Three-in-One Procedure for Revision ACL Reconstruction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhao J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8626661 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Three-in-One Procedure for Revision ACL Reconstruction.
Arthroscopy techniques 20211006 11
Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a challenge due to the unfavorable condition of the knee and the lack of autogenous graft tissue. Anterolateral structure (ALS) reconstruction of the knee has been proved effective to address the unfavorable condition in revision cases, and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) is a special technique that can enhance anterolateral stability of the knee without graft tissue. We introduce a procedure that combines ACL and ALS reconstruc ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGraft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a debilitating complication often requiring revision surgery. It is widely agreed upon that functional knee outcomes after revision ACLR (r-ACLR) are inferior compared with those after primary reconstruction. However, data are scarce on outcomes after multiple-revision ACLR (mr-ACLR).PurposeTo compare patient-reported knee function in terms of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR and evaluate the pre- to postoperative improvement in KOOS scores for each procedure.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsPatients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry who underwent their index ACLR between 2005 and 2020 with a minimum age of 15 years at the time of surgery were included in this study. All patients had pre- and postoperative KOOS data. The 1-year postoperative KOOS and the pre- to postoperative changes in KOOS were assessed between patients who underwent primary ACLR and those who underwent subsequent r-ACLR and mr-ACLR.ResultsOf 20,542 included patients, 19,769 (96.2%) underwent primary ACLR, 760 (3.7%) underwent r-ACLR, and 13 (0.06%) underwent mr-ACLR. Patients who underwent r-ACLR had significantly smaller pre- to postoperative changes on all KOOS subscales compared with patients undergoing primary ACLR (P < .0001 for all). Furthermore, patients in the mr-ACLR group had significantly smaller changes in the KOOS-Pain subscale compared with patients in the r-ACLR group (-9 ± 23.3 vs 2.5 ± 18; P = .024).ConclusionThe study results indicated that while improvement is seen after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR, the greatest improvement in functional outcomes is observed after primary ACLR. Patients who underwent at least 1 r-ACLR, specifically mr-ACLR, had lower postoperative outcome scores, indicating that primary ACLR may provide the best chance for recovery after ACL injury.
| S-EPMC10748942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRevision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have inferior outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons why remain unknown.PurposeTo determine whether surgical factors performed at the time of revision ACL reconstruction can influence a patient's outcome at 6-year follow-up.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsPatients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity rating score. Patients were followed up for 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for baseline patient characteristics and surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after surgery.ResultsA total of 1234 patients were enrolled (716 men, 58%; median age, 26 years), and 6-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of patients (980/1234). Using an interference screw for femoral fixation compared with a cross-pin resulted in significantly better outcomes in 6-year IKDC scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .008) and KOOS sports/recreation and quality of life subscale scores (OR range, 2.2-2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < .01). Use of an interference screw compared with a cross-pin resulted in a 2.6 times less likely chance of having a subsequent surgery within 6 years. Use of an interference screw for tibial fixation compared with any combination of tibial fixation techniques resulted in significantly improved scores for IKDC (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .001); KOOS pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P < .05); and WOMAC pain and activities of daily living subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7; P < .05). Use of a transtibial surgical approach compared with an anteromedial portal approach resulted in significantly improved KOOS pain and quality of life subscale scores at 6 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.2; P≤ .04).ConclusionThere are surgical variables at the time of ACL revision that can modify clinical outcomes at 6 years. Opting for a transtibial surgical approach and choosing an interference screw for femoral and tibial fixation improved patients' odds of having a significantly better 6-year clinical outcome in this cohort.
| S-EPMC11796288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:More revisionary reconstruction procedures are required following failing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, which are often regarded as a technique challenge with very limited goals. This study will be performed to compare the outcomes between groups of primary and revision knee reconstruction. Two observers conducted the literature retrieval from the platforms of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies which compared knee function and stability between primary and revisionary reconstructions were included. The data was synthesized by meta-analysis with fixed- or random-effects models as appropriate. A total of 10 eligible studies were included with 954 subjects in the primary group and 378 in the revision group. The International Knee Documentation Committee International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subscores, side-to-side difference, and Lysholm score were demonstrated to be significantly improved at final follow-up in both groups, while Tegner score was not. The overall IKDC, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Lysholm scores were significantly inferior in the revision group compared to the primary group. However, knee laxity according to side-to-side difference was demonstrated to be similar between the two groups. Revision ACL reconstruction (RACLR) could provide patients with excellent restoration of knee outcomes compared to the status before revision. Also, while knee function in the revision group was inferior to the primary group, knee stability was equivalent between the two groups at the final follow-up.
| S-EPMC7767695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft is a popular graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in active young adults. In case of BPTB ACLR failure, the 3 most popular autograft choices for a revision surgery include contralateral BPTB, contralateral or ipsilateral hamstrings autograft, and contralateral or ipsilateral quadriceps tendon autograft. Quadriceps tendon autograft has been gaining increasing popularity in recent years in this respect, but using quadriceps tendon-bone autograft in the setup of a previous use of ipsilateral BPTB autograft deserves special technical considerations, with emphasis on preserving patellar bone integrity. We describe a technique for performing revision ACLR after failed primary BPTB ACLR by using ipsilateral quadriceps tendon-bone autograft in the setup of persistent distal patellar bone defect. Using this autograft benefits the advantages of highly resilient graft tissue in addition to fast bone-to-bone healing on the femoral side, and it can be an excellent choice in revision reconstruction for surgeons who prefer tendon-bone autograft for highly active young adults and specifically when the patients underwent bilateral primary autologous BPTB ACLRs.
| S-EPMC10150001 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC9353587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the patient-reported and objective functional outcomes of patients undergoing multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine failure rates and factors associated with failure, with a focus on posterior tibial slope.MethodsAll patients who underwent a repeat revision ACL reconstruction with a single surgeon over a 13-year period were identified. Chart data were obtained, including radiographic findings, operative details and findings, and postoperative examination findings. Failure was defined as subjective instability with evidence of graft incompetence on physical examination and MRI. Patients completed the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC-SKF) and Tegner Activity Level Scale. Patients who had outcomes scores completed a minimum of 2 years postoperatively were included.ResultsFourteen patients were available for follow-up; 12 underwent secondary revision procedures, and 2 underwent tertiary revisions. Three patients (21%) had subsequent failure of the revision graft with mean time to failure of 27 months. Posterior tibial slope was significantly higher in the failures than in the nonfailures (13.3˚; 95% CI 10.1-16.6 versus 10.1˚; 95% CI 6.7-11.4; P = 0.049). Eleven patients completed outcomes measures at a mean of 42 months postoperatively (range 24-79 months). The mean Tegner activity score was 6.3 at follow-up, compared with 8.3 prior to the original ACL injury. The mean IKDC-SKF score was 70 at follow-up.ConclusionMultiple revision ACL reconstruction surgery appears to have reasonable functional outcomes but is associated with a relatively high failure rate. Activity level following repeat revision surgery is diminished compared to the preinjury state, but most patients are able to return to recreational sports.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Study, Level IV.
| S-EPMC7588625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDifferent fixation methods in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have been associated with different revision rates, specifically in the early postoperative period. However, most previous research has either grouped together different fixation types or evaluated femoral-sided fixation or tibial-sided fixation separately. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine ACL revision rates for specific combinations of femoral and tibial fixation methods within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry (SNKLR).MethodsPatients that underwent primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR between 2005 and 2018 in the SNKLR were included. The collected data included patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI]), activity at time of injury, surgical information (concomitant injuries, time from injury to surgery, fixation types at the femur and tibia), and subsequent revision ACLR. Revision rate within 2 years of the index procedure was chosen, as ACLR fixation is most likely to contribute to ACLR revision within the first 2 years, during graft maturation.ResultsOf the 23,238 included patients undergoing primary hamstring ACLR, 581 (2.5%) underwent revision ACLR within 2 years of the index procedure. Among the combinations used for > 300 patients, the femoral metal interference screw/tibial metal interference screw fixation combination had the highest revision rate followed by metal interference screw/resorbable screw and Endobutton/AO screw fixation combinations, with respective revision rates of 4.0, 3.0, and 3.0%. The lowest revision rate within 2 years of ACLR was found in the Endobutton/metal interference screw with backup Osteosuture fixation combination, used in 433 cases, with a failure rate of 0.9%.ConclusionDifferent early ACL revision rates were found across different combinations of femoral and tibial fixation devices within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR. Metal interference screw fixation, particularly when performed on both the femoral and tibial sides, most frequently resulted in revision ACLR. These findings may be helpful for surgeons in selecting appropriate fixation devices for hamstring ACLR.Level of evidenceIV.
| S-EPMC10759459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs machine learning becomes increasingly utilized in orthopaedic clinical research, the application of machine learning methodology to cohort data from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) presents a valuable opportunity to translate data into patient-specific insights.PurposeTo apply novel machine learning methodology to MARS cohort data to determine a predictive model of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) graft failure and features most predictive of failure.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsThe authors prospectively recruited patients undergoing rACLR from the MARS cohort and obtained preoperative radiographs, surgeon-reported intraoperative findings, and 2- and 6-year follow-up data on patient-reported outcomes, additional surgeries, and graft failure. Machine learning models including logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and a validated ensemble algorithm (AutoPrognosis) were built to predict graft failure by 6 years postoperatively. Validated performance metrics and feature importance measures were used to evaluate model performance.ResultsThe cohort included 960 patients who completed 6-year follow-up, with 5.7% (n = 55) experiencing graft failure. AutoPrognosis demonstrated the highest discriminative power (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: AutoPrognosis, 0.703; RF, 0.618; GB, 0.660; XGBoost, 0.680; LR, 0.592), with well-calibrated scores (model Brier score: AutoPrognosis, 0.053; RF, 0.054; GB, 0.057; XGBoost, 0.058; LR, 0.111). The most important features for AutoPrognosis model performance were prior compromised femoral and tibial tunnels (placement and size) and allograft graft type used in current rACLR.ConclusionThe present study demonstrated the ability of the novel AutoPrognosis machine learning model to best predict the risk of graft failure in patients undergoing rACLR at 6 years postoperatively with moderate predictive ability. Femoral and tibial tunnel size and position in prior ACLR and allograft use in current rACLR were all risk factors for rACLR failure in the context of the AutoPrognosis model. This study describes a unique model that can be externally validated with larger data sets and contribute toward the creation of a robust rACLR bedside risk calculator in future studies.RegistrationNCT00625885 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).
| S-EPMC11565622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For some authors, repair of the torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in selected patients can be considered a valuable surgical treatment option. One of the main advantages is that it leaves all grafts available for any type of reconstruction in case the repair fails. This Technical Note describes arthroscopic ACL reconstruction after failure of an ACL repair.
| S-EPMC8085311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), have been published on the optimal graft choice for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.PurposeTo review existing studies to investigate whether advances in orthopaedics have affected revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched from inception to December 31, 2020, using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Patient series, observational studies, clinical trials, and registry-based studies investigating primary ACL reconstruction were included, as were high-quality RCTs from an additional study. The minimum required follow-up time for inclusion was 1 year. The primary outcome measure was the pooled prevalence of revision ACL reconstruction. The effect of the year the surgery was performed on revision rates was evaluated with metaregression analysis. All graft types were analyzed simultaneously, and all analyses were repeated separately for each graft type.ResultsOverall, 330 articles with 52,878 patients were included, with a median patient age of 28 years (range, 15-57 years). The primary ACL reconstructions were performed between 1969 and 2018. At a median of 2.3 years of follow-up, the overall revision rate was 3.14% (95% CI, 2.76% to 3.56%); it was 2.71% (95% CI, 2.25% to 3.27%) for hamstring autografts, 2.38% (95% CI, 1.82% to 3.11%) for bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts, and 5.24% (95% CI, 4.02% to 6.80%) for other graft types. For hamstring grafts, the revision rate increased over time (year of surgery), with a 0.0434 (95% CI, 0.0150 to 0.0718) increase effect in the logit-transformed scale for every additional year. There was a slight decrease in revision rates for BPTB (β = -0.0049; 95% CI, -0.0352 to 0.0254) and other graft types (β = -0.0306; 95% CI, -0.0608 to -0.0005) over time; however, confidence intervals for BPTB included the zero change.ConclusionBased on this systematic review and meta-analysis, ACL reconstruction is a reliable procedure with overall low historical revision rates. BPTB autograft had the lowest revision rate and a slightly decreasing trend of failures during the past 45 years, although both BPTB and hamstring autografts are reliable graft choices.
| S-EPMC9358584 | biostudies-literature