Repeat Revision of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction A Retrospective Review of Management and Outcome of 10 Patients With an Average 3-Year Follow-Up

Hypothesis Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction improves knee stability, but with inferior results for functional outcome compared with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Meniscal tears and subsequent articular cartilage degeneration are more prevalent with successive revisions due to recurrent laxity. Study Design Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Materials and Methods Between February 2003 and November 2006, a consecutive series of 10 patients with an average age at 30 years (range, 17–48) were operated on for a repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (2 revisions after a primary reconstruction) with arthroscopic procedures. A clinical and a radiographic evaluation were performed to assess anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failures, outcome of revisions, and causes of failures. Meniscal tears and articular cartilage lesions were analyzed. Results The average follow-up of the second revision was 38 months (range, 12–61). At latest follow-up, final International Knee Documentation Committee assessment was excellent or good in 7 cases. Postoperatively, only 2 patients recovered to the same sports activity level they had before their first anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Four had a lower level, and 4 discontinued sports activity. The postoperative average side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual difference was 1.3 ± 1.9 mm. Nine patients had meniscal tears and 7 had articular cartilage lesions. Meniscal tears, meniscectomies, and articular cartilage degeneration increased after the second revision (P = .016, P = .0098, and P = .0197, respectively). Severe articular cartilage degeneration (International Cartilage Repair Society grade III and IV lesions) was found in patients with bad functional outcome (final International Knee Documentation Committee assessment C or D) (P = .0472). Incidence of articular cartilage degeneration was found to be more prevalent in cases of meniscal tears and partial meniscectomy at the same tibiofemoral compartment (P = .0157). Index anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and first revision failures were caused by recurrent trauma (60% and 70%, respectively) or a surgical technical error with tunnel malpositioning (40% and 10%, respectively). Conclusion Outcome of repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was excellent or good in 70% of the cases, although decreased after the second revision, in relation to the occurrence of meniscal tears and articular cartilage lesions. Meniscal and articular cartilage lesions were more frequent and more severe with recurrent laxity. The cause of failures was mainly recurrent trauma, followed by surgical technical errors

Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a 2-stage technique with bone grafting of the tibial tunnel.

BACKGROUND: Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery is often considered a salvage procedure with limited goals. However, this limitation need not be the case. Similar to primary reconstruction, the goal should be to choose an appropriate graft and place it in an anatomical position in a good quality bone. The issue of good quality bone seems to have been ignored. HYPOTHESIS: A 2-stage anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction with bone grafting of the tibial tunnel and the use of a different femoral tunnel will produce measured knee laxity and International Knee Documentation Committee scores similar to a primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This prospective study involved 49 consecutive 2-stage anterior cruciate ligament revisions (group R) performed by a single surgeon from 1993 to 2000. Two-stage revision surgery was performed if the tibial tunnel from a previous reconstruction surgery would overlap (either partially or fully) the correctly placed revision tunnel. The first stage consisted of removal of the old graft and interfering metalwork, together with bone grafting of the tibial tunnel. After ensuring adequate bone graft incorporation using computed tomography scan, the second stage revision was undertaken. This stage comprised harvesting the autograft, its anatomical placement, and its adequate fixation. The results were compared with the results of a matched group of patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (group P). RESULTS: In group R, as meniscal and chondral lesions were more common, the International Knee Documentation Committee scores were lower than those of group P (61.2 for group R and 72.8 for group P; P = .006). Objective laxity measurement was similar in both groups (1.36 mm for group R and 1.2 mm for group P; P = .25). CONCLUSION: This study establishes that the laxity measurements achieved with a 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can be similar to those achieved after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, although the International Knee Documentation Committee rating is lower

Differences in graft orientation using the transtibial and anteromedial portal technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a magnetic resonance imaging study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in graft orientation between transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) portal technique using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Fifty-six patients who were undergoing ACL reconstruction underwent MRI of their healthy and reconstructed knee. Thirty patients had ACL reconstruction using the TT (group A), while in the remaining 26 the AM (group B) was used. In the femoral part graft orientation was evaluated in the coronal plane using the femoral graft angle (FGA). The FGA was defined as the angle between the axis of the femoral tunnel and the joint line. In the tibial part graft orientation was evaluated in the sagittal plane using the tibial graft angle (TGA). The TGA was defined as the angle between the axis of the tibial tunnel and a line perpendicular to the long axis of the tibia. The ACL angle of the normal knee in the sagittal view was also calculated. The mean FGA for group A was 72A degrees, while for the group B was 53A degrees and this was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The mean TGA for group A was 64A degrees, while for the group B was 63A degrees (P = 0.256). The mean intact ACL angle for group A was 52A degrees, while for the group B was 51A degrees. The difference between TGA and intact ACL angle was statistically significant (P < 0.001) for both groups. Using the AM portal technique, the ACL graft is placed in a more oblique direction in comparison with the TT technique in the femoral part. However, there are no differences between the two techniques in graft orientation in the tibial part. Normal sagittal obliquity is not restored with both techniques