The Incidence of Subsequent Meniscal Surgery Is Higher in the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knee Than in the Contralateral Knee

More anterior placement of femoral tunnel position in ACL-R is associated with postoperative meniscus tears

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between tunnel position in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and postoperative meniscus tears.

METHODS

This was a single institution, case-control study of 170 patients status-post ACL-R (2010-2019) separated into two matched groups (sex, age, BMI, graft type). Group 1-symptomatic, operative meniscus tears (both de novo and recurrent) after ACL-R. Group 2-no postoperative meniscus tears. Femoral and tibial tunnel positions were measured by 2 authors via lateral knee radiographs that were used to measure two ratios (a/t and b/h). Ratio a/t was defined as distance from the tunnel center to dorsal most subchondral contour of the lateral femoral condyle (a) divided by total sagittal diameter of the lateral condyle along Blumensaat's line (t). The ratio b/h was defined as distance between the tunnel and Blumensaat's line (b) divided by maximum intercondylar notch height (h). Wilcoxon sign-ranks paired test was used to compare measurements between groups (alpha set at p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Group 1 had average follow up of 45 months and Group 2 had average follow up of 22 months. There were no significant demographic differences between Groups 1 and 2. Group 1-a/t was 32.0% (± 10.2), which was significantly more anterior than group 2, 29.3% (± 7.3; p < 0.05). There was no difference in average femoral tunnel ratio b/h or tibial tunnel placement between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A relationship exists between more anterior/less anatomic femoral tunnel position and the presence of recurrent or de novo, operative meniscus tears after ACL-R. Surgeons performing ACL-R should strive for recreation of native anatomy via proper tunnel placement to maximize postoperative outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Association Between Anteromedial Portal Versus Tibial Tunnel Drilling and Meniscal Reoperation Risk Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) provides functional stability to an injured knee. While multiple techniques can be used to drill the femoral tunnel during ACLR, a single technique has yet to be proven as clinically superior. One marker of postoperative functional stability is subsequent meniscal tears; a lower risk of subsequent meniscal surgery could be expected with improved knee stability.

PURPOSE

To determine if there is a meniscal protective effect when using an anteromedial portal (AMP) femoral tunnel drilling technique versus transtibial (TT) drilling.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Data from Kaiser Permanente's ACLR registry were used to identify patients who had a primary isolated ACLR between 2009 and 2018; those with previous surgery in the index knee and meniscal pathology at the time of ACLR were excluded. The exposure of interest was TT (n = 2711) versus AMP (n = 5172) drilling. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of a subsequent ipsilateral meniscal reoperation with adjustment for age, sex, femoral fixation, and graft choice. We observed a shift in surgeon practice from the TT to AMP over the study time frame; therefore, the relationship between technique and surgeon experience on meniscal reoperation was evaluated using an interaction term in the model.

RESULTS

At the 9-year follow-up, the crude cumulative meniscal reoperation probability for AMP procedures was 7.76%, while for TT it was 5.88%. After adjustment for covariates, we observed a higher risk for meniscal reoperation with AMP compared with TT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05-2.23). When stratifying by surgeon experience, this adverse association was observed for patients who had their procedure performed by surgeons with less AMP experience (no previous AMP ACLR: HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.84-1.91) while a protective association was observed for patients who had their procedure with more experienced surgeons (40 previous AMP ACLRs: HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Drilling the femoral tunnel via the AMP was associated with a higher risk of subsequent meniscal surgery compared with TT drilling. However, when AMP drilling was used by surgeons experienced with the technique, a meniscal protective effect was observed.

Vancomycin Soaking Is Highly Cost-Effective in Primary ACLR Infection Prevention: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

Although presoaking grafts in vancomycin has been demonstrated to be effective in observational studies for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) infection prevention, the economic benefit of the technique is uncertain.

PURPOSE

To 1) determine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin presoaking during primary ACLR to prevent postoperative joint infections and 2) to establish the break-even cost-effectiveness threshold of the technique and determine its cost-effectiveness across various international health care settings.

STUDY DESIGN

Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine cost-effectiveness and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of additional vancomycin presoaking compared with intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone. A repeated search of the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, using the same criteria as a recent meta-analysis, was completed. A repeated meta-analysis of 9 cohort studies (level 3 evidence) was completed to determine the odds ratio of infection with vancomycin presoaking compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. Estimated costs of the vancomycin technique, treatment of infection, and further surgery were sourced from local hospitals and literature. Transitional probabilities for further surgery, including revision reconstruction and primary arthroplasty, were obtained from the literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a 1-way sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the ACLR infection rate break-even threshold for which the vancomycin technique would be no longer cost-effective.

RESULTS

The vancomycin soaking technique provides expected cost savings of $660 (USA), A$581 (Australia), and €226 (Spain) per patient. There was an improvement in the quality-adjusted life-years of 0.007 compared with intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone (4.297 vs 4.290). If the infection rate is below 0.014% with intravenous antibiotics alone, the vancomycin wrap would no longer be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The vancomycin presoaking technique is a highly cost-effective method to prevent postoperative septic arthritis after primary ACLR.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Subsequent Meniscal Surgery After Successful Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

One of the goals of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a meniscal protective effect on the knee. Despite the advancement of ACL reconstruction techniques, subsequent meniscal tears after ACL reconstruction remain a problem, and the risk factors for recurring lesions are still unclear.

PURPOSE

To investigate the incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after primary ACL reconstruction without revision ACL surgery and to determine the risk factors associated with this reoperation.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Overall, 518 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2012 at one instution participated in this study. Data on body mass index, graft type and femoral tunnel-drilling technique of ACL reconstruction, and location and type of meniscal injury and its treatment at ACL reconstruction were collected from medical records. Clinical outcomes were investigated, including side-to-side difference of anterior laxity, pivot-shift grade, and subsequent meniscal surgery without ACL insufficiency (at minimum 2-year follow-up).

RESULTS

The prevalence of tears to the medial meniscus (MM) at the primary ACL reconstruction was 43.6% (226/518), 140 of which were repaired; on the contrary, tears of the lateral meniscus (LM) had a prevalence of 55.8% (289/518), 42 of which were repaired. At a mean 30.3 months (range, 8-124 months) after ACL reconstruction, 20 patients (3.9%; 14 MM tears, 3 LM tears, 3 MM + LM tears) required meniscal surgery without ACL reinjury or recurrence of instability. Of these, 14 MMs and 3 LMs had been repaired at primary ACL reconstruction. The failure rates of repaired MM and LM were 10.0% (14/140) and 7.1% (3/42), respectively. The failure rate of MM repair using the all-inside technique (6/36) was significantly higher compared with no treatment, inside-out repair, or partial resection (P = .045). In multiple regression analysis, the presence of MM injury at the time of ACL reconstruction (odds ratio [OR], 7.81; P = .003), the side-to-side difference of postoperative anterior tibial translation (OR, 1.91; P = .032), and follow-up period after ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.02; P = .003) were risk factors of subsequent meniscal surgery after ACL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of subsequent meniscal surgery after successful ACL reconstruction was <5%. Presence of MM tear at the time of ACL reconsturuction, small amount of increased anterior laxity, and long-term period after ACL reconstruction were predictive of subsequent meniscal surgery.

Does Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Protect the Meniscus and Its Repair? A Systematic Review

Background:

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and meniscal injury often co-occur. The protective effect of early ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on meniscal injury and its repair is not clear. Critical literature review can support or change clinical strategies and identify gaps in the available evidence.

Purpose:

To assess the protective effect of ACLR on the meniscus and provide clinical guidelines for managing ACL tears and subsequent meniscal injury. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Does ACLR protect the meniscus from subsequent injury? (2) Does early ACLR reduce secondary meniscal injury compared with delayed ACLR? (3) Does ACLR protect the repaired meniscus?

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed through use of MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Search terms included ACL, reconstruction, and meniscus. Studies describing primary ACLR and nonoperative treatment in adult patients were included, as well as studies indicating timing of ACLR. The included articles were assessed individually for risk of bias through use of the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias and MINORS (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) tools.

Results:

One level 2 randomized controlled trial and several level 3 and 4 studies indicated a protective effect of ACLR on meniscal injury compared with nonoperative treatment. There was weak (level 3) evidence of the protective effect of early ACLR on the meniscus. Meniscal repair failure was less frequent in patients with ACL reconstruction than in patients with ACL deficiency (level 4).

Conclusion:

The evidence collected in this review suggests a protective effect of ACLR for subsequent meniscal injury (level 2 evidence). ACLR should be performed within 3 months of injury (level 3 evidence). Meniscal injury requiring surgical repair in the ACL-deficient knee should be treated with repair accompanied by ACLR (level 3 evidence). The paucity of level 2 studies prevents the formation of guidelines based on level 1 evidence. There is a strong clinical need for randomized or prospective trials to provide guidelines on timing of ACLR and meniscal repair.

Patients With Abnormal Limb Kinetics at 6 Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Have an Increased Risk of Persistent Medial Meniscal Abnormality at 3 Years

Background:

Several reports have shown that altered biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are associated with the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. However, it is not fully understood whether altered biomechanics are associated with meniscal changes after ACLR.

Purpose:

To investigate changes in gait and landing biomechanics over a 3-year period and their correlation with meniscal matrix alterations present before and after ACLR through use of magnetic resonance T1ρ/T2 mapping, which can allow detection of early meniscal degeneration.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A total of 36 patients with ACLR and 14 healthy controls were included in this study. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging and biomechanical analysis during gait of the injured knee and contralateral knee preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after ACLR, as well as biomechanical analysis during drop-landing from 6 months to 3 years postoperatively. To evaluate biochemical changes of the mensical matrix, T1ρ/T2 relaxation times of the meniscus were calculated.

Results:

Mean T1ρ/T2 values of ACLR knees were significantly higher than values in the contralateral and control knees in the posterior lateral and medial horns up to 1 year after surgery; however, the differences were not seen at 3 years after surgery. The ACLR knee exhibited significantly lower peak knee flexion moment and angle during gait at 6 months compared with baseline and continued to decrease until 3 years. The ACLR knee exhibited significantly lower peak vertical ground-reaction force and peak knee flexion moment and angle during landing at 6 months. However, the differences were no longer present at 3 years. Biomechanics at 6 months had significant correlations with changes of mean T1ρ/T2 values in the medial posterior horn from 6 months to 3 years after ACLR.

Conclusion:

Although mean T1ρ/T2 values of meniscus seen before ACLR improved after 3 years, approximately 30% of patients with ACLR did not show decreases from 6 months to 3 years. Patients with abnormal lower limb kinetics of the ACLR knee at 6 months showed less recovery in the medial posterior horn from 6 months to 3 years, suggesting that biomechanical parameters during the early stage of recovery might be potential biomarkers for predicting persistent medial meniscal abnormality after ACLR.

Evidence too weak to guide surgical treatment decisions for anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review of the risk of new meniscal tears after anterior cruciate ligament injury

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk of new meniscal tears after treatment for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, in children and adults with and without ACL reconstruction.

DESIGN

Prognosis systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42016036788).

METHODS

We searched Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and Google Scholar from inception to 3rd May 2018. Eligible articles included patients with ACL injury (diagnosis confirmed by MRI and/or diagnostic arthroscopy), reported the number of meniscal tears at the time of ACL injury diagnosis/start of treatment and reported the number of new meniscal tears that subsequently occurred. Articles with fewer than 20 patients at follow-up, and articles limited to ACL revision surgery or multi-ligament knee injuries were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened articles, assessed eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We judged the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology.

RESULTS

Of 75 studies included in the systematic review, 54 studies with 9624 patients and 501 new meniscal tears were appropriate for quantitative analysis. Heterogeneity precluded data pooling. The risk of new meniscal tears was 0%-21% when follow-up was <2 years, 0%-29% when follow-up was 2 to 5 years, 5%-52% when follow-up was 5 to 10 years and 4%-31% when follow-up was longer than 10 years. The proportion of studies with high risk of selection, misclassification and detection bias was 84%, 69% and 68%, respectively. Certainty of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

New meniscal tears occurred in 0%-52% of patients between 4 months and 20 years (mean 4.9±4.4 years) following treatment for ACL injury. The certainty of evidence was too low to guide surgical treatment decisions. This review cannot conclude that the incidence of new meniscal tears is lower if ACL injury is treated with surgery compared with treatment with rehabilitation only.

One sixth of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions may undergo reoperation due to complications or new injuries within 2 years

PURPOSE

To analyse the incidence, types and risk factors for reoperation within 2 years of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

Our clinic registry was used to identify primary ACLRs, performed from 2005 to 2015, and reoperations performed on the ipsilateral knee within 2 years at our institution. Reoperations were identified using procedural codes and analysis of medical records. A logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate risk factors for reoperation.

RESULTS

A total of 6030 primary ACLRs were included. A total of 1112 (18.4%) reoperations performed on 1018 (16.9%) primary ACLRs were identified. The most common reoperations were screw removal (n = 282, 4.7%), meniscus procedures (n = 238, 3.9%), cyclops removal/notchplasty (n = 222, 3.7%) and reoperations due to graft rupture (n = 146, 2.4%), including revision ACLR. Age < 30 years (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.37-1.80; P < 0.001), female gender (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.17-1.51; P < 0.001), medial meniscus repair (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.23-1.97; P < 0.001), lateral meniscus resection (OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.07-1.49; P = 0.005) and lateral meniscus repair (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.03-1.85; P = 0.02) at primary ACLR were found to be risk factors for reoperation.

CONCLUSION

One sixth of all primary ACLRs underwent reoperation due to complications or new injuries within 2 years. The most common reoperations were screw removal, meniscus procedures, cyclops removal/notchplasty and reoperations due to graft rupture, including revision ACLR. Younger age (< 30 years), female gender, medial meniscus repair and lateral meniscus resection or repair at primary ACLR were associated with an increased risk of reoperation. This study provides clinicians with important data to inform patients about the short-term reoperation rates, the most common reoperation procedures and risk factors for reoperation after primary ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Clinical Evaluation of Patients with a Delayed Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture

Background:

Isolated ACL lesions can occur in up to 44.5% of sports patients and its association with a meniscal injury can be 30-80%.

Objective:

The aim of our study was to evaluate and compare clinical function of the knee in patients with reconstruction of the ACL, with or without meniscal injury.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study during a four-year period of patients with ACL repaired injury. Inclusion criteria were indistinct gender, >18 years of age with a primary ACL repaired injury (with or without associated meniscal injury). The exclusion criterion were an associated knee injury (except meniscal injury), an associated fracture in the lower limb, previous knee surgery, reconstruction surgery, graft failure after 7 months, rheumatological or psychiatric disease. The Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form and a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were applied. The patients were divided into groups, ≤1 year and >1 year of follow-up after surgery, and in ACL injury alone or ACL plus meniscal injury.

Results:

A total of 126 ACL injuries were analyzed. No significant difference was observed between groups in demographic data. In the patients with meniscal injury, the medial meniscus was involved in 24 (50%) cases, and the lateral meniscus 22 (46%). No difference was observed between groups in the evaluation with the Lysholm-Tegner score, IKDC and VAS.

Conclusion:

Patients with isolated ACL lesions or ACL lesions plus meniscal injuries, treated with partial meniscectomy, presented a similar clinical and functional evolution even after four years of treatment.

Femoral Tunnel Drilling Method: Risk of Reoperation and Revision After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be created by the transtibial (TT) or tibial-independent (TI) methods. An anatomically located femoral tunnel can be more consistently achieved by TI methods, which include the anteromedial portal and lateral (outside-in, retrodrill) techniques. Nonanatomic graft placement in ACLR can result in postoperative instability and meniscal or chondral injury. An anatomically located graft is subjected to higher postoperative physiologic forces than one placed nonanatomically.

PURPOSE

To examine isolated primary ACLR and determine the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation based on femoral tunnel drilling method.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

The ACLR registry of an integrated US health care system was used to identify primary isolated unilateral ACLRs from 2009 to 2014. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate risk for aseptic revision for graft failure and aseptic reoperation for meniscal or chondral injury according to femoral tunnel drilling method: TI versus TT. Models included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, graft type, and femoral fixation type as covariates.

RESULTS

The cohort included 19,059 patients with primary ACLR. The mean age was 28.9 years (SD, 11.5), 6991 patients (36.8%) were younger than 22 years, 11,795 patients (61.9%) were male, 7648 patients (40.1%) had a BMI less than 25 kg/m², 8913 patients (46.8%) were white, and 7357 patients (38.6%) received an allograft. Median follow-up was 2.30 years (interquartile range, 1.08-3.77). TI techniques were used for 12,342 (64.8%) of the ACLRs, and the TT method was used for 6717 (35.2%). Use of TI techniques increased from 33.6% of all ACLRs in 2009 to 83.4% in 2014. After adjustment for covariates, the TI group had a higher risk for aseptic revision than the TT group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56), and this risk was 1.41 times higher in patients younger than 22 years specifically. The 5-year cumulative reoperation probability was lower in the TI group (4.50%; 95% CI, 3.78%-5.36%) compared with the TT group (5.06%; 95% CI, 4.31-5.94%). After adjustment for the covariates, no difference in risk for aseptic reoperation was observed (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85-1.39).

CONCLUSION

In the largest known study of its type examining femoral tunnel drilling method for primary ACLR, after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, race, graft type, and femoral fixation, TI techniques were found to carry higher risk of aseptic revision compared with the TT method, while no difference was observed in risk for aseptic reoperation.