Patient Outcomes and Predictors of Success After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Are Elite Collegiate Female Athletes PRIME for a Safe Return to Sport after ACLR? An Investigation of Physical Readiness and Integrated Movement Efficiency (PRIME)

Background

Elite female athletes who successfully return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) represent a high-risk group for secondary injury. Little is known about how the functional profile of these athletes compares to their teammates who have not sustained ACL injuries.

Purpose

To compare elite collegiate female athletes who were able to successfully return to sport for at least one season following ACLR to their teammates with no history of ACLR with regard to self-reported knee function, kinetics, and kinematics during a double limb jump-landing task.

Study Design

Cross-Sectional Study.

Level of Evidence

Level 3.

Methods

Eighty-two female collegiate athletes (17 ACLR, 65 control) completed the knee-specific SANE (single assessment numeric evaluation) and three trials of a jump-landing task prior to their competitive season. vGRF data on each limb and the LESS (Landing Error Scoring System) score were collected from the jump-landing task. Knee-SANE, vGRF data, and LESS scores were compared between groups. All athletes were monitored for the duration of their competitive season for ACL injuries.

Results

Athletes after ACLR reported worse knee-specific function. Based on vGRF data, they unloaded their involved limb during the impact phase of the landing, and they were more asymmetrical between limbs during the propulsion phase as compared to the control group. The ACLR group, however, had lower LESS scores, indicative of better movement quality. No athletes in either group sustained ACL injuries during the following season.

Conclusion

Despite reporting worse knee function and demonstrating worse kinetics, the ACLR group demonstrated better movement quality relative to their uninjured teammates. This functional profile may correspond to short-term successful outcomes following ACLR, given that no athletes sustained ACL injuries in the competition season following assessment.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction after Surgical Management of Multiligament Knee Injury

The purpose of this study is to determine factors associated with the need for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) after multiligament knee injury (MLKI) and to report outcomes for patients undergoing revision ACLR after MLKI. This involves a retrospective review of 231 MLKIs in 225 patients treated over a 12-year period, with institutional review board approval. Patients with two or more injured knee ligaments requiring surgical reconstruction, including the ACL, were included for analyses. Overall, 231 knees with MLKIs underwent ACLR, with 10% (n = 24) requiring revision ACLR. There were no significant differences in age, sex, tobacco use, diabetes, or body mass index between cohorts requiring or not requiring revision ACLR. However, patients requiring revision ACLR had significantly longer follow-up duration (55.1 vs. 37.4 months, p = 0.004), more ligament reconstructions/repairs (mean 3.0 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001), more nonligament surgeries (mean 2.2 vs. 0.7, p = 0.002), more total surgeries (mean 5.3 vs. 2.4, p < 0.001), and more graft reconstructions (mean 4.7 vs. 2.7, p < 0.001). Patients in both groups had similar return to work (p = 0.12) and activity (p = 0.91) levels at final follow-up. Patients who had revision ACLR took significantly longer to return to work at their highest level (18 vs. 12 months, p = 0.036), but similar time to return to their highest level of activity (p = 0.33). Range of motion (134 vs. 127 degrees, p = 0.14), pain severity (2.2 vs. 1.7, p = 0.24), and Lysholm's scores (86.3 vs. 90.0, p = 0.24) at final follow-up were similar between groups. Patients requiring revision ACLR in the setting of a MLKI had more overall concurrent surgeries and other ligament reconstructions, but had similar final outcome scores to those who did not require revision surgery. Revision ligament surgery can be associated with increased pain, stiffness, and decrease patient outcomes. Revision surgery is often necessary after multiligament knee reconstructions, but patients requiring ACLR in the setting of a MLKI have good overall outcomes, with patients requiring revision ACLR at a rate of 10%.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Tibial Tunnel-First Graft-Sizing Technique

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) has become more common as the number of failed primary ACLRs increase. Although increasingly common, R-ACLR has a greater failure rate than a primary reconstruction. Technical errors, particularly in tunnel placement, account for a large proportion of graft failure in R-ACLR as well as re-revision cases. Tunnel placement and trajectory is particularly important in R-ACLR and becomes more challenging with each additional revision attempt. This is in part because any tunnels created for revision may converge with formerly drilled tunnels or face interference hardware creating, complicating proper graft fixation. While there are many approaches to revision ACL surgery, our technique describes a simple, tibial tunnel-first graft-sizing method initially reaming tunnels with very small diameters and sequentially working your way up to more anatomic diameters.

Outcomes of 1- Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common orthopaedic sports medicine procedure, but graft failure is not uncommon and often leads to revision ACLR. Revision surgery can be performed in a 1- or 2-stage fashion.

HYPOTHESIS

Graft failure risk, patient-reported outcomes, and anterior knee laxity are similar after 1- and 2-stage revision ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to evaluate patient outcomes after 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR. A search was performed with the phrase "revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" across Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus from the beginning of their archives through July 12, 2019.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and included 524 patients: 319 patients who underwent 1-stage revision ACLR and 205 patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR. Two studies compared outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR; 4 studies reported outcomes after 2-stage revision ACLR; and the remaining 7 studies documented outcomes after 1-stage ACLR. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years. The 2 studies that compared 1- versus 2-stage ACLR reported no differences in functional, radiologic, or patient-reported outcomes or failure risk. Overall, 9 studies reported subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores; 4 studies, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score values; 8 studies, Lysholm scores; and 7 studies, Tegner scores; 8 studies measured anterior laxity with a KT-1000 arthrometer. The mean weighted subjective IKDC score for all studies including this outcome at final follow-up was 66.6 for 1-stage revisions and 65.9 for 2-stage revisions.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence comparing 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR is retrospective and limited. The results of each approach are similar in appropriately selected patients.

Trauma and femoral tunnel position are the most common failure modes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To improve outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), it is important to understand the reasons for failure of this procedure. This systematic review was performed to identify current failure modes of ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and annual registries for ACLR failures. Studies were included when failure modes were reported (I) of ≥ 10 patients and (II) at a minimum of two-year follow-up. Modes of failure were also compared between different graft types and in femoral tunnel positions.

RESULTS

This review included 24 cohort studies and 4 registry-based studies (1 level I, 1 level II, 10 level III, and 16 level IV studies). Overall, a total of 3657 failures were identified. The most common single failure mode of ACLR was new trauma (38%), followed by technical errors (22%), combined causes (i.e. multiple failure mechanisms; 19%), and biological failures (i.e. failure due to infection or laxity without traumatic or technical considerations; 8%). Technical causes also played a contributing role in 17% of all failures. Femoral tunnel malposition was the most common cause of technical failure (63%). When specifically looking at the bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) or hamstring (HT) autografts, trauma was the most common failure mode in both, whereas biological failure was more pronounced in the HT group (4% vs. 22%, respectively). Technical errors were more common following transtibial as compared to anteromedial portal techniques (49% vs. 26%).

CONCLUSION

Trauma is the single leading cause of ACLR failure, followed by technical errors, and combined causes. Technical errors seemed to play a major or contributing role in large part of reported failures, with femoral tunnel malposition being the leading cause of failure. Trauma was also the most common failure mode in both BPTB and HT grafts. Technical errors were a more common failure mode following transtibial than anteromedial portal technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Revision ACL reconstruction using quadriceps or hamstring autografts leads to similar results after 4 years: good objective stability but low rate of return to pre-injury sport level

PURPOSE

Due to the increased importance of revision ACL reconstruction, this study aims to evaluate the outcome 4 years after the surgery, compare two revision strategies and identify factors that influence the results.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients who received a revision ACL reconstruction were retrospectively evaluated. All patients were assessed with an average follow-up of 4.4 years (range 3.3-5.5 years). The results of patients treated with a quadriceps autograft were compared with those treated with a hamstring autograft.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of patients had a KT-1000 side-to-side difference of ≤ 5 mm (mean 1.7 ± 2.0 mm). Pivot-shift test was absent or minor in 95%. In the SLTH-test, 70% of patients reached 90% of the contralateral side. The mean Lysholm score on follow-up was 83 ± 12 (56% excellent/good). The mean IKDC 2000 subjective evaluation score was 81 ± 14 (58% normal/almost normal). The median Tegner activity score was 6 (range 3-10), a median of 2 levels worse than before the first injury. Return to sport rate was 89% but only 34% of patients reached their pre-injury sport level. Most common cause for this reduction was fear of another injury. Three patients suffered a re-rupture. Patients with a hamstring autograft performed pivoting sports more often, but had worse pivot-shift results compared to those with a quadriceps autograft. No significant influence was seen for other parameters. Young, male patients with a high activity level and no chondral damage had the best results.

CONCLUSION

Through revision ACL reconstruction, the goal of stabilizing the knee can be achieved in the majority of patients. However, a good function and a high activity level are significantly less common in these patients. The main reason for this is fear of a renewed ACL-injury. Both quadriceps and hamstring autografts were able to achieve a good outcome. Young, male, patients with a normal BMI, a high activity level and without cartilage damage seem to benefit the most from revision ACL surgery. The discrepancy between the good laxity restoration and the lower activity rate should therefore be a main point in clinical counseling when deciding for or against revision ACL-Reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction: a clinical review

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains a challenge, especially optimising outcome for patients with a compromised knee where previous autogenous tissue has been used for reconstruction. Allograft tissue has become a recognized choice of graft for revision surgery but questions remain over the risks and benefits of such an option. Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction with no higher risk of infection and equivalent failure rates compared to autografts provided that the tissue is not irradiated, or any irradiation is minimal. Best scenarios for use of allografts include revision surgery where further use of autografts could lead to high donor site morbidity, complex instability situations where additional structures may need reconstruction, and in those with clinical and radiologic signs of autologous tendon degeneration. A surgeon needs to be able to select the best option for the challenging knee facing revision ACL reconstruction, and in the light of current data, allograft tissue can be considered a suitable option to this purpose.Level of evidence IV.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Nonathlete Population

BACKGROUND

There is considerable literature about revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in athletes vut there is little published evidence about the same in the nonathletes. The injury itself may remain underdiagnosed and untreated in nonsports persons. This study highlights the high incidence of ACL injury in the nonathletic patient cohort, revision rates, and the outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

856 nonathletic patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were asked on phone whether they had undergone revision surgery and whether they had symptoms severe enough to seek reintervention. Clinical assessment and preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scoring were used to followup patients who underwent revision intervention.

RESULTS

Clinically, symptomatic revision rate was 5.9% (51 out of 856 patients), and 33 out of these 856 patients (3.9%) underwent revision ACL reconstruction. The reasons for revision were rupture of the previous graft in 21 and laxity (incompetence) of the graft in 12 patients. The mean preoperative and postoperative IKDC scores were 44.1 and 69.8, respectively, and the improvement was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The IKDC score following revision ACL reconstruction was significantly better in those patients who underwent revision <1 year following the onset of recurrent symptoms (P = 0.015). Meniscal tears were present in 47.6%, and chondral injuries were seen in 33.3% of patients. The tibial tunnel positioning was abnormal in 70% of patients. Femoral tunnel positioning was aberrant in all the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The revision rate of primary ACL reconstruction of 5.9% in nonathletes and revision ACL reconstruction rate of 3.9% are similar to the reported revision rates of 2.9%-5.8% in athletic patients. Similar to athletes, suboptimal tunnel placement is the major contributor to failure in nonathletes also.

Clinical Outcomes in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine overall objective graft failure rate, failure rate by graft type (allograft vs autograft reconstruction), instrumented laxity, and patient outcome scores following revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were collected for all studies meeting the study inclusion criteria, but lower-level studies (level III/IV) were not pooled for quantitative synthesis due to high levels of heterogeneity in these study populations.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. The primary outcome reported was graft failure. A meta-analysis comparing rate of failure by graft type was conducted using a random effects model. Studies also reported patient clinical outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS) and graft laxity.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 3,021 patients (56% male, 44% female) with an average age of 30 ± 4 years and mean follow-up time of 57 months were included. The overall objective failure rate was 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-12.3%). Mean instrumented laxity as side-to-side difference was 2.5 mm (95% CI, 1.9-3.1 mm). Mean IKDC subjective score was 76.99 (95% CI, 76.64-77.34), mean KOOS symptoms score was 76.73 (95% CI, 75.85-77.61), and mean Lysholm score was 86.18 (95% CI, 79.08-93.28). The proportion of patients with IKDC grade A or B was 85% (95% CI, 77%-91%). When the available data for failure rate were analyzed by graft type, autograft reconstruction had a failure rate of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-6.9%), similar to allograft reconstruction at 3.6% (95% CI, 1.4%-6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, revision ACL reconstruction had failure rates similar to autograft or allograft reconstruction. Overall outcome scores for revision reconstruction have improved but appear modest when compared with primary ACL reconstruction surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Meta-analysis of Level II studies, Level II.

Outcomes After 1-Stage Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is becoming increasingly common as the number of primary ACLR cases continues to rise. Despite this, there are limited data on the outcomes of revision ACLR and even less information specifically addressing the differences in 1-stage revision reconstruction versus those performed in a 2-stage fashion after primary reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes, patient satisfaction, and failure rates of 1-stage versus 2-stage revision ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

All patients who underwent revision ACLR between 2010 and 2014 by a single surgeon were collected, and skeletally mature patients over the age of 17 years were included. Patients were excluded if they were skeletally immature; had a previous intra-articular infection in the ipsilateral knee; underwent a prior alignment correction procedure, cartilage repair or transplant procedure, or meniscal allograft transplantation; or had an intra-articular fracture. An ipsilateral or contralateral bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft was the graft of choice. A BPTB allograft was considered for patients aged ≥50 years, for any patient with an insufficient ipsilateral or contralateral patellar tendon, or for those who chose not to have the contralateral patellar tendon graft harvested. Patients completed a subjective questionnaire preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography of all knees were performed preoperatively to assess for associated injuries and to evaluate the ACLR tunnel size and location. Patients with malpositioned tunnels that would critically overlap with an anatomically placed tunnel or those with tunnels ≥14 mm in size underwent bone grafting.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. There were 39 patients in the 1-stage revision surgery group (19 male, 20 female) and 49 patients in the 2-stage revision surgery group who underwent tunnel bone grafting first (27 male, 22 female). In both groups, the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scale scores significantly improved from preoperatively to postoperatively. There was no significant difference in the SF-12 Mental Component Summary score before and after surgery in either group. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in failure rates or other demographic data between the groups. We observed 4 failures in the 1-stage reconstruction group (10.3%) and 3 failures in the 2-stage reconstruction group (6.1%).

CONCLUSION

In this study, objective outcomes and subjective patient scores and satisfaction were not significantly different between 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs. Both groups had significantly improved objective outcomes and patient subjective outcomes without notable differences in failure rates. Further longitudinal studies comparing 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs over a longer time frame are recommended.

Fatigue Behavior of Nitinol Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft and Inappropriate Femoral Tunnel Placement: Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is the most common ligament injury in the knee, and progressive instability and disability may develop in a significant number of patients. The incidence of ACL reconstruction is rapidly increasing, as is the number of failures. Although ACL reconstruction is a common procedure, less than satisfactory outcomes have been reported to occur in up to 25% of patients. The reasons for clinical failure after ACL reconstruction are numerous but can be broadly separated into 3 categories: technical, biological, and mechanical failures. It is generally thought that poor tunnel positioning (especially the femoral tunnel) is the most common technical error. Revision ACL reconstruction can be performed in 1 or 2 stages. The decision to perform a multistage approach is based on the position and size of the original tunnels. The varied success rates and associated advantages and disadvantages of each method have resulted in controversy as to the best treatment for revision ACL surgery. We describe our preferred operative technique to remove a fractured nitinol synthetic ACL graft and manage single-stage revision ACL reconstruction without bone grafting.