Single-stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Research Articles

Mid-term Results of a Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Cases

Background. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is becoming more and more common in the knee surgery due to the annual increase in the number of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Choosing the most suitable graft and determining the staging of the surgical treatment by preoperative assessment of the possibility of performing the most anatomical revision canals and their interposition with the primary canals are the main factors that influence treatment results.
 Aim of the study — comparative assessment of the results of using hamstring tendon and peroneus longus tendon autografts in a one-stage revision reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament.
 Methods. A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 36 patients who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: in the patients of the study group (n = 19) a peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft was used, in the comparison group (n = 17) a hamstring tendon autograft (HT) was applied. Subjective and objective evaluation using the KOOS, IKDC, and Lysholm scales was performed, and position of the central entry points of the primary and revision canals was determined.
 There were no statistically significant differences in the objective assessment of the knee joint stability. Significantly better results of subjective assessment of the knee function according to the Lysholm and KOOS scales were obtained in the PLT group (p = 0.042 and p0.001, respectively). Position of revision canals corresponded to the standard values, but position of the femoral canal had a slight cranial and anterior displacement. It was also found that the PLT graft diameter was statistically significantly larger than the HT graft diameter (p0.001).
 Results. There were no statistically significant differences in the objective assessment of the knee joint stability. Significantly better results of subjective assessment of the knee function according to the Lysholm and KOOS scales were obtained in the PLT group (p = 0.042 and p0.001, respectively). Position of revision canals corresponded to the standard values, but position of the femoral canal had a slight cranial and anterior displacement. It was also found that the PLT graft diameter was statistically significantly larger than the HT graft diameter (p0.001).
 Conclusion. One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is a safe and effective surgical procedure providing satisfactory objective and subjective clinical results. Use of peroneus longus tendon autograft allows to obtain better results in comparison with the hamstring tendon autograft.

Clinical outcomes and return to sport after single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by bone-patellar tendon autograft combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis

PurposeThe anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) failure rate continues to increase. Involvement of a young population with a desire to return to sport, explains the increased need for ACLR (revACLR) revision. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome, complications, failure rate and return to sport of a single-stage revACLR using bone patellar tendon-bone (BTBT) combined with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).Material And MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 36 patients who underwent revACLR. Knee stability was assessed by Lachman and Pivot shift test. Objective anterior laxity was determined by KT-2000 arthrometer. The IKDC subjective, Lysholm, ACL-RSI Scores, level of sport activity and Forgotten Joint Score-12 were recorded.ResultsOf 36 patients, we collected data from 17 who underwent single-stage revACLR with autologous BTBT combined with LET, performed using an extra-articular MacIntosh procedure as modified by Arnold–Coker. The side-to-side difference in Lachman test and Pivot shift test significantly improved postoperatively. The subjective IKDC, Lysholm and ACL-RSI significantly improved from 71.4 ± 9.03 to 92 ± 6.9, from 58.3 ± 19.3 to 66.8 ± 27.7 and from 50.4 ± 12.2 to 68.6 ± 24.5, respectively during the post-operative follow-up. Ten patients (58.8%) returned to their desired level of sport. One patient was considered a failure because of the postoperative laxity.ConclusionSingle-stage revACLR with BPTB combined with LET is a safe procedure that shows good objective and subjective outcomes, and a high rate of return to the same level of sport. Reducing rotational instability and strain on intra-articular reconstructed structures results in a low rate of complications and failure.

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.

Stacked Biocomposite Screws in a Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Acceptable Fixation Strength in a Porcine Cadaveric Model

Background: Stacked screws is a commonly used technique in single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the setting of bone loss, but there are limited data to support its use. Hypothesis: Two configurations of a biocomposite stacked screws construct have similar fixation strength and linear stiffness as a primary ACL reconstruction construct in a biomechanical model. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 30 porcine legs were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 underwent primary ACL reconstruction with a patellar tendon graft fixed into the femur, with an 8-mm biocomposite interference screw of beta-tricalcium phosphate and poly lactide-co-glycolide. For a revision ACL reconstruction model, groups 2 and 3 had bone tunnels created and subsequently filled with 12-mm biocomposite screws. New bone tunnels were drilled through the filler screw and the surrounding bone, and the patellar bone plug was inserted. Group 2 was fixed with 8-mm biocomposite screws on the side of the graft opposite the filler screw, while group 3 had the interference screw interposed between the graft and the filler screw. The construct was loaded at 1.5 mm/s in line with the tunnel until failure. Load to failure, linear stiffness, and mode of failure were recorded. Results: The mean pullout strength for groups 1, 2, and 3 was 626 ± 145 N, 653 ± 152 N, and 720 ± 125 N, respectively (P = .328). The mean linear stiffness of the construct in groups 1, 2, and 3 was 71.4 ± 9.9 N/mm, 84.1 ± 11.1 N/mm, and 82.0 ± 10.8 N/mm, respectively. Group 2 was significantly stiffer than group 1 (P = .037). Conclusion: Two configurations of a biocomposite stacked screws construct for a single-stage revision ACL reconstruction in the setting of bone loss show a similar fixation strength and linear stiffness to a primary ACL reconstruction at time zero in a porcine model. Clinical Relevance: In the setting of bone loss from tunnel malpositioning, a single-stage revision ACL reconstruction using a stacked screws construct may provide adequate fixation strength and linear stiffness.

Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Experience with 92 cases (41 elite athletes), Using an Algorithm

Objectives:The increased prevalence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions has led to an increased need for revision ACL reconstructions. Despite the lack of comparative literature, two-stage revisions are often undertaken under the pretense they are safer. Through careful patient selection, pre-operative planning, and meticulous attention to detail, single stage revisions can be performed with good outcomes, decreasing healthcare costs, morbidity and recovery time for the patient. The objective of this paper is to present an algorithm (Figure 1) to determine single-stage or two-stage approaches to ACL revision with good outcomes in recreational and elite athletes.Methods:All revision ACL reconstructions performed by the senior author from September 2009 to July 2016, with minimum two year follow-up, were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes measured were: any further surgery, graft re-rupture, re-revision, Tegner score, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcomes score (KOOS). For the elite athlete population, return to play time, duration and level compared to pre-injury were also determined.Results:Ninety-four procedures were performed in 93 patients. This included 41 in elite athletes. In this series only 2 (2%) two-stage procedures were undertaken. At an average of 4.3 years (range: 2-8.5 years) post surgery, there had been two re-revisions. There were two further instances of graft failure which had not been re-revised. The graft failure rate was therefore 4.3%. There were 17 subsequent procedures, including six arthroscopic partial meniscectomies, five removal of prominent implants, and one total knee arthroplasty. The average Tegner score was 8.2 preoperatively, and 7.1 at follow up. At follow up, the average KOOS scores were 79.3 for symptoms, 88.0 for pain, 94.2 for activities of daily living, 73.6 for sport, and 68.9 for quality of life. Thirty-six of 41 elite athletes returned to play, at an average of 338 days post surgery. At an average of 4.6 years, 29 were still playing professionally. Of these, 15 were at the same level, and 14 at a lower level. Five players returned to play but have since retired. This occurred at an average of 3.1 years post op, at an age of 30.Conclusion:Single stage ACL revisions can be performed reliably in the majority, but not all, patients with persistent or recurrent instability following failed ACL reconstruction with good clinical outcomes and return to play, even in the elite athletic population.Figure 1.

Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Fast-Setting Bone Graft Substitutes

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions can be performed using either a single-stage or 2-stage technique. There are several benefits to using a single-stage approach when technically possible. Although not always feasible, eliminating the necessity of a 2-stage approach for certain indications is clearly preferable because it requires fewer operative procedures, leads to a more rapid recovery, and is cost effective. Here, we describe the use of fast-setting bone graft substitutes in the setting of single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The authors have found this technique useful in converting what would sometimes otherwise be approached using 2 stages into a single-stage procedure.

Outcomes Following Single-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction versus Two-Stage Revision with Tunnel Bone Grafting

Objectives:Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is becoming increasingly common as the number of primary ACLR cases continues to rise. Despite this, there is limited data discussing the outcomes of revision ACLR, and even less information specifically addressing the differences in single-stage revision reconstructions versus those performed in a two stage fashion after reconstruction tunnel bone grafting. Our goal was to compare the outcomes, patient satisfaction and failure rates of single-stage versus two-stage revision ACLR.Methods:Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. All patients undergoing a revision ACLR between 2010 and 2014 by a single surgeon were collected, and skeletally mature individuals over the age of 17 were included. Patients were excluded if they were skeletally immature, had a previous intraarticular infection in the ipsilateral knee, underwent a prior alignment correction procedure, cartilage repair or transplant procedure, meniscal allograft transplantation, or had an intra-articular fracture. Patients completed a subjective questionnaire preoperatively and at a minimum two years postoperatively. MRI and CT scans of all knees were obtained preoperatively to assess for associated injuries and to evaluate ACL reconstruction tunnel size and location. Patients with malpositioned tunnels which 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 inclusion criteria for this study. There were 39 patients in the single-stage revision surgery group (19 males, 20 females), and 49 patients in the staged revision surgery group who underwent a first-stage tunnel bone grafting (27 males, 22 females). In both groups, the SF-12 PCS, the WOMAC score, the Lysholm score, and the Tegner activity scale significantly improved from preoperative to postoperative status. There was no significant difference in the SF-12 MCS score before and after surgery in either group. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in failure rates or other demographic data between groups. We observed four failures in the one-stage procedure group (10.3%) and three failures in the staged reconstruction group (6.1%).Conclusion:In this study, objective outcomes and subjective patient scores and satisfaction were not significantly different between one-stage and two-stage ACL revision surgeries. Both procedures resulted in significantly improved outcomes and patient subjective outcomes without notable differences in failure rates. Further longitudinal studies comparing one-stage and two-stage ACL revision over a longer time frame are recommended.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results of a Single-stage Approach Using Allograft Dowel Bone Grafting for Femoral Defects.

The purpose of this study was to present results of single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using an allograft bone dowel for isolated femoral bony deficiency. Sixteen patients underwent single-stage revision ACL reconstruction using an allograft bone dowel for isolated femoral bony deficiency between 2007 and 2012. Twelve patients (75%) completed study visits, which included CT scans as well as completion of validated outcomes measures. The average KT-1000 side-to-side difference was 1.0 mm ± 2.9 mm. The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 70.2 ± 17.8, the Tegner score was 4.8 ± 2.8, and the visual analog scale pain score was 2.8 ± 2.4. An analysis of CT scans showed that all 12 dowels had excellent (>75%) incorporation. A single-stage approach for revision ACL reconstruction using allograft dowels for isolated femoral bony deficiency yields objective and subjective outcomes comparable to those reported in the literature for two-stage and other single-stage techniques, with good incorporation of the dowels. Retrospective case series, level IV.

Single-Stage Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision With Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone: A Case-Control Series of Revision of Failed Synthetic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical results of single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) after synthetic ligament failure. The subjects comprised 20 patients who underwent revision ACLR after synthetic ligament failure. All revisions were performed with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft, and bone tunnel expansion after removal of synthetic materials was treated with bone plugs sized and trimmed as necessary to fill the bone tunnels. Clinical results were assessed at a mean of 2.8 years postoperatively, followed by comparison with the results of 20 primary ACLRs selected as case-matched controls. Assessment included the Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation, instrumented laxity testing, and radiologic examination. Bone tunnel enlargement to 11 mm in diameter or greater was found in 10 of 20 revision ACLRs. However, favorable anteroposterior stability was obtained at final follow-up (1.4 +/- 2.0 mm in revision ACLR group and 1.5 +/- 1.5 mm in primary ACLR group). The overall Lysholm score improved significantly from preoperatively to final follow-up, but the revision ACLR group showed significantly worse results for the pain parameter than the primary ACLR group. The final IKDC results also showed significant postoperative improvement, but the number of cases with grade C was significantly higher in the revision ACLR group than in the primary ACLR group, which was attributed to radiologically confirmed osteoarthritis in the revision ACLR group. Single-stage revision ACLR with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft after synthetic ligament failure yielded favorable results in terms of IKDC grade, Lysholm score, and anteroposterior stability, despite enlarged bone tunnels after removal of synthetic material. Inferior results for the radiologic and pain parameters of the IKDC and Lysholm scores were attributed to osteoarthritic changes inherent to the revision ACLR group. Level III, therapeutic case-control study.