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

Indicaciones y planificación de la revisión en dos tiempos de la cirugía del ligamento cruzado anterior: revisión narrativa

El aumento en las cirugías de reconstrucción del ligamento cruzado anterior (RLCA) ha generado un incremento proporcional en las revisiones quirúrgicas. Estadísticas canadienses estiman aproximadamente 13 000 revisiones anuales, mientras que en EE. UU. se reporta una incidencia entre el 4.1 y el 13.3 % de todas las RLCA.El éxito de una cirugía de revisión depende de un enfoque sistemático que permita identificar la causa de la falla, como una re-rotura o inestabilidad persistente, y planificar el procedimiento definitivo. Si bien la mayoría de estas revisiones se realizan en un solo tiempo, entre el 8 y el 9 % requieren un abordaje en dos tiempos. Esta decisión depende de factores como la calidad ósea, el tamaño y la posición de los túneles, el método de fijación previo y la presencia de lesiones asociadas.La principal indicación para una revisión en dos tiempos es la osteólisis con túneles mayores a 14 mm o el riesgo de convergencia entre los túneles primarios y de revisión. En este artículo se presenta una revisión narrativa sobre las indicaciones y la planificación quirúrgica de las revisiones del LCA en dos tiempos.En conclusión, existe evidencia limitada, y en general de corto plazo, sobre los resultados de la reconstrucción del LCA en revisiones de dos etapas. A pesar de estas suelen realizarse en casos más complejos, los resultados reportados mostraron resultados clínicos comparables. Nivel de Evidencia: V

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Associated Procedures

Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common yet devastating complication due to inferior clinical outcomes associated with revision ACLR. Identifying the cause and associated risk factors for failure is the most important consideration during preoperative planning. Special attention to tunnel quality, concomitant injuries, and modifiable risk factors will help determine the optimal approach and staging for revision ACLR. Additional procedures including lateral extra-articular tenodesis and osteotomy may be considered for at-risk populations. The purpose of this review is to explore causes of ACLR failure, clinical indications and appropriate patient evaluation, and technical considerations when performing revision ACLR.

Clinical Outcomes of Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Fast-Setting Bone Graft Substitute

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be achieved in a single-stage or two-stage approach. Single-stage revisions have several advantages, including one less operation, decreased cost, and a quicker recovery for patients. Revision ACLR can be complicated by malpositioned or dilated bone tunnels, which makes a single-stage revision more challenging or sometimes necessitates a two-stage approach. The use of fast-setting bone graft substitutes (BGS) has been described in recent literature as a strategy to potentially help address this problem in the setting of single-stage revision ACLR. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone single-stage revision ACLR using fast-setting BGS to address prior malpositioned or dilated tunnels. A retrospective review was conducted of the first nine consecutive patients who had undergone single-stage revision ACLR using a fast-setting BGS by a single surgeon between May 2017 and February 2020 with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Patient-reported clinical outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, the Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, patient satisfaction questions, and the need for additional surgery were evaluated for this group between 26 and 49 months postoperative. Of the nine patients eligible for inclusion, eight patients (88.9%) were evaluated, and one was lost to follow-up. At an average follow-up of 37.9 months (range: 27.8-55.7), the mean postoperative IKDC score was 75.0 ± 11.3, and the mean postoperative Tegner Lysholm Knee Score was 83.0 ± 17.6. None of the patients required additional revision surgery or experienced construct failure at the time of follow-up. Seven of eight respondents (87.5%) had their preoperative expectations met with the surgery, and 100% of patients stated they would have the surgery again. Single-stage revision ACLR using fast-setting BGS showed overall positive clinical outcomes for this pilot group of patients at a minimum 2-year follow-up. In select revision scenarios, these materials may be a valuable option to allow the filling of defects without compromising fixation or clinical outcomes.

Influence of Preoperative Tunnel Widening On the Outcomes of a Single Stage-Only Approach to Every Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of 409 Consecutive Patients From the SANTI Study Group

BACKGROUND

Preoperative tunnel widening is a frequently reported indication for performing a 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) instead of a single-stage procedure. However, the strength of the available evidence to support a 2-stage strategy is low.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single stage-only approach to revision ACLR. It was hypothesized that this approach would be associated with significant improvements from baseline in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and knee stability and that there would be no significant differences in any postoperative outcomes between patients with and without preoperative tunnel widening.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of a large series of consecutive patients undergoing revision ACLR with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Preoperative tunnel widening was assessed using digital radiographs. All patients underwent single-stage surgery with an outside-in technique, regardless of the degree of tunnel widening. Clinical outcomes were compared according to whether tunnel widening was present (either tunnel ≥12 mm) or not (both tunnels <12 mm).

RESULTS

The study included 409 patients with a mean ± SD follow-up of 69.6 ± 29.0 months. After revision ACLR, there was a significant reduction in the side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference, from 7.7 ± 2.2 mm preoperatively to 1.2 ± 1.1 mm at 2 years (P < .001). The mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and all subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) exceeded the thresholds for the Patient Acceptable Symptom State defined for primary ACLR. An overall 358 patients had retrievable preoperative radiographs. According to the tunnel diameter measurements, 111 patients were allocated to group A (both tunnels <12 mm) and 247 patients to group B (either/both tunnels ≥12 mm). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference, graft rupture rates, non-graft rupture related reoperations, or contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury rates. There was also no significant difference between groups that exceeded minimal detectable change thresholds for any of the PROMs recorded (ACL-RSI [Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sports After Injury], Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, KOOS).

CONCLUSION

A single-stage approach to revision ACLR is associated with excellent clinical results when an outside-in drilling technique is utilized. The presence of preoperative tunnel widening does not significantly influence PROMs, knee stability, graft rupture rates, or non-graft rupture related reoperation rates.

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.