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

Gradual stabilization and narrowing of bone tunnels following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to dynamically assess variations in tunnel diameters following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and investigate correlations with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and graft maturity based on signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ).

METHODS

Tunnel diameter and tunnel position were measured using three-dimensional models derived from computed tomography (CT) data. Postoperative graft maturity and integration were evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Clinical outcomes were assessed through PROs, which included the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores and Lysholm scores. The correlation between tunnel enlargement extent, PROs and SNQ values, as well as correlations between confounding factors, tunnel diameter differences and SNQ were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 73 participants underwent primary ACLR and scheduled follow-ups. At the segment of the articular aperture, the femoral tunnel was enlarged by 32.3% to 10.4 ± 1.6 mm (p < 0.05), and the tibial tunnel was widened by 17.2% to 9.6 ± 1.2 mm (p < 0.05) at the 6-month follow-up. At 1 year postoperatively, diameters at the articular aperture were not further increased on the femoral (n.s.) and tibial (n.s.) sides. In early postoperative follow-up, the femoral tunnel was anteriorly and distally shifted, coupled with posterior and lateral deviation involving the tibial side, exhibiting minimal migration at 1-year follow-up. The degree of tunnel widening was not correlated with PROs and SNQ values. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), time from surgery to follow-up, concomitant injuries and autograft type were not correlated with tunnel diameter differences and SNQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The femoral and tibial bone tunnels exhibited eccentrical widening and gradually stabilized at 1 year following ACLR. Furthermore, the enlarged bone tunnels were not correlated with unsatisfied PROs and inferior graft maturity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Preoperative evaluation, planning and surgical techniques. A review of current concepts

The increased rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears has led to a greater number of revisions. Revision surgery can be performed in one or two stages. Single-stage revision ACL reconstruction (ssRACLR) may be performed when prior tunnels can be re-used or bypassed whereas a two-stage procedure is indicated when bone grafting of dilated tunnels prior to revision is necessary. While both approaches have shown similar functional outcomes and failure risk, ssRACLR is preferred, when possible, to avoid the increased morbidity, inconvenience and cost associated with two-stage RACLR. In adequately planning for RACLR, a surgeon should investigate the mechanism and timing of injury as well as the previous graft selection, associated pathology and the tunnel placement and size. It is especially important to obtain radiographs and three-dimensional imaging including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), which allow the surgeon to accurately evaluate the entire tunnel architecture to determine surgical staging. Following a detailed assessment of the pathoanatomy, the surgeon may determine graft and hardware type, tunnel placement and utilization of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and other procedures. In our experience, ssRACLR can be carried out for over 90% of revision cases with creative pre-operative planning using autograft with bone plug(s), divergent tunnel creation on the femur (when necessary) and convergent tunnel creation on the tibia (when appropriate) and suspensory or interference fixation as needed. In revision scenarios, we believe that autografts with bone plugs provide the best opportunity for graft healing and incorporation and that LET can be a useful adjunct to reduce re-tear rates. The purpose of this review is to report on the preoperative considerations and surgical techniques for performing ssRACLR, as well as the outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level V expert opinion.

Patients submitted to re-revision ACL reconstruction present more knee laxity, more complications, and a higher failure rate than patients submitted to the first revision ACL reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Few comparative studies have evaluated patients who underwent two revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and patients who underwent one revision ACLR, and many of them have a short postoperative follow-up and a relatively small number of patients. The objective of this study is to evaluate the functional results, complications, and failure rates of patients who underwent one revision ACLR and patients who underwent two revision ACLRs.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study comparing patients who underwent one revision ACLR (Group 1) with patients who underwent a re-revision ACLR (Group 2). Baseline demographic variables, operative data and post-operative data were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the 266 patients included, 226 were from Group 1 and 40 from Group 2. Patients in Group 2 had greater rotatory laxity and were more often subjected to associated osteotomy at the time of revision surgery. Postoperatively, patients from Group 2 reported poorer subjective IKDC score and showed greater knee laxity measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer, although both probably not clinically relevant. The complication rate was high in both groups, with a higher incidence in Group 2. Reconstruction failures were also higher in Group 2 (20% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients from Group 2 underwent a higher rate of associated osteotomy procedures, present higher complication rates and a higher failure rate compared with patients from Group 1. However, the functional scores (Lysholm and IKDC score) and the physical examination (KT-1000 and pivot-shift) did not show clinically relevant differences between the groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Inside-out tibial tunnel drilling technique is a reliable approach for all-inside ACL reconstruction: A longitudinal MRI assessment

Purpose

To longitudinally evaluate sockets localization, tunnel morphological changes and graft maturation after the inside-out tibial tunnel drilling technique for all-inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR). We hypothesized that due the necessary angle for the inside-out reaming procedure, the described technique could input changes in the tibial socket.

Methods

Fourteen knees treated with the same all-inside ACLR technique were randomly assigned for a magnetic resonance evaluation. All patients were operated by the same surgeon and performed the same follow-up rehabilitation protocol. Socket's localization, shape and widening, as well as graft maturation and integration, were evaluated intraoperatively at 6 months and 4 years after surgery.

Results

Both femoral and tibial tunnels had an expected increase at 6 months follow-up. The widening was larger in the tibial tunnel (12.6 ± 10.0% vs. 9.1 ± 8.5%), yet this difference was not statistically different. Tibial tunnel was well centred in the tibial plateau and the integration of the graft was higher in the tibial socket. Four years after surgery, there was a general reduction of diameter in both tunnels. The tunnel occlusion rate was 33.3% for tibia and 16.7% for femur.

Conclusions

Overall, our results show that within a 4-year follow-up period, the inside-out tibial tunnel drilling technique for all-inside ACLR represents a safe technique that did not influence the tibial socket position nor tunnel widening or graft maturation in the long term.

Level of Evidence

Level IV.

An Update on Emerging Techniques and Considerations in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

» The rate of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure in at-risk populations remains unacceptably high and necessitates thorough evaluation of native alignment and concomitant injuries.» Posterior tibial slope of >12° is a substantial risk factor of ACLR failure and should be corrected through anterior closing wedge osteotomy.» Varus malalignment of >5° exacerbates stress on the ACL graft, increases ACLR failure risks, and should be considered for correction through high tibial osteotomy at the time of revision ACLR.» Injuries to the anterolateral ligamentous complex are prevalent in ACL ruptures, and high-risk patients have shown benefit from anterolateral ligament reconstruction or lateral extra-articular tenodesis in the revision setting.» Addressing posterolateral corner, collateral ligament, and meniscal injuries, during revision ACLR, is vital to mitigate increased graft forces and optimize knee stability and functional outcomes.

Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Augmentation With Gracilis Tendon: The Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Plus Technique

The bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft or allograft is a well-established option for primary or revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, although the length and width of the graft are relatively consistent, its thickness is unpredictable and can impact the biomechanical properties of the ACL graft. This technical note describes a technique for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction called the "BPTB-plus" technique, which consists of a BPTB graft augmented by the gracilis tendon.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury Scale (ACL-RSI) Scores over Time After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psychological readiness is an important consideration for athletes and clinicians when making return to sport decisions following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). To improve our understanding of the extent of deficits in psychological readiness, a systematic review is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate psychological readiness (measured via the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI)) over time after ACL tear and understand if time between injury and surgery, age, and sex are associated with ACL-RSI scores.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched from the earliest date available to March 22, 2022. Articles reporting ACL-RSI scores after ACL tear were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I, RoB-2, and RoBANS tools based on the study design. Evidence certainty was assessed for each analysis. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled ACL-RSI scores, stratified by time post-injury and based on treatment approach (i.e., early ACLR, delayed ACLR, and unclear approach).

RESULTS

A total of 83 studies were included in this review (78% high risk of bias). Evidence certainty was 'weak' or 'limited' for all analyses. Overall, ACL-RSI scores were higher at 3 to 6 months post-ACLR (mean = 61.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 58.6, 64.4], I2 = 94%) compared to pre-ACLR (mean = 44.4 [95% CI 38.2, 50.7], I2 = 98%), remained relatively stable, until they reached the highest point 2 to 5 years after ACLR (mean = 70.7 [95% CI 63.0, 78.5], I2 = 98%). Meta-regression suggests shorter time from injury to surgery, male sex, and older age were associated with higher ACL-RSI scores only 3 to 6 months post-ACLR (heterogeneity explained R2 = 47.6%), and this reduced 1-2 years after ACLR (heterogeneity explained R2 = 27.0%).

CONCLUSION

Psychological readiness to return to sport appears to improve early after ACL injury, with little subsequent improvement until ≥ 2-years after ACLR. Longer time from injury to surgery, female sex and older age might be negatively related to ACL-RSI scores 12-24 months after ACLR. Due to the weak evidence quality rating and the considerable importance of psychological readiness for long-term outcomes after ACL injury, there is an urgent need for well-designed studies that maximize internal validity and identify additional prognostic factors for psychological readiness at times critical for return to sport decisions.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/2tezs/ .

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.

Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus: part II-surgical strategy

PURPOSE

The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion to improve the diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in Anterior Cruciate Ligament revision.

METHODS

Part 2, presented herein, followed exactly the same methodology as Part 1: the so-called ESSKA formal consensus derived from the Delphi method. Eighteen questions were ultimately asked. The quality of the answers received the following grades of recommendation: Grade A (high level scientific support), Grade B (scientific presumption), Grade C (low level scientific support) or Grade D (expert opinion). All answers were scored from 1 to 9 by the raters. Once a general consensus had been reached between the steering and rating groups, the question-answer sets were submitted to the peer-review group. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was then held to ratify the document.

RESULTS

The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the surgical strategy in cases of ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 18 questions, only 1 received a Grade A rating; 5, a Grade B rating; and 9, grades of C or D. The three remaining complex questions received further evaluations for each portion of the question and were looked at in more detail for the following grades: B and D; A, C and D; or A, B, C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.0 + - 1.1. The questions and recommendations are listed in the article.

CONCLUSION

ACL revision surgery, especially the surgical strategy, is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardization. Therefore, this international European consensus project is of great importance and clinical relevance for guiding the management of ACL revision in adults.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Management of Bone Loss and Tunnel Widening in Revision ACL Reconstruction

➤ Both mechanical and biological factors can contribute to bone loss and tunnel widening following primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.➤ Revision ACL surgery success is dependent on graft position, fixation, and biological incorporation.➤ Both 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACL reconstructions can be successful in correctly indicated patients.➤ Potential future solutions may involve the incorporation of biological agents to enhance revision ACL surgery, including the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate, platelet-rich plasma, and bone morphogenetic protein-2.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure from rupture, attenuation, or malposition may cause recurrent subjective instability and objective laxity, and occurs in 3% to 22% of ACL reconstruction (ACLr) procedures. Revision ACLr is often indicated to restore knee stability, improve knee function, and facilitate return to cutting and pivoting activities. Prior to reconstruction, a thorough clinical and diagnostic evaluation is required to identify factors that may have predisposed an individual to recurrent ACL injury, appreciate concurrent intra-articular pathology, and select the optimal graft for revision reconstruction. Single-stage revision can be successful, although a staged approach may be used when optimal tunnel placement is not possible due to the position and/or widening of previous tunnels. Revision ACLr often involves concomitant procedures such as meniscal/chondral treatment, lateral extra-articular augmentation, and/or osteotomy. Although revision ACLr reliably restores knee stability and function, clinical outcomes and reoperation rates are worse than for primary ACLr.

Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes of Revision and Primary ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis With 3-5 Years of Follow-up

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies designed by matching related factors to compare clinical outcomes and return to sport (RTS) between patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) and primary ACLR (P-ACLR).

PURPOSE

(1) To compare the outcomes between R-ACLR and P-ACLR in a matched-pair analysis with 3- to 5-year follow-up and (2) to evaluate patient-reported factors for not returning to preinjury-level sport.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent R-ACLR between September 2016 and November 2018 were propensity matched by age, sex, body mass index, passive anterior tibial subluxation, and generalized hypermobility in a 1:1 ratio to patients who underwent P-ACLR during the same period. By combining in person follow-up at 2 years postoperatively and telemedicine interview at the final follow-up (January 2022), knee stability and clinical scores were compared, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner. Status of RTS was requested, specifically whether the patient returned to preinjury level of sport. Patient-reported reasons for not returning were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 63 matched pairs in the present study. Knee stability was similar in terms of KT-2000 arthrometer, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test results between the groups at 2 years of follow-up. At the final follow-up, no significant difference was found between groups for postoperative clinical scores (IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm) (P > .05). There was a significant difference in total RTS: 53 (84.1%) in the P-ACLR cohort and 41 (65.1%) in the R-ACLR cohort (P = .014). No significant difference was shown in terms of RTS at the same level: 35 (55.6%) in P-ACLR and 31 (49.2%) in R-ACLR (P = .476). Significantly more patients showed fear of reinjury: 26 of 32 (81.3%) in the R-ACLR group as compared with 15 of 28 (53.5%) in the P-ACLR group (P < .021).

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR resulted in similar clinical scores (IKDC, Tegner, and Lysholm) but significantly lower RTS versus P-ACLR at 3 to 5 years of follow-up. Fear of reinjury was the most common factor that caused sport changes in patients with R-ACLR.

The Addition of Either an Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction or an Iliotibial Band Tenodesis Is Associated With a Lower Failure Rate After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparative Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the failure rate in patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction alone or associated with an extra-articular procedure. Secondary objectives were to compare ACL laxity, patient-reported outcome measures, and complication rates in these patients and, subsequently, to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction associated with anatomical anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).

METHODS

This was a retrospective comparative study. Patients were classified into 2 groups, according to whether (group 2) or not (group 1) an extra-articular reconstruction was performed. Patients who underwent an extra-articular procedure were further divided into ALL reconstruction (group 2A) and LET (group 2B). Baseline demographic variables, operative data and postoperative data were evaluated.

RESULTS

The groups with (86 patients) and without (88 patients) an associated extra-articular reconstruction had similar preoperative data. Group 2 had a lower failure rate (4.6% vs 14.7%; P = .038), better KT-1000, better pivot-shift, and better Lysholm. There was no difference regarding complications, except more lateral pain in group 2. Regarding the groups who underwent ALL reconstruction (41 patients) and LET (46 patients), group 2A showed better Lysholm scores. Both groups had similar failure rates and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a laterally based augmentation procedure had a lower failure rate than patients who underwent isolated revision ACL reconstruction. KT-1000 and pivot-shift examination were also significantly better when a lateral augmentation was performed. Complications were similar except for an increase in lateral pain in the augmented group. No clinically important differences were found when comparing the LET group to the ALL group other than a statistical improvement in the Lysholm functional scale, likely not clinically meaningful, favoring the ALL group and an increased duration of post-operative lateral pain in the LET group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: not the best but still good

PURPOSE

Given the paucity of literature on the re-revision of ACL, the current study was undertaken. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise and qualitatively assess the currently available evidence in the literature regarding the re-revision of ACL reconstruction (rrACLR).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The following search terms were used in the title, abstract and keywords fields: "ACL" or "anterior cruciate ligament" AND "revision" or "multiple" or "repeat". The outcome data extracted from the studies were the Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, Tegner, Marx Score, KOOS score, radiological changes and the rate of return to sports. Complications, failures and/or revision surgery were also analysed.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 295 patients [191 (64.7%) men and 104 (35.3%) women] with a mean age of 29.9 ± 2.8 years (range 14-58 years) from 10 studies. The mean postoperative follow-up (reported in all studies except one) was 66.9 ± 44.7 months (range 13-230.4 months). Associated injuries were 103 (34.9%) medial meniscus tears, 57 (19.3%) lateral meniscus tears, 14 (4.7%) combined medial plus lateral meniscus tears, 11 (3.7%) meniscal tears (not specified), 252 (85.4%) cartilage lesions, 6 (2.0%) medial collateral ligament injury and 2 (0.7%) lateral collateral ligament injuries. In 47 (15.9%) patients an extra-articular plasty was performed for the anterolateral ligament. In all studies that reported pre- and post-operative IKDC (subjective and objective) and Lysholm score, there was a significant improvement compared to the pre-operative value (p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, laxity measured with KT-1000 was found to be 2.2 ± 0.6 mm. 31 (10.5%) out of 295 patients returned to their pre-injury activity level. A total of 19 (6.4%) re-ruptures were found, while only 4 (1.4%) complications (all minors) were reported, out of which 2 (0.7%) were superficial infections, 1 (0.3%) cyclops lesion and 1 (0.3%) flexion loss.

CONCLUSION

Multiple revisions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction allow acceptable clinical results and a good degree of knee stability with a low rate of subsequent new re-ruptures but the possibility of regaining pre-injury sports activity is poor; whenever possible, it is preferred to revise the ligament in one stage. This surgery remains a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons and many doubts persist regarding the ideal grafts, additional extra-articular procedures and techniques to use.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42022352164 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).

Functional results of multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament with anterolateral tibial tunnel associated with anterolateral ligament reconstruction

Background

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are usually complex owing to previous tunnels. The objective of this study is to report the results of a revision ACL reconstruction technique with a tibial tunnel performed from the anterolateral plateau associated with an anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction.

Methods

Patients with at least two ACL reconstructions that failed and who had significant enlargement and confluence of tunnels in the medial tibial plateau and underwent revision ACL reconstruction associated with ALL reconstruction with the tibial tunnel for the ACL performed from the lateral plateau between 2017 and 2019 were evaluated. All patients were evaluated by physical examination, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Lysholm functional scales.

Results

Six patients who underwent this surgical procedure were evaluated. All patients were sports practitioners and presented a grade 3 pivot shift. The mean age was 28.5 ± 8.2 years, and the mean follow-up time was 34.1 ± 12.8 months. No patient had a new graft rupture, but three (50%) had grade 1 pivot shift. Four patients had minor complications with no clinical impact on the final result. All except one patient were able to return to pre-injury type of sports, at a mean time of 14.6 ± 2.3 months after surgery.

Conclusion

The anterolateral tibial tunnel technique using an Achilles tendon allograft for revision ACL reconstruction after multiple failures associated with an ALL reconstruction showed good results and no major complications. The anterolateral tunnel can be considered a good alternative in cases of medial tibial confluence or significant enlargement of the medial tunnels in re-revision procedures.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone-Patella Tendon-Bone Autograft With Press-Fit Femoral Fixation: The Original Chambat Technique

Patellar tendon grafts have long been considered the gold standard for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). This Technical Note describes ACLR using bone-patella tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft with press-fit femoral fixation using an outside-in drilling technique.

Bone Grafting Technique in Revision ACL Reconstruction: Coring Reamer and Dowel Trick

One- or two-staged bone grafting is sometimes required for tunnel malposition and/or tunnel widening in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim of this procedure is to restore the correct position of the ACL graft in the revision setting to provide a stable and functional ACL, thereby reproducing normal knee kinematics. We present a technique that allows for a cost-effective, convenient tunnel grafting of a femoral head allograft bone dowel into both femoral and tibial defects in revision ACL reconstruction.

Combined Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction

There has been a substantial increase in the number of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions performed in the past decade. This Technical Note describes combined revision ACL and anterolateral ligament reconstruction using outside-in drilling, which avoids the need for 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction because it allows unconstrained anatomic placement.

Prevalence and Incidence of Chondral and Meniscal Lesions in Patients Undergoing Primary and Subsequent Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of 213 Patients From the SANTI Group

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown a higher prevalence of meniscal and chondral lesions at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) compared with primary ACLR procedures. However, studies that follow the development of meniscal and chondral status through primary and subsequent R-ACLR are scarce.

PURPOSE

To compare the prevalence of meniscal and chondral injuries in patients undergoing primary ACLR and subsequent R-ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ACLR and subsequently needed R-ACLR between January 2009 and February 2018 in a single center were included. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 59.7 months. The mean age was 22 years at primary ACLR and 26.1 years at the time of revision. The proportion of meniscal tears was higher at the time of R-ACLR compared with the time of primary reconstruction (70.0% vs 44.6%, respectively; P < .001). Similarly, the prevalence of chondral lesions was significantly higher at the time of revision versus the primary reconstruction (15.5% vs 7.0%, respectively; P = .003).

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR is associated with a higher rate of concomitant meniscal and chondral lesions than primary ACLR.

Larger Prior Tibial Tunnel Size Is Associated with Increased Failure Risk following Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

We hypothesize that larger prior tunnel size is associated with an increased risk of failure of single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) as defined by the performance of a re-revision (third) ACLR on the index knee. Retrospective review identified 244 patients who underwent single-stage revision ACLR at a single center with available preoperative radiographs. Patient and surgical factors were extracted by chart review. The maximum diameter of the tibial tunnel was measured on lateral radiographs and the maximum diameter of the femoral tunnel was measured on anteroposterior radiographs. Record review and follow-up phone calls were used to identify failure of the revision surgery as defined by re-revision ACLR on the index knee. One hundred and seventy-one patients (70%) were reviewed with a mean of 3.9 years follow-up. Overall, 23 patients (13.4%) underwent re-revision surgery. Mean tibial tunnel size was 12.6 ± 2.8 mm (range: 5.7-26.9 mm) and mean femoral tunnel size was 11.7 ± 2.8 mm (range: 6.0-23.0 mm). Re-revision risk increased with tibial tunnel size. Tibial tunnels 11 mm and under had a re-revision risk of 4.2%, while tunnels > 11 mm had a risk of 17.1% (relative risk: 4.1, p = 0.025). No significant association between femoral tunnel size and re-revision risk was noted. Patients with prior tibial tunnels > 11mm in diameter at revision surgery had significantly increased risk of re-revision ACLR. Further studies are needed to explore the relationship between prior tunnel size and outcomes of revision ACLR.

One-Stage ACL Revision Using a Bone Allograft Plug for a Semianatomic Tibial Tunnel That Is Too Anterior

Revision of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed as a one-stage or two-stage surgery. Several factors must be taken into consideration when making this choice, especially the size and position of the existing tunnels. When the tibial tunnel is semianatomic, it is difficult to make a new tunnel in the correct position without overlapping the existing tunnel. For this reason, we have developed a one-stage ACL revision surgery that uses a bone allograft plug. When it comes to choosing a reconstruction technique, we believe that combined intra-articular and extra-articular reconstruction with the iliotibial band is suitable when the hamstring tendons are not available, combined with clinical findings of translational and rotational instability. Because the existing tunnels require reorientation, a new femoral tunnel can be created by outside-in drilling to eliminate the risk of overlap, while an allograft bone plug can be used to fill the overly anterior tibial tunnel and allow us to drill the correct tibial tunnel right away. In our hands, this is a safe and effective technique, but longer follow-up is needed to validate its indications.

Arthroscopic confirmation of femoral button deployment prevents soft tissue interposition in ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether direct arthroscopic control of femoral buttons can prevent improper deployment and soft tissue interposition in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the SANTI study group database was performed. All patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using suspensive femoral fixation between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2019 were included. Patient assessment included demographics, sports metrics, reoperations performed and femoral button-related specific complications such as iliotibial band (ITB) irritation and/or septic arthritis. Proper deployment of the button and soft tissue interposition were assessed on postoperative radiographs.

RESULTS

A total of 307 patients underwent ACL reconstruction using adjustable femoral button fixation and were analyzed after a mean follow-up of 35.2 ± 11.0 months (14.3-50.2). The mean age was 39.5 ± 10.9-years old (range 13.3-70.6). Postoperative radiographs showed a correctly deployed femoral button without soft tissue interposition for all patients. No septic arthritis was reported. Nine patients (2.9%) suffered from lateral pain related to ITB irritation due to the button. Five of them had their symptoms resolve during rehabilitation. Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid infiltration was necessary for four patients after an average delay of 14.5 ± 4.8 months (11.7-21.7). Three patients were then symptom-free, but one required surgical removal of the implant 27.5 months after the surgery. Regarding unrelated femoral button complications, 15 patients (4.9%) underwent secondary arthroscopic procedures, including meniscectomy (1.6%), surgery for cyclops syndrome (2.6%) and revision ACLR (0.7%).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic confirmation of femoral button deployment prevents soft tissue interposition without specific complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.