Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a midterm patient assessment

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament, Lateral Collateral Ligament Reconstruction, and Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation for Complex Knee Instability

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries rarely occur as an isolated event and often include associated meniscal, subchondral bone, and collateral ligament injuries. Concomitant pathology frequently complicates primary and revision ACL reconstruction and must be addressed to ensure comprehensive diagnosis and treatment. In this Technical Note, we describe our method for treatment of complex knee instability following multiple failed ACL reconstruction using a multiligament reconstruction technique with an osteochondral allograft transplantation to the lateral femoral condyle. This comprehensive repair technique restores the anatomic load bearing forces of the cruciate and collateral ligaments and promotes biological repair through incorporation of cartilage resurfacing to ultimately achieve optimal kinematics of the knee joint.

Failure rate analysis and clinical outcomes of two different femoral tunnel positions using anteromedial portal technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

AIM

To analyze two different femoral tunnel positions and to evaluate their correlation with clinical, functional outcomes and surgical revision rate in patients who underwent primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with anteromedial (AM) portal technique.

METHODS

From January 2015 to October 2018, we recruited 244 patients that underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction, using four strand-semitendinosus graft and AM portal technique for femoral tunnel placement. Patients were divided into two groups based on the different femoral tunnel positions: 117 patients of group A had ACL footprint center femoral tunnel position compared with 127 patients of group B, with femoral tunnel placement close to the AM bundle footprint. Preoperatively and at last follow up, all patients were assessed subjectively by Lysholm, Tegner, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, while Lachman, Pivot-shift, and KT-1000 tests were performed to evaluate knee joint stability.

RESULTS

Group B patients showed significantly better results in Lysholm, objective, and subjective IKDC scores compared with patients of group A (P < 0.001). A significantly higher surgical failure rate was found in group A than in group B (10.26% vs. 2.3%; P < 0.001). A higher anterior knee laxity was recorded in patients of group A than in patients of group B (1.9 ± 1.1 vs. 1.3 ± 1 mm; P < 0.001); a reduction in mean anterior tibial translation from preoperative to final follow up was found in group B compared with group A (3.5 ± 1.2 vs. 2.7 ± 1.1 mm; P < 0.001). No significant differences in the Tegner scale were found between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

ACL reconstruction performed using the AM portal technique showed better and more satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes associated with a lower failure rate when the femoral tunnel had been placed more eccentrically in the footprint, in the AM bundle center position.

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.

Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft

INTRODUCTION

Results of iterative ACL reconstructions are lower than after primary reconstructions. Our aim was to report the results of a retrospective series of revision using pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft. The hypothesis was that the results were satisfactory and comparable to the literature.

METHODS

The study period was from January 2012 to December 2014. Fourteen patients (average age 26) were included. A fascia lata graft was used 12 times for primary reconstruction. Trauma was the cause of failure 12 times. The time interval between primary reconstruction and revision was 6.2 years. Preoperative scores used were LYSHOLM, TEGNER and IKDC. Sagittal stability was measured using the KT-1000 device. X-rays and MRI were performed to confirm the diagnosis, look for preoperative osteoarthritis and evaluate the position of the bony tunnels (Bernard and Hertel). Bone tunnels were in a proper position 14 times.

RESULTS

At 45-month follow-up, improvement of objective IKDC score was significant (85.7% A/B, p < 0.0002) as well as subjective IKDC score (85.5, p < 0.0004). A significant improvement was established for the LYSHOLM score (91.8, p = 0.001) using the Wilcoxon test. The average LYSHOLM score was 92% (p > 0.5), and the average TEGNER score was 5.5 (p = 0.003). The Lachman test found a hard stop in all patients. The pivot shift test was negative for 78.5% of the cases. The laxity measurement found 12 cases with less than 3 mm. One persistent distal hypoesthesia at 2-year follow-up was observed.

CONCLUSION

The hypothesis was confirmed. This series differs by the cause of failure, which was essentially traumatic, and the initial predominance of a fascia lata graft. These results remain to be confirmed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, level IV.

Outcomes after bone grafting in patients with and without ACL revision surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Current literature is lacking of data regarding functional outcomes in patients following bone tunnel grafting with or without revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome in patients with (RACL) or without revision ACL reconstruction (OBG) following bone grafting.

METHODS

Fifty-nine patients (18 female, 41 male) who underwent bone grafting due to recurrent, symptomatic ACL deficiency following ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. In 44 patients (mean age: 30,5 ± 8,5 years) a staged revision ACL reconstruction (RACL) was performed after bone grafting. 10 patients (mean age: 33.2 ± 10.3 years) refused to have ACL revision surgery after bone grafting (OBG). Outcome measures included instrumented laxity testing, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale.

RESULTS

After mean period of 33,9 ± 17.0 months, 54 patients were available for follow up examination. In the RACL group, the Lysholm score was 77,2 ± 15,5 (range 35-100), the mean IKDC subjective knee score was 69,0 ± 13,4 (range 39,1-97,7) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,1 ± 1,5 (range, 1-9). Similarly, in the OBG group the mean Lysholm score was 72,90 ± 18,7 (range 50-100), the mean IKDC subjective score was 69,3 ± 20,0 (range 44,1-100) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,6 ± 1,2 (range, 3-6). No significant difference was observed between the two groups. Knee laxity measurements were elevated without revision ACL surgery, however the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Bone tunnel grafting with or without second stage ACL revision surgery showed no significant difference in functional outcome score. Thus, in case of revision ACL instability careful patient selection is necessary and expectations should be discussed openly with the patients.

Return to sports and functional results after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by fascia lata autograft

INTRODUCTION

The surgical revision rate following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery is 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. Revision ACL surgery raises the question of the type of graft to be used. The present study assessed return to sports and functional results after revision ACL reconstruction by fascia lata graft. The hypothesis was that fascia lata provides a reliable graft in revision ACL surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective continuous study included 30 sports players with a mean age of 26.8±8 years undergoing surgical revision for iterative ACL tear between 2004 and 2013. Multi-ligament lesions were excluded. Type and level of sports activity were assessed preoperatively, after primary surgery and at end of follow-up. Clinical assessment used subjective IKDC, Lysholm and KOOS scores.

RESULTS

At a mean 4.6±1.6 years' follow-up, all patients had resumed sport activity, but only 12 with the same sport at the same level. Median subjective IKDC score increased from 57 [54.3; 58.5] preoperatively to 82 [68.3; 90] at last follow-up, and Lysholm score from 46 [42.3; 51] to 90.5 [80.8; 96.8]; KOOS score at last follow-up was 94.7 [83; 100].

CONCLUSION

Functional results in revision ACL reconstruction by fascia lata graft were satisfactory, with similar return-to-sports rates as with other techniques. Fascia lata provides a reliable graft in revision ACL surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Healing of tibial bone tunnels after bone grafting for staged revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: A prospective computed tomography analysis

AIM

To quantify healing of tibial bone tunnels after bone grafting in two-stage ACL reconstruction revision.

METHODS

Ten consecutive patients underwent autogenous bone grafting prior to ACL reconstruction revision (four females and six males, average age 28years). The indications for two-stage surgery were as follows: (1) the enlargement of the tibial tunnel aperture was >20mm in diameter or, (2) the existing tunnel was overlapped with the optimal tunnel and positioned more than a half tunnel diameter posterior to the optimal position. An autogenous iliac bone block was driven into a new tunnel. CT examinations were performed at three, 12 and 24weeks after bone grafting. Evaluations were performed on 15 axial planes at one-millimeter intervals from the articular surface perpendicular to the long axis of the tibia using the following three parameters: occupying ratio (OR), union ratio (UR), and bone mineral density (BMD) of grafted bone.

RESULTS

The average ORs were 81, 85 and 94%, and the average URs were 49, 75 and 89% at three, 12 and 24weeks, respectively. Each parameter significantly increased over time. The average BMD was 510 and 571mg/cm(3) at 12 and 24weeks, respectively, with a significantly higher value at 24weeks.

CONCLUSION

The average ORs, URs and BMD at 24weeks after bone grafting were higher than those at 12weeks, which suggests that at 24weeks after bone grating, the condition of the patients' beds becomes favorable for safe implantation and fixation of ACL graft revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series Level IV.

Case series: Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using patellar tendon autografts

BACKGROUND

Using intra-operative findings and clinical results, including return to play (RTP) at the pre-injury level, this study investigated the causes of primary graft failure after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts.

METHODS

A total of 54 patients were followed for a mean of 38.2 ± 10.2 months post-surgery. Subjective and objective results were evaluated using single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) scores, Lachman tests, KT-2000 arthrometer results, and pivot-shift tests. The change in each patient's Tegner activity scale and RTP at the pre-injury level were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels was the most important reason (54%) for primary graft failure. After revision surgery, anterior knee stability was significantly improved (1.2 (mean) ± 1.2 (SD)mm vs 4.5(mean) ± 1.9 (SD)mm; P < 0.01). Two (4%) patients sustained revision graft ruptures while two (4%) sustained contralateral knee ACL tears. The rate of RTP at the pre-injury level was 67% (36 patients), and mean SANE scores at the time of RTP were higher than before surgery (74.8 ± 13.8 points vs 24.1 ± 16.4; P<0.001). The average time from primary graft failure to revision surgery was shorter (12.2 (mean) ± 4.0 (SD) vs 37.6 (mean) ± 8.8 (SD)months; P < 0.01) and the ratio of major cartilage injury was lower (39% vs 83%; P < 0.05) in the RTP group than that in the non-RTP group.

CONCLUSIONS

The time from primary graft failure to revision surgery and the extent of the cartilage injury are major factors in RTP after revision ACL reconstructions.

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.

Radiographic Anatomy of the Native Anterior Cruciate Ligament: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In an attempt to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of tunnel positioning, radiographs are being analyzed in an attempt to recreate the native anatomy of the ACL. Understanding the native ACL radiographic anatomy is an essential prerequisite to understand the relevance of postoperative tunnel position.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We performed a systematic review of the literature to delineate the radiographic location of the native ACL femoral and tibial footprints.

METHODS

A search was performed in March 2014 in PubMed, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and EMBASE to identify all studies that evaluated the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy on radiographs. Various measurement methods were used in each study, and averages were obtained of the data from studies with the same measurement methods.

RESULTS

Fifteen papers were identified (which included data on 177 femora and 207 tibiae in total). Evaluation of the femoral footprint using the quadrant method on lateral knee radiographs showed that the average percent distance location of the anteromedial (AM) bundle and posterolateral (PL) bundle was 22.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16.59-28.90) and 32.5% (95% CI 27.71-37.26) from the posterior condyle, respectively, and 23.2% (95% CI 19.52-26.94) and 50.0% (95% CI 46.16-53.76) from Blumensaat's line, respectively. Using the Amis and Jacob method, the tibial footprint on the lateral knee radiograph average percent distances was 35.1% (95% CI 34.46-35.72) for the center of the AM bundle and 47.3% (95% CI 41.69-52.95) for the center of the PL bundle of the ACL. The femoral and tibial ACL footprints on the anteroposterior (AP) views of the knee were not well delineated by these studies.

CONCLUSION

The information presented in this systematic review offers surgeons another important tool for accurate ACL footprint identification.

After revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, who returns to sport? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Return to sport and to pre-injury level represents an important outcome after both primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

PURPOSE

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to determine the return to sport rate after revision ACL reconstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Databases. All the studies that reported return to sport, return to pre-injury sport level and return to high level/competitive sport was considered for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled mean of post-operative knee laxity and pooled rate of positive pivot-shift and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) categories was calculated as well.

RESULTS

Overall, 472 abstracts were identified and screened for inclusion and only 16 studies reported the rate of return to any level of sport activity at the final follow-up of 4.7 years (range 1.0-13.2 years), showing a pooled rate of 85.3% (CI 79.7 to 90.2). The return to pre-injury sport level was achieved in 53.4% (CI 37.8 to 68.7) of cases. Normal or quasi-normal objective IKDC, less than 5 mm of side-to-side difference at arthrometric evaluations and grade I-II pivot-shift test were reported in 84%, 88% and 93% patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of almost 8 patients out of 10 returning to sport after revision ACL reconstruction and showing good stability, only half of the patients returned to the same pre-injury sport level.

Differences in mechanisms of failure, intraoperative findings, and surgical characteristics between single- and multiple-revision ACL reconstructions: a MARS cohort study

BACKGROUND

The factors that lead to patients failing multiple anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are not well understood.

HYPOTHESIS

Multiple-revision ACL reconstruction will have different characteristics than first-time revision in terms of previous and current graft selection, mode of failure, chondral/meniscal injuries, and surgical charactieristics.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter ACL revision database was utilized for the time period from March 2006 to June 2011. Patients were divided into those who underwent a single-revision ACL reconstruction and those who underwent multiple-revision ACL reconstructions. The primary outcome variable was Marx activity level. Primary data analyses between the groups included a comparison of graft type, perceived mechanism of failure, associated injury (meniscus, ligament, and cartilage), reconstruction type, and tunnel position. Data were compared by analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey test.

RESULTS

A total of 1200 patients (58% men; median age, 26 years) were enrolled, with 1049 (87%) patients having a primary revision and 151 (13%) patients having a second or subsequent revision. Marx activity levels were significantly higher (9.77) in the primary-revision group than in those patients with multiple revisions (6.74). The most common cause of reruptures was a traumatic, noncontact ACL graft injury in 55% of primary-revision patients; 25% of patients had a nontraumatic, gradual-onset recurrent injury, and 11% had a traumatic, contact injury. In the multiple-revision group, a nontraumatic, gradual-onset injury was the most common cause of recurrence (47%), followed by traumatic noncontact (35%) and nontraumatic sudden onset (11%) (P < .01 between groups). Chondral injuries in the medial compartment were significantly more common in the multiple-revision group than in the single-revision group, as were chondral injuries in the patellofemoral compartment.

CONCLUSION

Patients with multiple-revision ACL reconstructions had lower activity levels, were more likely to have chondral injuries in the medial and patellofemoral compartments, and had a high rate of a nontraumatic, recurrent injury of their graft.

Femoral tunnel malposition in ACL revision reconstruction

The Multicenter Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Revision Study (MARS) group was formed to study a large cohort of revision ACL reconstruction patients. The purpose of this subset analysis study of the MARS database is to describe specific details of femoral tunnel malposition and subsequent management strategies that surgeons chose in the revision setting. The design of this study is a case series. The multicenter MARS database is compiled from a questionnaire regarding 460 ACL reconstruction revision cases returned by 87 surgeons. This subset analysis described technical aspects and operative findings in specifically those cases in which femoral tunnel malposition was cited as the cause of primary ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 460 revisions included for study, 276 (60%) cases cited a specific "technical cause of failure." Femoral tunnel malposition was cited in 219 (47.6%) of 460 cases. Femoral tunnel malposition was cited as the only cause of failure in 117 cases (25.4%). Surgeons judged the femoral tunnel too vertical in 42 cases (35.9%), too anterior in 35 cases (29.9%), and too vertical and anterior in 31 cases (26.5%). Revision reconstruction involved the drilling of an entirely new femoral tunnel in 91 cases (82.1%). For primary reconstruction, autograft tissue was used in 82 cases (70.1%). For revision reconstruction, autograft tissue was used in 61 cases (52.1%) and allograft tissue in 56 cases (47.9%). Femoral tunnel malposition in primary ACL reconstruction was the most commonly cited reason for graft failure in this cohort. Graft selection is widely variable among surgeons.

Revision ACL reconstruction: influence of a lateral tenodesis

PURPOSE

The aims of this article were to report the objective results of revision ACL reconstruction and to assess the influence of an associated lateral extra-articular tenodesis on knee stability and IKDC score.

METHODS

This study focused on revision ACL reconstruction and was conducted over a 10-year period, from 1994 to 2003 with ten French orthopedic centers participating. The minimum follow-up required was 2 years. To be included, patients had to be evaluated at follow-up with the objective International Knee Documenting Committee (IKDC) scoring system. In 2006, 163 patients met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The objective IKDC knee score improved significantly after revision ACL reconstruction, with 72% IKDC A + B (26% A). When a lateral tenodesis was performed, 80% had a negative pivot shift, versus 63% without (P = 0.03), but there was no significant difference in the IKDC score.

CONCLUSION

This study shows a significant improvement in the IKDC score after revision ACL reconstruction. The association of a lateral extra-articular tenodesis with the intra-articular graft increases knee stability after revision ACL reconstruction; however, this additional procedure does not significantly alter the IKDC score at follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Over-the-top double-bundle revision ACL reconstruction

Revision ACL presents many technical issues that are not seen in the primary ACL reconstruction. A variety of surgical techniques for revising ACL reconstruction have been described in the literature to address these concerns. The purpose of this article is to present a novel technique consisting in a non-anatomic double-bundle ACL revision reconstruction, using a fresh-frozen Achilles tendon allograft with soft tissue fixation. This technique is a valid treatment option when faced with a complex scenario such as ACL revision surgery.

Anterior cruciate ligament allograft surgery: underreporting of graft source, graft processing, and donor age

BACKGROUND

There has been much controversy regarding the effects of sterilization techniques and graft history on the structural integrity of allograft ligaments used in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. The purpose of this review was to comprehensively examine anterior cruciate ligament allograft studies published in the last decade to evaluate the extent to which tissue source, tissue processing techniques, and donor age are reported.

METHODS

The authors reviewed 202 articles published from 1999 through November 2009, of which 68 retrospective, prospective, biomechanical, and histology studies evaluating 4689 allografts were included.

RESULTS

The majority of studies do not accurately report key elements of graft history including tissue bank, processing or sterilization technique, or donor age. Underreporting was particularly prominent in clinical studies as compared with basic science studies. Limited reporting of allograft processing, allograft source, and donor age raises serious questions regarding the generalizability of published studies of allograft tissue for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Conclusion/

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Orthopaedic surgeons who use allograft tissue must understand the tissue treatments being used (ie, preservation methods, chemical and sterilization processes) to best inform their patients regarding the risks, benefits, and long-term outcomes when such tissues are used. A complete understanding of the implanted tissue, as well as surgeon and recipient demographics, is necessary to ensure appropriate and predictable long-term outcomes.

Causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and influence of meniscectomies after revision

The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to analyze the causes for failure of ACL reconstruction and the influence of meniscectomies after revision. This study was conducted over a 12-year period, from 1994 to 2005 with ten French orthopaedic centers participating. Assessment included the objective International Knee Documenting Committee (IKDC) 2000 scoring system evaluation. Two hundred and ninety-three patients were available for statistics. Untreated laxity, femoral and tibial tunnel malposition, impingement, failure of fixation were assessed, new traumatism and infection were recorded. Meniscus surgery was evaluated before, during or after primary ACL reconstruction, and then during or after revision ACL surgery. The main cause for failure of ACL reconstruction was femoral tunnel malposition in 36% of the cases. Forty-four percent of the patients with an anterior femoral tunnel as a cause for failure of the primary surgery were IKDC A after revision versus 24% if the cause of failure was not the femoral tunnel (P = 0.05). A 70% meniscectomy rate was found in revision ACL reconstruction. Comparison between patients with a total meniscectomy (n = 56) and patients with preserved menisci (n = 65) revealed a better functional result and knee stability in the non-meniscectomized group (P = 0.04). This study shows that the anterior femoral tunnel malposition is the main cause for failure in ACL reconstruction. This reason for failure should be considered as a predictive factor of good result of revision ACL reconstruction. Total meniscectomy jeopardizes functional result and knee stability at follow-up.

Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has worse outcomes than primary reconstructions. Predictors for these worse outcomes are not known. The Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Group was developed to perform a multisurgeon, multicenter prospective longitudinal study to obtain sufficient subjects to allow multivariable analysis to determine predictors of clinical outcome.

PURPOSE

To describe the formation of MARS and provide descriptive analysis of patient demographics and clinical features for the initial 460 enrolled patients to date in this prospective cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

After training and institutional review board approval, surgeons began enrolling patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction, recording patient demographics, previous ACL reconstruction methods, intra-articular injuries, and current revision techniques. Enrolled subjects completed a questionnaire consisting of validated patient-based outcome measures.

RESULTS

As of April 1, 2009, 87 surgeons have enrolled a total of 460 patients (57% men; median age, 26 years). For 89%, the reconstruction was the first revision. Mode of failure as deemed by the revising surgeon was traumatic (32%), technical (24%), biologic (7%), combination (37%), infection (<1%), and no response (<1%). Previous graft present at the time of injury was 70% autograft, 27% allograft, 2% combination, and 1% unknown. Sixty-two percent were more than 2 years removed from their last reconstruction. Graft choice for revision ACL reconstruction was 45% autograft, 54% allograft, and more than 1% both allograft and autograft. Meniscus and/or chondral damage was found in 90% of patients.

CONCLUSION

The MARS Group has been able to quickly accumulate the largest revision ACL reconstruction cohort reported to date. Traumatic reinjury is deemed by surgeons to be the most common single mode of failure, but a combination of factors represents the most common mode of failure. Allograft graft choice is more common in the revision setting than autograft. Concomitant knee injury is extremely common in this population.

Cost analysis of converting from single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Recent studies comparing double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction to single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have reported some biomechanical advantages but little or no short-term clinical benefit from the double-bundle technique. In the current healthcare environment, the potential economic implications of widespread conversion to a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are an important consideration.

PURPOSE

To determine the economic implications of widespread use of the double-bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Economic analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A cost model to assess the effect of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was constructed using standard accounting methodology. The model was based on actual 2008 cost figures (in US dollars) for ligamentous allografts, fixation implants, and operating room time. Revision rate (4%) and time to revision surgery (mean, 4 years) for single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was based on the available literature. Assumptions about the prevalence of double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the number of grafts used, and the revision rate for double-bundle reconstruction were varied to assess their effect on cost.

RESULTS

The potential additional cost for widespread conversion to the double-bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction ranges from $36 million to $792 million per year in the United States alone. To offset this increased cost, the double-bundle technique would have to reduce the revision rate at a minimum from 4% to 1.5% and potentially from 24.1% to 0%.

CONCLUSION

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has the potential of adding considerable cost to the health-care system.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

While further research is warranted to determine if there are other benefits from this technique, widespread adoption of a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not appear to be cost-effective at this time.

Comparison of revision surgery with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and outcome of revision surgery between different graft materials

BACKGROUND

The number of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions is increasing rapidly; the number of failing grafts and need for revision surgery have also risen.

HYPOTHESIS

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction will produce similar results to those of primary reconstruction, and there may be different results according to graft materials.

STUDY DESIGN

Case control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Fifty-nine revision surgeries were performed at 1 institution between January 1997 and October 2005. Fifty-five patients (56 operations) were followed. The results of 117 patients (117 knees) treated with arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autograft from September 2001 to November 2002 were also evaluated. Clinical and stability results between primary and revision anterior cruciate reconstruction were compared. For the revision surgery, 21 (37.5%) knees had revision reconstruction with previously unharvested ipsilateral double-looped semitendinosus and gracilis autograft. Twenty (35.7%) were bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft, and 15 (26.8%) were Achilles allograft. The details of the technique varied according to the original graft choice and the abnormality encountered. Concomitant procedures were necessary in 32 (57.1%) of 56 knees. Clinical and stability results according to the different graft materials were also compared.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in the scores for subjective, objective forms (P < .001), and stability (P < .001). However, the clinical results of revision surgery were inferior to primary reconstruction (P < .001), but as regards stability, the difference between primary and revision cases was not significant (P = .338). There was no difference in clinical and stability results in different groups of graft material (P = .160-.690).

CONCLUSION

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could improve clinical and stability results, but the clinical results were inferior to those of primary reconstruction. This study also demonstrated that the success of the operation did not depend on the choice of graft materials.

Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results in 107 patients

BACKGROUND

Although techniques and options for suitable graft substitutes for anterior cruciate ligament surgery continue to improve, failures occur because of many reasons. Errors in surgical techniques seem to be important reasons.

HYPOTHESIS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels may be the most important reason for these failures. Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction, using autografts, may yield acceptable outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 148 anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstructions performed in our hospital using autografts. One hundred and seven patients were followed up at a mean of 72.9 +/- 20.6 months. Clinical evaluation was performed using the Lysholm score, the Tegner rating system, the International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation form, and the KT-1000 arthrometer. Radiographs were evaluated for signs of osteoarthritis according to the Jaeger and Wirth classification.

RESULTS

Inappropriate positioning of the tunnels was the most important reason (63.5%) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. The average Lysholm score improved significantly at the follow-up (88.5 +/- 12.4 vs 51.5 +/- 24.9; P < .001). Moreover, the average Tegner activity score improved significantly compared with the activity score before revision surgery (6.3 +/- 1.8 vs 2.8 +/- 1.8; P < .001). The International Knee Documentation Committee score was A in 17 cases, B in 45, C in 37, and D in 8. Radiographic evaluation revealed that 33 patients had degenerative findings of grade I, 35 of grade II, 16 of grade III, and 2 of grade IV.

CONCLUSION

Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction provides satisfactory midterm results as far as stability and function of the knee are concerned. In spite of these favorable subjective and objective results, the radiological evaluation revealed a significant progression of osteoarthritis.

Primary versus single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective matched-group analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a low level of evidence about clinical results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts.

HYPOTHESIS

Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction improves knee stability but shows inferior results for functional and subjective outcome and knee stability compared with primary reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Between October 1997 and July 2005, 166 single-stage or 2-stage revision ACL reconstructions were done using different graft types. One hundred twenty-four cases underwent a single-stage revision reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendon grafts. At the time of data analysis, 67 cases fulfilled the criteria of minimum 2-year follow-up. Five patients were lost to follow-up (follow-up rate, 91%). Four patients (6%) who experienced graft rupture were counted as failures but not subjected to further detailed analysis. Because of loss to follow-up and exclusion criteria (n = 12), 50 patients were included in the study. For a comparative matched-group analysis, patients with a primary hamstring tendon graft ACL reconstruction were selected out of a database with minimum 2 years' follow-up (N = 284). Patients were followed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, KT-1000 arthrometer testing, and additional functional tests.

RESULTS

Four of 62 available patients (6.5%) in the revision group experienced graft failure, which was comparable to 16 of 284 (5.6%) in the primary reconstruction group. When the 2 matched groups of 50 patients were further compared, postoperative IKDC results showed no significant differences between groups. The manual maximum KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was 2.1 +/- 1.6 mm for the revision group and 2.2 +/- 1.1 mm for the primary reconstruction group. The Lysholm score was significantly better in the primary reconstruction group (P = .014). The incidence of postoperative positive pivot-shift test results was not significantly different. The primary reconstruction group showed significantly less extension deficits. Functional testing revealed significantly better results for the primary reconstruction group for stair climbing, squatting, knee bending, and duck walk.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient series, primary ACL reconstruction showed significantly better results in Lysholm score, although the IKDC score and objective knee stability showed no significant difference between the groups. Thus, parameters other than measurable knee stability must be responsible for the inferior results of the revision reconstruction group.

[Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee]

BACKGROUND/AIM

Numerous papers on reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee (ACL) contribute to the significance of this method. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of the use of this surgical treatment method regardless the type of surgical intervention, graft, and the choice of the material for fixing.

METHODS

The study included 324 patients treated within the period from April 1997 to April 2004. Arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction was typically performed using the central one-third of the patellar ligament, as a graft, with bone blocks. Fixing was performed using screws (spongy or interferential, Mitek type). In the cases who required revision of the surgery, we used a graft m. semitendinosus and m. gracilise (STG) or a graft of the patellar ligament (B-Pt-B). Fixation in these cases was performed using absorptive wedges according to the Rigidfix technique or metallic implants.

RESULTS

The analysis included the results of the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee (B-Pt-B or STG graft) in 139 of the knees. Chronic injuries were revealed in 132 (94.9%) of the knees. According to the anamnesis and clinical findings, the feeling of instability prevailed in 132 (94.9%) of the knees, pain in 72 (51.7%), effluents in 24 (17.2%), and blockages in 13 (9.3%). Early and late postoperative complications were noticeable in 3.5% each. Hypotrophy of the upper knee musculature up to 2 cm was present in 53.9% of the operated knees, while minor contractions in 13.6% of them. The final result of the reconstruction graded begusing the Lysholm Scale was 85.2, simultaneous reconstructions of other ligaments 75.3, and revision surgery 68.0. First-grade degenerative postoperative changes according to the K/L Scale were found in 55.0% of the surgically treated knees, while the worst, four-grade one in 2.5%.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of these findings, we can conclude that this method is the method of choice in preventing further "worsening" of the chronically instable knee. The surgical technique of choice is arthroscopically assisted reconstruction using a B-Pt-B or STG graft.

Current concepts review: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Failed anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction presents a difficult clinical challenge. Successful revision ACL reconstruction depends on identifying the causes of failure and correcting technical or diagnostic errors. Failed ACL reconstruction may be either traumatic or atraumatic. Atraumatic failures may be attributable to technical errors, diagnostic errors, or failure of graft incorporation. Published outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction have been worse than for primary ACL reconstruction. The preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction are reviewed.

Arthroscopic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autogenous quadriceps tendon

Recently, the interest in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with double-bundle technique has increased so as to reproduce the original load distribution and kinematics of the knee. We developed an arthroscopic double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using autogenous quadriceps tendon with 2 split grafts and a patellar bone plug. The anteromedial bundle and posterolateral bundle of the ACL are replicated with each split graft of quadriceps tendon and fixed with biodegradable interference screws on the 2 femoral tunnels. The patellar bone plug of the quadriceps tendon is fixed with a biodegradable interference screw within the 1 tibial tunnel. We suggest that our technique using quadriceps tendon may be an alternative in arthroscopic double-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cause of recurrent pathologic instability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery and the effectiveness of revision reconstruction using a quadriceps tendon autograft using a 2-incision technique.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective follow-up study.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2001, 31 patients underwent ACL revision reconstruction because of recurrent pathologic instability during sports or daily activities. Twenty-eight patients were reviewed after a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 3.3 to 5.6 years). The mean age at revision surgery was 27 years (range, 18 to 41 years). The average time from primary procedure to revision surgery was 26 months (range, 9 to 45 months). A clinical, functional, and radiographic evaluation was performed. Also magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scanning was performed. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scales were used. A KT-1000 arthrometer measurement (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) by an experienced physician was made.

RESULTS

Of the failures, 79% had radiographic evidence of malposition of their tunnels. In only 6 cases (21%) was the radiologic anatomy of tunnel placement judged to be correct on both the femoral and tibial side. The MRI or CT showed, in 6 cases, a too-centrally placed femoral tunnel. After revision surgery, the position of tunnels was corrected. A significant improvement of Lachman and pivot-shift phenomenon was observed. In particular, 17 patients had a negative Lachman test, and 11 patients had a grade I Lachman with a firm end point. Preoperatively, the pivot-shift test was positive in all cases, and at last follow-up in 7 patients (25%) a grade 1+ was found. Postoperatively, KT-1000 testing showed a mean manual maximum translation of 8.6 mm (SD, 2.34) for the affected knee; 97% of patients had a maximum manual side-to-side translation <5 mm. At the final postoperative evaluation, 26 patients (93%) graded their knees as normal or nearly normal according to the IKDC score. The mean Lysholm score was 93.6 (SD, 8.77) and the mean Tegner activity score was 6.1 (SD, 1.37). No patient required further revision. Five patients (18%) complained of hypersensitive scars from the reconstructive surgery that made kneeling difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

There were satisfactory results after ACL revision surgery using quadriceps tendon and a 2-incision technique at a minimum 3 years' follow-up; 93% of patients returned to sports activities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series, no control group.