Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(08): 820-826
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743234
Original Article

Larger Prior Tibial Tunnel Size Is Associated with Increased Failure Risk following Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Jacy Leon
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
David C. Flanigan
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Matthew Colatruglio
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Benjamin Ormseth
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Sean Fitzpatrick
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Robert A. Duerr
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Christopher C. Kaeding
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Robert A. Magnussen
1   Department of Orthopaedics, OSU Sports Medicine Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

We hypothesize that larger prior tunnel size is associated with an increased risk of failure of single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) as defined by the performance of a re-revision (third) ACLR on the index knee. Retrospective review identified 244 patients who underwent single-stage revision ACLR at a single center with available preoperative radiographs. Patient and surgical factors were extracted by chart review. The maximum diameter of the tibial tunnel was measured on lateral radiographs and the maximum diameter of the femoral tunnel was measured on anteroposterior radiographs. Record review and follow-up phone calls were used to identify failure of the revision surgery as defined by re-revision ACLR on the index knee. One hundred and seventy-one patients (70%) were reviewed with a mean of 3.9 years follow-up. Overall, 23 patients (13.4%) underwent re-revision surgery. Mean tibial tunnel size was 12.6 ± 2.8 mm (range: 5.7–26.9 mm) and mean femoral tunnel size was 11.7 ± 2.8 mm (range: 6.0–23.0 mm). Re-revision risk increased with tibial tunnel size. Tibial tunnels 11 mm and under had a re-revision risk of 4.2%, while tunnels > 11 mm had a risk of 17.1% (relative risk: 4.1, p = 0.025). No significant association between femoral tunnel size and re-revision risk was noted. Patients with prior tibial tunnels > 11mm in diameter at revision surgery had significantly increased risk of re-revision ACLR. Further studies are needed to explore the relationship between prior tunnel size and outcomes of revision ACLR.

Keywords

ACL reconstruction - tibial tunnel - single-stage revision - re-revision

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Biomedical Institutional Research Board of The Ohio State University, (Protocol 2016H0444).




Publication History

Received: 15 August 2021

Accepted: 09 January 2022

Article published online:
03 March 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 CDC. National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey: Annual Summary. 1996. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control (CDC); 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Fox JA, Pierce M, Bojchuk J, Hayden J, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach Jr BR. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with nonirradiated fresh-frozen patellar tendon allograft. Arthroscopy 2004; 20 (08) 787-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Johnson DL, Swenson TM, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH, Harner CD. Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: experience from Pittsburgh. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (325) 100-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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 (08) 1131-1143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 George MS, Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Current concepts review: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (12) 2026-2037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wright R, Spindler K, Huston L. et al. Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes: MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 2011; 24 (04) 289-294
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wright RW, Gill CS, Chen L. et al. Outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (06) 531-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP. et al; MARS Group. Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (10) 1979-1986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Marquass B, Engel T, Hepp P, Theopold JD, Josten C. [One- and two-stage procedure for revision after failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction]. Z Orthop Unfall 2007; 145 (06) 712-718
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mitchell JJ, Chahla J, Dean CS, Cinque M, Matheny LM, LaPrade RF. Outcomes after 1-stage versus 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (08) 1790-1798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Allen CR, Anderson AF, Cooper DE. et al; MARS Group. Surgical predictors of clinical outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (11) 2586-2594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ding DY, Zhang AL, Allen CR. et al; MARS Group. Subsequent surgery after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: rates and risk factors from a multicenter cohort. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (09) 2068-2076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cooper DE, Dunn WR, Huston LJ. et al; MARS Group. Physiologic preoperative knee hyperextension is a predictor of failure in an anterior cruciate ligament revision cohort: a report from the MARS group. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (12) 2836-2841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wright RW, Huston LJ, Haas AK. et al; MARS Group. Predictors of patient-reported outcomes at 2 years after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (10) 2394-2401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ziegler CG, DePhillipo NN, Kennedy MI, Dekker TJ, Dornan GJ, LaPrade RF. Beighton score, tibial slope, tibial subluxation, quadriceps circumference difference, and family history are risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament graft failure: a retrospective comparison of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 2021; 37 (01) 195-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Marx RG, Connor J, Lyman S. et al; Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network. Multirater agreement of arthroscopic grading of knee articular cartilage. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (11) 1654-1657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Outerbridge RE. The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961; 43-B (04) 752-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ko YW, Rhee SJ, Kim IW, Yoo JD. The correlation of tunnel position, orientation and tunnel enlargement in outside-in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res 2015; 27 (04) 247-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Utzschneider S, Goettinger M, Weber P. et al. Development and validation of a new method for the radiologic measurement of the tibial slope. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (10) 1643-1648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cameron ML, Fu FH, Paessler HH, Schneider M, Evans CH. Synovial fluid cytokine concentrations as possible prognostic indicators in the ACL-deficient knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1994; 2 (01) 38-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cameron M, Buchgraber A, Passler H. et al. The natural history of the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Changes in synovial fluid cytokine and keratan sulfate concentrations. Am J Sports Med 1997; 25 (06) 751-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Höher J, Möller HD, Fu FH. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: fact or fiction?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998; 6 (04) 231-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fahey M, Indelicato PA. Bone tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament replacement. Am J Sports Med 1994; 22 (03) 410-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Everhart JS, DiBartola AC, Dusane DH. et al. Bacterial deoxyribonucleic acid is often present in failed revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy 2018; 34 (11) 3046-3052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wilson TC, Kantaras A, Atay A, Johnson DL. Tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (02) 543-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Xu Y, Ao Y, Wang J, Yu J, Cui G. Relation of tunnel enlargement and tunnel placement after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (07) 923-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nagai K, Tashiro Y, Herbst E. et al. Steeper posterior tibial slope correlates with greater tibial tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (12) 3717-3723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pioger C, Saithna A, Rayes J. et al. Influence of preoperative tunnel widening on the outcomes of a single stage-only approach to every revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an analysis of 409 consecutive patients from the SANTI study group. Am J Sports Med 2021; 49 (06) 1431-1440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rizer M, Foremny GB, Rush III A. et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction tunnel size: causes of tunnel enlargement and implications for single versus two-stage revision reconstruction. Skeletal Radiol 2017; 46 (02) 161-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar