflow.

Over-the-Top Double-Bundle Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique With Hybrid Hamstring Tendon Autograft-Allograft and Associated Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) presents many technical challenges that are not commonly seen in primary ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this article is to describe an alternative technique consisting of over-the-top double-bundle ACL revision combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis using hybrid hamstring tendon autograft-allograft. This technique provides a valid treatment option in ACL revision surgery.

Single- or two-stage revision after failed ACL reconstruction: No differences in re-revision rates and clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

The surgeons' choice of a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLr) is based on the possibility of reuse of the tibia and femoral bone tunnels after primary ACLr. The purpose of this study was to compare failure rates and clinical outcomes following single-stage and two-stage ACL revisions in a cohort of patients from The Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry.

METHODS

Patients identified from 2005 to 2022 with ACL revision and met the following criteria: minimum 2-year follow-up, isolated ACL revision and registered single- or two-stage ACL revision. The primary outcome was ACL re-revision rate. Secondary outcomes were arthrometer sagittal knee laxity (side-to-side difference) and pivot shift (rotational stability difference) evaluated at 1-year follow up.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred seventy-four ACL revisions were included in the study (1331 = single-stage and 243 = two stage). Baseline characteristics showed no difference in relation to age, gender, knee laxity, pivot shift, meniscus injury, cartilage damage or injury mechanism between the two groups. Significant differences were found in relation to the type of graft. No statistical difference in 2-years revision rates between single-stage group 2.79 (95% CI 2.03-3.84) and two-stage group 2.93 (95% CI 1.41-6.05) was found. No significant difference was seen in knee laxity and pivot shift between stage-groups at 1-year follow up. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in knee stability from baseline to 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The present study found that ACL revision outcomes were similar in terms of rerevision rates and knee laxity for patients managed with a single- or a two-stage surgical strategy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Satisfactory outcomes after one-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using rectangular tunnel technique

PURPOSE

One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with the anatomic rectangular tunnel (RT) technique using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) grafts results in anatomically precise tunnel placement and secure graft fixation. This study evaluated knee joint laxity and clinical outcomes in terms of femoral tunnel overlap. It was hypothesised that there would be no significant differences in knee joint laxity or clinical outcomes regardless of femoral tunnel overlap.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2021, a single surgeon conducted 196 one-stage revision ACLRs with the RT technique using BTB grafts. Patients were divided based on the presence of femoral tunnel overlap. Knee joint laxity was evaluated using the Lachman test, pivot shift test, and side-to-side difference measured with a KT-1000 arthrometer. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Lysholm score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Knee Examination Form 2000. Knee joint laxity and clinical outcomes were compared between groups after a median follow-up of 2.5 years (range 2.0-8.0).

RESULTS

The study included 30 and 73 patients in the overlap and non-overlap groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the results of the Lachman test, pivot shift test, or KT-1000 arthrometer as well as in the Lysholm, KOOS, or IKDC scores between the two groups. Based on the IKDC scores, all patients were graded as normal or nearly normal.

CONCLUSION

One-stage revision ACLR with the RT technique using BTB grafts improved knee joint laxity and had favourable clinical outcomes regardless of femoral tunnel overlap. To achieve optimal results in one-stage revision ACLR, it is crucial to create a tunnel within the anatomical attachment area and ensure proper graft fixation and tensioning.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Editorial Commentary: It is Never Wrong to Perform Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Reconstruction as a Two-Stage Procedure

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed in a single surgery, but in some instances, it requires 2 stages to get it right. The most common reasons for staged reconstruction include dilated bone tunnels on the tibial or femoral side (>13 mm), imperfectly placed bone tunnels that cannot be reused but cannot be avoided, and/or the need to combine the revision ACL reconstruction with meniscus and/or cartilage allograft transplantation. In my practice, we use prefabricated bone dowels, sizing up 0.5 to 1 mm relative to the size of the tunnel (after debridement) for both the femoral side and tibial side. The benefits are efficiency and reproducibility, while the challenges include cost and the potential need for multiple dowels if the prefabricated dowels are not long enough. We will occasionally add demineralized bone matrix, particularly on the tibial side, in the event that there is <5 mm of unfilled tunnel using the bone dowel. We wait ∼3 months before proceeding to the second stage using only plain radiographs to assess healing (advanced imaging such as computed tomography scan is not routinely used). We have also begun to push the limits of single-stage revision reconstruction, using dowels in a single setting. No matter what, it is never wrong to perform ACL revision reconstruction as a 2-stage procedure. When performed for the appropriate indications, outcomes tend to be good, regardless of the chosen technique.