Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair: Is graft choice predictive of meniscal repair success?

Background: When meniscal repair is performed during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), the effect of ACL graft type on meniscal repair outcomes is unclear. Hypothesis: The authors hypothesized that meniscal repairs would fail at the lowest rate when concomitant ACLR was performed with bone--patellar tendon--bone (BTB) autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent meniscal repair at primary ACLR were identified from a longitudinal, prospective cohort. Meniscal repair failures, defined as any subsequent surgical procedure addressing the meniscus, were identified. A logistic regression model was built to assess the association of graft type, patient-specific factors, baseline Marx activity rating score, and meniscal repair location (medial or lateral) with repair failure at 6-year follow-up. Results: A total of 646 patients were included. Grafts used included BTB autograft (55.7%), soft tissue autograft (33.9%), and various allografts (10.4%). We identified 101 patients (15.6%) with a documented meniscal repair failure. Failure occurred in 74 of 420 (17.6%) isolated medial meniscal repairs, 15 of 187 (8%) isolated lateral meniscal repairs, and 12 of 39 (30.7%) of combined medial and lateral meniscal repairs. Meniscal repair failure occurred in 13.9% of patients with BTB autografts, 17.4% of patients with soft tissue autografts, and 19.4% of patients with allografts. The odds of failure within 6 years of index surgery were increased more than 2-fold with allograft versus BTB autograft (odds ratio = 2.34 [95% confidence interval, 1.12-4.92]; Conclusion: Meniscal repair location (medial vs lateral) and baseline activity level were the main drivers of meniscal repair outcomes. Graft type was ranked third, demonstrating that meniscal repairs performed with allograft were 2.3 times more likely to fail compared with BTB autograft. There was no significant difference in failure rates between BTB versus soft tissue autografts. Registration: NCT00463099 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

Role of high tibial osteotomy in chronic injuries of posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner

High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a surgical procedure used to change the mechanical weight-bearing axis and alter the loads carried through the knee. Conventional indications for HTO are medial compartment osteoarthritis and varus malalignment of the knee causing pain and dysfunction. Traditionally, knee instability associated with varus thrust has been considered a contraindication. However, today the indications include patients with chronic ligament deficiencies and malalignment, because an HTO procedure can change not only the coronal but also the sagittal plane of the knee. The sagittal plane has generally been ignored in HTO literature, but its modification has a significant impact on biomechanics and joint stability. Indeed, decreased posterior tibial slope causes posterior tibia translation and helps the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee. Vice versa, increased tibial slope causes anterior tibia translation and helps the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-deficient knee. A review of literature shows that soft tissue procedures alone are often unsatisfactory for chronic posterior instability if alignment is not corrected. Since limb alignment is the most important factor to consider in lower limb reconstructive surgery, diagnosis and treatment of limb malalignment should not be ignored in management of chronic ligamentous instabilities. This paper reviews the effects of chronic posterior instability and tibial slope alteration on knee and soft tissues, in addition to planning and surgical technique for chronic posterior and posterolateral instability with HTO

Subsequent Surgery After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors From a Multicenter Cohort

BACKGROUND: While revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR. PURPOSE: To report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation. RESULTS: Of the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged <20 years had twice the odds of patients aged 20 to 29 years to undergo a reoperation. The use of an allograft at the time of revision ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P = .007) was a significant predictor for reoperations at 2 years, while staged revision (bone grafting of tunnels before revision ACLR) (OR, 1.93; P = .052) did not reach significance. Patients with grade 4 cartilage damage seen during revision ACLR were 78% less likely to undergo subsequent operations within 2 years. Sex, body mass index, smoking history, Marx activity score, technique for femoral tunnel placement, and meniscal tearing or meniscal treatment at the time of revision ACLR showed no significant effect on the reoperation rate. CONCLUSION: There was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age <20 years and the use of allograft tissue at the time of revision ACLR

Effect of Graft Choice on the Outcome of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort

Most surgeons believe that graft choice for ACL reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, it is still felt to be important