PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2017; 05(03): 156-163
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1605590
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Combined Intra- and Extra-Articular Technique in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Jessica Zanovello
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Rehabilitation, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, University of Turin, Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
,
Federica Rosso
2   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Turin, AO Mauriziano “Umberto I” Hospital, Turin, Italy
,
Alessandro Bistolfi
3   Department of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Rehabilitation, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
,
Roberto Rossi
2   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Turin, AO Mauriziano “Umberto I” Hospital, Turin, Italy
,
Filippo Castoldi
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Turin, San Luigi Hospital of Orbassano, Turin, Italy
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
11. August 2017 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the “over the top” (OTT) nonanatomical technique for revision of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods Twenty-four patients with a mean age of 31.9 ± 11.2 years underwent revision of ACL reconstruction using OTT technique. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, Tegner score, Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sport (SPORTS) score, Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) scale, and KT-1000 evaluation were recorded at a mean follow-up of 30.7 ± 18.9 months.

Results Postoperatively, the IKDC objective total score significantly improved (p = 0.0046). The KOOS, Lysholm, and Tegner scores also improved, but the results were not statistically significant (62.4 vs. 72.6, 6.5 vs. 75.8, and 4.1 vs. 6.0, respectively). The subjective IKDC evaluation score improved from an average of 51.1 points to 63.7 points at the last follow-up (p = 0.0027). The RTP prevalence was 81.8%, with 44.4% of the patients returning to the same preinjury level. According to the SPORTS score, 16.6% of patients played sport without limitations in activity and performance. The average ACL-RSI score was 52.1 ± 27.0. No major complications were reported. A total of 21.5% of patients underwent surgical removal of staples. The failure prevalence was 14.3% and the cumulative survivorship, calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, was equal to 70% at 60 months of follow-up.

Conclusion The OTT technique in the revision ACL reconstruction provided improvement in objective and subjective scores, good RTP prevalence, and acceptable rate of complication and failure. One of the advantages was the possibility to avoid the femoral tunnel.

Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - over the top - revision
 

  • References

  • 1 Spindler KP, Wright RW. Clinical practice. Anterior cruciate ligament tear. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 (20) 2135-2142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M. , et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (10) 2363-2370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A. , et al. Risk of tearing the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee and rupturing the anterior cruciate ligament graft during the first 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective MOON cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (07) 1131-1134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR. Factors used to determine return to unrestricted sports activities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (12) 1697-1705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. , et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (05) 600-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 (Suppl. 11) S208-S228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Leys T, Salmon L, Waller A, Linklater J, Pinczewski L. Clinical results and risk factors for reinjury 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (03) 595-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kraeutler MJ, Bravman JT, McCarty EC. Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus allograft in outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of 5182 patients. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (10) 2439-2448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Grossman MG, ElAttrache NS, Shields CL, Glousman RE. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: three- to nine-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (04) 418-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wiggins AJ, Grandhi RK, Schneider DK, Stanfield D, Webster KE, Myer GD. Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (07) 1861-1876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM. , et al. Arthroscopic intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with gracilis and semitendinosus tendons: a review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2011; 4 (02) 73-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, Neri MP, Loreti I, Petitto A. Arthroscopic intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with gracilis and semitendinosus tendons. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998; 6 (02) 68-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Golish SR, Baumfeld JA, Schoderbek RJ, Miller MD. The effect of femoral tunnel starting position on tunnel length in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (11) 1187-1192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yiannakopoulos CK, Fules PJ, Korres DS, Mowbray MAS. Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery using the over-the-top femoral route. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (02) 243-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Xergia SA, Pappas E, Georgoulis AD. Association of the single-limb hop test with isokinetic, kinematic, and kinetic asymmetries in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Health 2015; 7 (03) 217-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Coats AC, Johnson DL. Two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: indications, review, and technique demonstration. Orthopedics 2012; 35 (11) 958-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S, Giordano G, Iacono F, Presti ML. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction associated with extra-articular tenodesis: a prospective clinical and radiographic evaluation with 10- to 13-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (04) 707-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Buda R, Ruffilli A, Di Caprio F. , et al. Allograft salvage procedure in multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (02) 402-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ahn JH, Lee YS, Ha HC. Comparison of revision surgery with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and outcome of revision surgery between different graft materials. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (10) 1889-1895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wegrzyn J, Chouteau J, Philippot R, Fessy MH, Moyen B. Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective review of management and outcome of 10 patients with an average 3-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (04) 776-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Salmon LJ, Pinczewski LA, Russell VJ, Refshauge K. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft: 5- to 9-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (10) 1604-1614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Griffith TB, Allen BJ, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, Dahm DL. Outcomes of repeat revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (06) 1296-1301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Guzzini M, Mazza D, Fabbri M. , et al. Extra-articular tenodesis combined with an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in acute anterior cruciate ligament tear in elite female football players. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (10) 2091-2096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ferretti A, Monaco E, Ponzo A. , et al. Combined intra-articular and extra-articular reconstruction in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee: 25 years later. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (10) 2039-2047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lefevre N, Klouche S, Mirous G, Herman S, Gerometta A, Bohu Y. Return to sport after primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective comparative study of 552 patients from the FAST cohort. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (01) 34-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Andriolo L, Filardo G, Kon E. , et al. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcome and evidence for return to sport. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (10) 2825-2845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Paterno MV, Rauh MJ, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, Hewett TE. Incidence of second ACL injuries 2 years after primary acl reconstruction and return to sport. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (07) 1567-1573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Anand BS, Feller JA, Richmond AK, Webster KE. Return-to-sport outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (03) 580-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Shelbourne KD, Benner RW, Gray T. Return to sports and subsequent injury rates after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (06) 1395-1400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kvist J, Kartus J, Karlsson J, Forssblad M. Results from the Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (07) 803-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cozzi AL, Dunn KL, Harding JL, Valovich McLeod TC, Welch Bacon CE. Kinesiophobia after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in physically active individuals. J Sport Rehabil 2015; 24 (04) 434-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Christino MA, Fantry AJ, Vopat BG. Psychological aspects of recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (08) 501-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Safran MR, Harner CD. Technical considerations of revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (325) 50-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD. Revision anterior cruciate surgery with use of bone-patellar tendon-bone autogenous grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A (08) 1131-1143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hettrich CM, Dunn WR, Reinke EK, Spindler KP. ; MOON Group. The rate of subsequent surgery and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: two- and 6-year follow-up results from a multicenter cohort. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (07) 1534-1540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Maletis GB, Inacio MCS, Funahashi TT. Analysis of 16,192 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from a community-based registry. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (09) 2090-2098
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar