Revision ACL Reconstruction in Adolescent Patients

Evaluation of Failed ACL Reconstruction: An Updated Review

Failure rates among primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) range from 3.2% to 11.1%. Recently, there has been increased focus on surgical and anatomic considerations which predispose patients to failure, including excessive posterior tibial slope (PTS), unaddressed high-grade pivot shift, and improper tunnel placement. The purpose of this review was to provide a current summary and analysis of the literature regarding patient-related and technical factors surrounding revision ACLR, rehabilitation considerations, overall outcomes and return to sport (RTS) for patients who undergo revision ACLR. There is a convincingly higher re-tear and revision rate in patients who undergo ACLR with allograft than autograft, especially amongst the young, athletic population. Unrecognized Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PLC) injury is a common cause of ACLR failure and current literature suggests concurrent operative management of high-grade PLC injuries. Given the high rates of revision surgery in young active patients who return to pivoting sports, the authors recommend strong consideration of a combined ACLR + Anterolateral Ligament (ALL) or Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) procedure in this population. Excessive PTS has been identified as an independent risk factor for ACL graft failure. Careful consideration of patient-specific factors such as age and activity level may influence the success of ACL reconstruction. Additional technical considerations including graft choice and fixation method, tunnel position, evaluation of concomitant posterolateral corner and high-grade pivot shift injuries, and the role of excessive posterior tibial slope may play a significant role in preventing failure.

Autograft Demonstrates Superior Outcomes for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction When Compared With Allograft: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have compared outcomes among patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft versus allograft, but these data are inconsistently reported and long-term outcomes depending on graft type are yet to be determined.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes after revision ACLR (rACLR) with autograft versus allograft.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that compared the outcomes of patients undergoing rACLR with autograft versus allograft. The search phrase used was autograft allograft revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Graft rerupture rates, return-to-sports rates, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, including 3011 patients undergoing rACLR with autograft (mean age, 28.9 years) and 1238 patients undergoing rACLR with allograft (mean age, 28.0 years). Mean follow-up was 57.3 months. The most common autograft and allograft types were bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. Overall, 6.2% of patients undergoing rACLR experienced graft retear, including 4.7% in the autograft group and 10.2% in the allograft group (P < .0001). Among studies that reported return-to-sports rates, 66.2% of patients with an autograft returned to sports as opposed to 45.3% of patients with an allograft (P = .01). Two studies found significantly greater postoperative knee laxity in the allograft group as compared with the autograft group (P < .05). Among all patient-reported outcomes, 1 study found 1 significant difference between groups: patients with an autograft had a significantly higher postoperative Lysholm score when compared with patients with an allograft.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing revision ACLR with an autograft can be expected to experience lower rates of graft retear, higher rates of return to sports, and less postoperative anteroposterior knee laxity when compared with patients undergoing revision ACLR with an allograft.

Approximately half of pediatric or adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction return to the same level of sport or higher: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarise the surgical techniques and clinical outcomes in paediatric and adolescent patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (r-ACLR).

METHODS

Three databases (MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 29 July 2023. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, surgical details, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rates of instability, rupture and return to sport (RTS) were extracted.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 706 (711 knees) patients were included (48.7% female). The mean age at r-ACLR was 17.1 years (range: 16.5-18.0). Autografts (67.5%) were more common than allografts (32.2%) in revision, with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) being the most prevalent autograft source (59.6%). Bone grafts were used in seven patients (4.8% of 146 patients). The most common femoral and tibial fixation techniques were interference screws (37.6% and 38.1%, of 244 patients, respectively). The most common tunnelling strategy was anatomic (69.1% of 236 patients), and meniscus repairs were performed in 39.7% of 256 patients. The re-rupture rate was 13.0% in 293 patients. RTS at the same level or higher was 51.6% in 219 patients. The mean (SD) Lysholm score was 88.1 (12.9) in 78 patients, the mean (SD) Tegner score was 6.0 (1.6) in 78 patients, and the mean (SD) IKDC score was 82.6 (16.0) in 126 patients.

CONCLUSION

R-ACLR in paediatric and adolescent patients predominantly uses BPTB autografts and interference screw femoral and tibial fixation with concomitant meniscal procedures. Rates of re-rupture and RTS at the same level or higher were 13.0% and 51.6%, respectively. Information from this review can provide orthopaedic surgeons with a comprehensive understanding of the most commonly used operative techniques and their outcomes for revision ACLR in this population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Various Definitions of Failure Are Used in Studies of Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

To conduct a literature review to assess the definitions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure used throughout the orthopaedic literature.

Methods

A systematic search of Embase, Ovid Medline, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science was conducted by a university librarian to identity level I-IV clinical studies on ACLR failure. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent ACLR and included a definition of failure of ACLR. Patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repairs, animal/cadaver studies, review studies, non-English language articles, and non-full text articles were excluded. Failure data were extracted from each study and categorized. Other data that were extracted included follow-up time after ACLR, failure reoperation rate, and failure reoperation procedure. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data.

Results

Out of 2,775 studies, 104 (3.75%) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. The most common definition of ACLR failure included the use of a physical examination, specifically Lachman's test (21/104 [20.2%]), anterior laxity assessment, or a Pivot-Shift test (24/104 [35.2%]) or undergoing or requiring revision ACLR (39/104 [37.5%]). Although some studies used quantitative tests or imaging to help define "failure," others simply defined it as graft rerupture that was otherwise not defined (22/104 [22.5%]). Other common definitions included: the use of imaging (magnetic resonance imaging/radiographs) to confirm graft re-rupture (37/104 [35.6%]), patient-reported outcomes (recurrent instability)/patient reported outcomes measures (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Tegner) (18/104 [17.3%]), and the use of an arthrometer (KT-1000/2000, Rollimeter, or Kneelax) (17/104 [16.3%]). The least common definitions included graft failure or rerupture confirmed by arthroscopy (13/104 [12.5%]) and nonrevision surgery (2/104 [1.0%]). The failure rate of this procedure ranged from 0% to 100% depending on the definition of "failure."

Conclusion

In this study, we found that a variety of definitions of failure are used among studies published in the orthopaedic literature. The most common criteria for failure of ACLR were the results of physical examination tests (35%), the need for undergoing a revision ACLR (36%), and the use of imaging to diagnose the failure (34%). About 17% of studies included in this review used patient-reported outcomes, specifically recurrent instability, or PROMs (IKDC, KOOS, Tegner) in their assessment of failure of ACLR. The least used definitions of "failure" of ACLR included nonrevision ACLR surgery (2%). Although some studies used similar tests or categories in their definition of failure, there were a variety of score and grade cutoff points between them.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism for revision ACL reconstruction does not delay return of quadriceps function

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether harvesting a second graft from the ipsilateral extensor mechanism adversely affects clinical outcomes in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 34 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with either quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft or bone-tendon-bone (BTB) autograft was conducted. Patients with two grafts (BTB+QT) from the extensor mechanism were matched based on age, laterality, and sex to patients who had primary reconstruction with hamstring (HS) autograft followed by revision with either BTB or QT autograft (HS+QT/BTB). Return of quadriceps function was assessed with time to return to jogging in a standardized rehab protocol or time to regain 80% quadriceps strength. Secondary outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Marx scores at 12-month follow-up and return to sport.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in return to jogging or 80% quadriceps strength (HS 149.5 ± 38.2 days, BTB+QT 131.7 ± 40.1 days, n.s.), number able to return to sport (HS 62%, BTB+QT 93%, n.s.), months to return to sport (HS 10.6 ± 1.4, BTB+QT 10.5 ± 2.3, n.s.), return to pre-injury level of competition (HS 62%, BTB+QT 73%, n.s.), or IKDC (HS 77.2 ± 16.4, BTB+QT 74.8 ± 23.9, n.s.) and Marx scores (HS 9.2 ± 5.3, BTB+QT 8.0 ± 3.7, n.s.) at one-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of the present study was that outcomes for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a second extensor mechanism autograft were comparable to those seen for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with extensor mechanism autograft after primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. By better understanding the consequences of harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism, surgeons can better decide what graft to use in revision ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Semitendinosus Tendon With Bone Fragment

After anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the tibial tunnel becomes widened over time. A revision surgery of the ACL reconstruction is required to fill the widened tunnels. Bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts often are used to fill enlarged bone tunnels. However, due to the variation in tendon length, it is often difficult to adjust the position of the bone fragment to the enlarged part of the bone tunnel. This study describes an arthroscopic ACL reconstruction technique using the semitendinosus tendon as well as a bone fragment which is placed in the enlarged tibial tunnel. The tendon and cortical bone were collected together at the tendon attachment using a flat chisel. The bone fragment was inserted through the tendon in a controlled manner and ultimately placed at the posterior wall of the tibial foramen. This technique was determined to be less invasive than using bone-patellar tendon-bone in a 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction. In addition, this technique can be easily performed by any surgeon who is accustomed to conventional ACL reconstruction using the semitendinosus tendon and does not require any special equipment. Our findings suggest that this technique may be useful for revision ACL reconstruction.

Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction reduces the rate of reoperation for graft failure or secondary meniscal lesions in young athletes

PURPOSE

Graft failure and secondary meniscal tears are major concerns after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in young athletes. The aim was to evaluate the link between ACL reconstruction with and without anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction and outcomes in young patients participating in pivoting sports.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of data collected prospectively. Patients less than 20 years, involved in pivoting sports and undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with a quadruple hamstring tendon (4HT) graft or 4HT graft combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction (4HT + ALL) were included. Survival analysis was performed to identify the prognostic indicators for reoperation due to graft failure or secondary meniscal lesions. Knee laxity was assessed and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients (mean (± SD) age: 16.3 ± 2 years) with a mean follow-up of 4.8 ± 0.9 (range: 3.3‒6.8) years were included. There were 101 4HT and 102 4HT + ALL grafts. Graft rupture rates were 11.9% for 4HT grafts and 5.8% for 4HT + ALL grafts (n.s.). There were 9.9% secondary meniscal procedures for 4HT grafts vs. 1.9% for 4HT + ALL grafts (p = 0.02). With reoperation for graft failure or secondary meniscal lesions at final follow-up as the endpoint, survival was better in the 4HT + ALL group (91.4% vs. 77.8%, respectively; p = 0.03). Absence of ALL reconstruction (HR = 4.9 [95%CI: 1.4-17.9]; p = 0.01) and preoperative side-to-side laxity > 3 mm (HR = 3.1 [95%CI: 1.03-9.1]; p = 0.04) were independently associated with an increased rate of reoperations. Mean (± SD) side-to-side laxity was 1.3 ± 1.3 mm (range: - 2 to 5) for 4HT grafts vs. 0.9 ± 1.3 mm (range: - 6 to 4.8) for 4HT + ALL grafts (n.s.) 6 months post-surgery. The rate of return to the same sport at the same level was 42.2% for 4HT grafts vs. 52% for 4HT + ALL grafts (n.s.). There was no significant difference in subjective outcomes including PROMs between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Combined ALL + ACL reconstruction reduced the rate of graft failure and secondary meniscal injury in young athletes when compared to ACL reconstruction alone. Subjective results were comparable, with a similar rate of complications. Combined reconstruction should be preferred in this young population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Pediatric Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Current Concepts Review

OBJECTIVE

We present a review of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in pediatric patients, discussing risk factors for rerupture, physical examination and imaging, treatment principles and surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation, and clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were queried for relevant articles about revision ACL topics. All types of manuscripts, including clinical studies, basic science studies, case series, current concepts reviews, and systematic reviews were analyzed for relevant information. Current concepts on risk factors for rerupture, physical examination and imaging, treatment principles and surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation, and clinical outcomes were synthesized.

MAIN RESULTS

Surgical treatment should be individualized, and the graft type, fixation devices, tunnel placement, and complementary procedures (eg, extra-articular tenodesis) should be tailored to the patient's needs and previous surgeries. Rehabilitation programs should also be centered around eccentric strengthening, isometric quadriceps strengthening, active flexion range of motion of the knee, and an emphasis on closed chain exercises. Despite adherence to strict surgical and postoperative rehabilitation principles, graft refailure rate is high, and return to sports rate is low.

CONCLUSION

Rerupture of the ACL in the pediatric population is a challenging complication that requires special attention. Diagnostic evaluation of repeat ACL ruptures is similar to primary injuries. Although outcomes after revision ACL reconstruction are expectedly worse than after primary reconstruction, athletes do return to sport after proper rehabilitation. Further research is needed to continue to improve outcomes in this high-risk population, aimed at continued knee stability, graft survivorship, and improved quality of life.

Limited evidence for graft selection in pediatric ACL reconstruction: a narrative review

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is the preferred treatment to anterior cruciate ligament injury. With the increase in anterior cruciate ligament injuries in both adults and skeletally immature patients comes the need for individualized anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft selection whether it is the type of graft (auto vs. allograft) or the harvesting site (hamstrings, iliotibial band, quadriceps, patella). Several factors need to be considered preoperatively in order to optimize the patients’ recovery and restore anterior cruciate ligament strength and function. These include age and bone maturity, preoperative knee flexor/extensor strength, sport participation, patient’s needs and anatomical characteristics. This paper aims at bringing evidence supporting the use of a personalized approach in graft selection for faster and more efficient return to sport and propose a theoretical framework to support the approach.

Unique Considerations for the Pediatric Athlete During Rehabilitation and Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Level of Evidence

[Effectiveness of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction for revision]

Objective

To investigate the effectiveness of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction combined with anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in the treatment of revision patients with ACL graft failure.

Methods

Between January 2018 and June 2019, 15 patients underwent ACL revision with double-bundle ACL reconstruction combined with ALL reconstruction. There were 12 males and 3 females with an average age of 30.1 years (range, 17-49 years). The technique of primary ACL reconstruction included single-bundle reconstruction in 13 cases and double-bundle reconstruction in 2 cases. These reconstructions applied autografts in 14 cases and allograft in 1 case. The causes of ACL reconstruction failure were identified as traumatic rupture in 9 cases and non-traumatic failure in 6 cases, including 2 cases of graft absorption and 3 cases of graft laxity. The average time from the primary ACL reconstruction to revision was 28.5 months (range, 8-60 months). The subjective and objective indicators of knee joint function were compared before operation and at last follow-up to evaluate the effectiveness. The subjective indicators included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score. The objective indicators included anterior tibial translation (dynamic and static) and side-to-side difference (SSD), pivot-shift test, Lachman test, the difference of single-legged hop test, and the loss ratio of extensor muscle strength on the affected side.

Results

All incisions healed by first intetion, and no complications such as infection, venous thrombosis of lower extremity, or neurovascular injury occurred. All patients were followed up for an average of 19.1 months (range, 12-30 months). At last follow-up, all patients had returned to pre-injury sports level. The IKDC score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score were significantly improved ( P<0.05); anterior tibial translations (dynamic and static) significantly decreased when compared with preoperative one ( P<0.05) and returned to the physiological range. The SSD, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, the difference of single-legged hop test, and the loss ratio of extensor muscle strength on the affected side were significantly better than those before operation ( P<0.05).During the follow-up, there was no re-rupture of the graft, no stiffness of the knee joint and limitation of mobility; 1 case had a protruding femoral end compression screw, which was removed through the original incision under local anesthesia.

Conclusion

Double-bundle ACL reconstruction combined with ALL reconstruction can significantly improve the knee function in revision patients with ACL graft failure. It can reduce the anterior translation of tibia, and effectively prevent postoperative rotational instability of the knee.