Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting

BackgroundLytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described.PurposeTo describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsA total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics.ResultsA total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting-64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group (P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs (P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone-patellar tendon-bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure (P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft (P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) (P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group.ConclusionTunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting

Association Between Graft Choice and 6-Year Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the MARS Cohort

BackgroundAlthough graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome.HypothesisIn the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsPatients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery.ResultsA total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores (P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized (P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts (P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts (P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft (P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87).ConclusionBTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction

Risk Factors and Predictors of Significant Chondral Surface Change From Primary to Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A MOON and MARS Cohort Study

BackgroundArticular cartilage health is an important issue following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and primary ACL reconstruction. Factors present at the time of primary ACL reconstruction may influence the subsequent progression of articular cartilage damage.HypothesisLarger meniscus resection at primary ACL reconstruction, increased patient age, and increased body mass index (BMI) are associated with increased odds of worsened articular cartilage damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction.Study designCase-control study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsSubjects who had primary and revision data in the databases of the Multicenter Orthopaedics Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) were included. Reviewed data included chondral surface status at the time of primary and revision surgery, meniscus status at the time of primary reconstruction, primary reconstruction graft type, time from primary to revision ACL surgery, as well as demographics and Marx activity score at the time of revision. Significant progression of articular cartilage damage was defined in each compartment according to progression on the modified Outerbridge scale (increase ≥1 grade) or >25% enlargement in any area of damage. Logistic regression identified predictors of significant chondral surface change in each compartment from primary to revision surgery.ResultsA total of 134 patients were included, with a median age of 19.5 years at revision surgery. Progression of articular cartilage damage was noted in 34 patients (25.4%) in the lateral compartment, 32 (23.9%) in the medial compartment, and 31 (23.1%) in the patellofemoral compartment. For the lateral compartment, patients who had >33% of the lateral meniscus excised at primary reconstruction had 16.9-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact lateral meniscus ( P < .001). For the medial compartment, patients who had <33% of the medial meniscus excised at the time of the primary reconstruction had 4.8-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact medial meniscus ( P = .02). Odds of significant chondral surface change increased by 5% in the lateral compartment and 6% in the medial compartment for each increased year of age ( P ≤ .02). For the patellofemoral compartment, the use of allograft in primary reconstruction was associated with a 15-fold increased odds of progression of articular cartilage damage relative to a patellar tendon autograft ( P < .001). Each 1-unit increase in BMI at the time of revision surgery was associated with a 10% increase in the odds of progression of articular cartilage damage ( P = .046) in the patellofemoral compartment.ConclusionExcision of the medial and lateral meniscus at primary ACL reconstruction increases the odds of articular cartilage damage in the corresponding compartment at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Increased age is a risk factor for deterioration of articular cartilage in both tibiofemoral compartments, while increased BMI and the use of allograft for primary ACL reconstruction are associated with an increased risk of progression in the patellofemoral compartment

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.HypothesisExperienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.Study designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.MethodsTwenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).ResultsThe 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).ConclusionThis study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.HypothesisExperienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.Study designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.MethodsTwenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).ResultsThe 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).ConclusionThis study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction

Physiologic Preoperative Knee Hyperextension Is a Predictor of Failure in an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Cohort: A Report From the MARS Group

BackgroundThe occurrence of physiologic knee hyperextension (HE) in the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) population and its effect on outcomes have yet to be reported. Hypothesis/Purpose: The prevalence of knee HE in revision ACLR and its effect on 2-year outcome were studied with the hypothesis that preoperative physiologic knee HE ≥5° is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsPatients undergoing revision ACLR were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing single-bundle graft reconstructions. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale) as well as provide information regarding revision ACL graft failure. A regression model with graft failure as the dependent variable included age, sex, graft type at the time of the revision ACL surgery, and physiologic preoperative passive HE ≥5° (yes/no) to assess these as potential risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACLR.ResultsAnalyses included 1145 patients, for whom 2-year follow-up was attained for 91%. The median age was 26 years, with age being a continuous variable. Those below the median were grouped as "younger" and those above as "older" (age: interquartile range = 20, 35 years), and 42% of patients were female. There were 50% autografts, 48% allografts, and 2% that had a combination of autograft plus allograft. Passive knee HE ≥5° was present in 374 (33%) patients in the revision cohort, with 52% being female. Graft rupture at 2-year follow-up occurred in 34 cases in the entire cohort, of which 12 were in the HE ≥5° group (3.2% failure rate) and 22 in the non-HE group (2.9% failure rate). The median age of patients who failed was 19 years, as opposed to 26 years for those with intact grafts. Three variables in the regression model were significant predictors of graft failure: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .002), use of allograft (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P = .003), and HE ≥5° (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.1-4.7; P = .03).ConclusionThis study revealed that preoperative physiologic passive knee HE ≥5° is present in one-third of patients who undergo revision ACLR. HE ≥5° was an independent significant predictor of graft failure after revision ACLR with a >2-fold OR of subsequent graft rupture in revision ACL surgery. Registration: NCT00625885 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

Predictors of Patient-Reported Outcomes at 2 Years After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valid measure of results after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Revision ACL reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes when compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Understanding positive and negative predictors of PROs will allow surgeons to modify and potentially improve outcome for patients.Purpose/hypothesisThe purpose was to describe PROs after revision ACL reconstruction and test the hypothesis that patient- and technique-specific variables are associated with these outcomes.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsPatients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data included baseline demographics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Multivariate regression models were used to control for a variety of demographic and surgical factors to determine the positive and negative predictors of PRO scores at 2 years after revision surgery.ResultsA total of 1205 patients met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled: 697 (58%) were male, with a median cohort age of 26 years. The median time since their most recent previous ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained from 989 patients (82%). The most significant positive predictors of 2-year IKDC scores were a high baseline IKDC score, high baseline Marx activity level, male sex, and having a longer time since the most recent previous ACL reconstruction, while negative predictors included having a lateral meniscectomy before the revision ACL reconstruction or having grade 3/4 chondrosis in either the trochlear groove or the medial tibial plateau at the time of the revision surgery. For KOOS, having a high baseline score and having a longer time between the most recent previous ACL reconstruction and revision surgery were significant positive predictors for having a better (ie, higher) 2-year KOOS, while having a lateral meniscectomy before the revision ACL reconstruction was a consistent predictor for having a significantly worse (ie, lower) 2-year KOOS. Statistically significant positive predictors for 2-year Marx activity levels included higher baseline Marx activity levels, younger age, male sex, and being a nonsmoker. Negative 2-year activity level predictors included having an allograft or a biologic enhancement at the time of revision surgery.ConclusionPROs after revision ACL reconstruction are associated with a variety of patient- and surgeon-related variables. Understanding positive and negative predictors of PROs will allow surgeons to guide patient expectations as well as potentially improve outcomes

Association of Meniscal Status, Lower Extremity Alignment, and Body Mass Index With Chondrosis at Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BackgroundKnees undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) have a high prevalence of articular cartilage lesions.HypothesisThe prevalence of chondrosis at the time of rACLR is associated with meniscal status and lower extremity alignment.Study designCross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsData from the prospective Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort were reviewed to identify patients with preoperative lower extremity alignment films. Lower extremity alignment was defined by the weightbearing line (WBL) as a percentage of the tibial plateau width, while the chondral and meniscal status of each weightbearing compartment was recorded at the time of surgery. Multivariable proportional odds models were constructed and adjusted for relevant factors to examine which risk factors were independently associated with the degree of medial and lateral compartment chondrosis.ResultsThe cohort included 246 patients with lower extremity alignment films at the time of rACLR. Mean (±SD) patient age was 26.9 ± 9.5 years and body mass index (BMI) was 26.4 ± 4.6. The medial compartment had more chondrosis (grade 2/3, 42%; grade 4, 6.5%) than did the lateral compartment (grade 2/3, 26%; grade 4, 6.5%). Disruption of the meniscus was noted in 35% of patients on the medial side and 16% in the lateral side. The mean WBL was 0.43 ± 0.13. Medial compartment chondrosis was associated with BMI (P = .025), alignment (P = .002), and medial meniscal status (P = .001). None of the knees with the WBL lateral to 0.625 had grade 4 chondrosis in the medial compartment. Lateral compartment chondrosis was significantly associated with age (P = .013) and lateral meniscal status (P < .001). Subjects with "intact" menisci were found to decrease their odds of having chondrosis by 64% to 84%.ConclusionThe status of articular cartilage in the tibiofemoral compartments at the time of rACLR is related to meniscal status. Lower extremity alignment and BMI are associated with medial compartment chondrosis