Search

Background: Most clinical machine learning applications use a supervised learning approach using labeled variables. In contrast, unsupervised learning enables pattern detection without a prespecified outcome. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to apply unsupervised learning to the combined Danish and Norwegian knee ligament register (KLR) with the goal of detecting distinct subgroups. It was hypothesized that resulting groups would have differing rates of subsequent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) revision. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: K-prototypes clustering was performed on the complete case KLR data. After performing the unsupervised learning analysis, the authors defined clinically relevant characteristics of each cluster using variable summaries, surgeons' domain knowledge, and Shapley Additive exPlanations analysis. Results: Five clusters were identified. Cluster 1 (revision rate, 9.9%) patients were young (mean age, 22 years; SD, 6 years), received hamstring tendon (HT) autograft (91%), and had lower baseline Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Sport and Recreation (Sports) scores (mean, 25.0; SD, 15.6). Cluster 2 (revision rate, 6.9%) patients received HT autograft (89%) and had higher baseline KOOS Sports scores (mean, 67.2; SD, 16.5). Cluster 3 (revision rate, 4.7%) patients received bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) or quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft (94%) and had higher baseline KOOS Sports scores (mean, 65.8; SD, 16.4). Cluster 4 (revision rate, 4.1%) patients received BPTB or QT autograft (88%) and had low baseline KOOS Sports scores (mean, 20.5; SD, 14.0). Cluster 5 (revision rate, 3.1%) patients were older (mean age, 42 years; SD, 7 years), received HT autograft (89%), and had low baseline KOOS Sports scores (mean, 23.4; SD, 17.6). Conclusion: Unsupervised learning identified 5 distinct KLR patient subgroups and each grouping was associated with a unique ACLR revision rate. Patients can be approximately classified into 1 of the 5 clusters based on only 3 variables: age, graft choice (HT, BPTB, or QT autograft), and preoperative KOOS Sports subscale score. If externally validated, the resulting groupings may enable quick risk stratification for future patients undergoing ACLR in the clinical setting. Patients in cluster 1 are considered high risk (9.9%), cluster 2 patients medium risk (6.9%), and patients in clusters 3 to 5 low risk (3.1%-4.7%) for revision ACLR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: It is essential to obtain rotational stability of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) and it is suggested that a supplementary reconstruction of the antero-lateral ligament (ALL-R) may supports this. Theoretically, ALL-R may be particularly advantageous to support revision of failed ACL-Rs. It was hypothesized that ACL revision combined with ALL-R will result in superior outcome compared to isolated ACL revision. Methods: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Patients eligible for first time ACL revision were randomized to either isolated ACL revision (− ALL group) or ACL revision combined with a single-stranded allograft ALL-reconstruction (+ ALL group). Patient reported outcomes and function were evaluated at two-year follow-up by KNEES-ACL, KOOS, and Tegner activity scale. Objective knee laxity was evaluated at one-year follow-up using an instrumented Rolimeter test, the pivot shift test, and a manual Lachman test. Results: A total of 103 patients were enrolled with 49 patients randomized to the + ALL group and 54 patients in the − ALL group. There were no differences at baseline between groups regarding age, gender, body mass index, preoperative patient reported outcome scores and concomitant meniscus or cartilage injury. The ACL revision was performed with an allograft in 10 patients (20%) in the + ALL group and 8 patients (15%) in the -ALL group. At follow-up there was no significant difference between the groups in patient reported outcome scores and clinical knee laxity. Conclusion: Supplementary ALL-R does not improve subjective outcome of first time ACL revision at two-years and clinical knee stability at one-year follow-up compared to isolated ACL revision. Level of evidence: Level I. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the general success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACL-R), there are still studies reporting a high failure rate. Orthopedic surgeons are therefore increasingly confronted with the treatment of ACL retears, which are often accompanied by other lesions, such as meniscus tears and cartilage damage and which, if overlooked, can lead to poor postoperative clinical outcomes. The literature shows a wide variety of causes for ACL-R failure. Main causes are further trauma and possible technical errors during surgery, among which the position of the femoral tunnel is thought to be one of the most important. A successful postoperative outcome after ACL-revision surgery requires good preoperative planning, including a thorough evaluation of patient's medical history, e.g. instability during daily or sports activity, increased general joint laxity, and hints for a low-grade infection. A careful clinical examination should be performed. Additionally, comprehensive imaging is necessary. Besides a magnetic resonance imaging, a CT scan is helpful to determine location of tunnel apertures and to analyze for tunnel enlargement. A lateral knee radiograph is helpful to determine the tibial slope. The range of surgical options for the treatment of ACL-R failure is broad today. Orthopedic surgeons and experts in Sports Medicine must deal with various possible associated injuries of the knee or unfavorable anatomical conditions for ACL-R. The aim of this review was to highlight predictors and reasons of failures of ACL-R as well as describe diagnostic procedures to individualize treatment strategies for improved outcome after revision ACL-R.

Background: Clinical tools based on machine learning analysis now exist for outcome prediction after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Relying partly on data volume, the general principle is that more data may lead to improved model accuracy. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to apply machine learning to a combined data set from the Norwegian and Danish knee ligament registers (NKLR and DKRR, respectively), with the aim of producing an algorithm that can predict revision surgery with improved accuracy relative to a previously published model developed using only the NKLR. The hypothesis was that the additional patient data would result in an algorithm that is more accurate. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Machine learning analysis was performed on combined data from the NKLR and DKRR. The primary outcome was the probability of revision ACLR within 1, 2, and 5 years. Data were split randomly into training sets (75%) and test sets (25%). There were 4 machine learning models examined: Cox lasso, random survival forest, gradient boosting, and super learner. Concordance and calibration were calculated for all 4 models. Results: The data set included 62,955 patients in which 5% underwent a revision surgical procedure with a mean follow-up of 7.6 ± 4.5 years. The 3 nonparametric models (random survival forest, gradient boosting, and super learner) performed best, demonstrating moderate concordance (0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70]), and were well calibrated at 1 and 2 years. Model performance was similar to that of the previously published model (NKLR-only model: concordance, 0.67-0.69; well calibrated). Conclusion: Machine learning analysis of the combined NKLR and DKRR enabled prediction of the revision ACLR risk with moderate accuracy. However, the resulting algorithms were less user-friendly and did not demonstrate superior accuracy in comparison with the previously developed model based on patients from the NKLR alone, despite the analysis of nearly 63,000 patients. This ceiling effect suggests that simply adding more patients to current national knee ligament registers is unlikely to improve predictive capability and may prompt future changes to increase variable inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are not well understood. Hypothesis: Patients undergoing revision ACLR would demonstrate worse patient-reported outcomes and worse limb symmetry compared with a cohort undergoing primary ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: 672 participants (373 with primary ACLR, 111 with revision ACLR, and 188 uninjured) completed functional testing at a single academic medical center. Descriptive information, operative variables, and patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner Activity Scale score) were assessed for each patient. Quadriceps and hamstring strength tests were conducted using a Biodex System 3 Dynamometer. Single-leg hop for distance, triple hop test, and the 6-m timed hop test were also assessed. Limb symmetry index (LSI) between the ACLR limb and contralateral limb was calculated for strength and hop testing. Normalized peak torque (N·m/kg) was calculated for strength testing. Results: No differences were found in group characteristics, excluding body mass (P <.001), or in patient-reported outcomes. There were no interactions between revision status, graft type, and sex. Knee extension LSI was inferior (P <.001) in participants who had undergone primary (73.0% ± 15.0%) and revision (77.2% ± 19.1%) ACLR compared with healthy, uninjured participants (98.8% ± 10.4%). Knee flexion LSI was inferior (P =.04) in the primary group (97.4% ± 18.4%) compared with the revision group (101.9% ± 18.5%). Difference in knee flexion LSI between the uninjured and primary groups, as well as between the uninjured and revision groups, did not reach statistical significance. Hop LSI outcomes were significantly different across all groups (P <.001). Between-group differences in extension in the involved limb (P <.001) were noted, as the uninjured group exhibited stronger knee extension (2.16 ± 0.46 N·m/kg) than the primary group (1.67 ± 0.47 N·m/kg) and the revision group (1.78 ± 0.48 N·m/kg). As well, differences in flexion in the involved limb (P =.01) were found, as the revision group exhibited stronger knee flexion (1.06 ± 0.25 N·m/kg) than the primary group (0.97 ± 0.29 N·m/kg) and the uninjured group (0.98 ± 0.24 N·m/kg). Conclusion: At 7 months postoperatively, patients who had undergone revision ACLR did not demonstrate inferior patient-reported outcomes, limb symmetry, strength, or functional performance compared with patients who had undergone primary ACLR. Patients who had undergone revision ACLR exhibited greater strength and LSI than their counterparts with primary ACLR, but these parameters were still inferior to those of uninjured controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no studies on the nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates between nonoperative treatment and revision ACL reconstruction for traumatic partial ACL graft rupture. We hypothesized that the outcomes and failure rates would be comparable and that nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial ACL graft rupture can produce satisfactory outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 2114 patients treated for isolated ACL rupture between January 2000 and June 2020. Patients with traumatic partial graft rupture after ACL reconstruction with minimum 2-year follow-up data were included. Patients who met all the following conditions were candidates for nonoperative treatment: (1) Lachman or pivot-shift grade 0 or 1 at 6 months after ACL reconstruction, (2) ACL graft with low to intermediate signal intensity on 1-year postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and (3) MRI after reinjury showing definite evidence of trauma, some fibers remaining in continuity of the ACL graft, and no anterior tibial subluxation in the sagittal plane. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to treatment method: nonoperative treatment (group A) and revision ACL reconstruction (group B). Clinical scores, laxity test results, radiological outcomes, and graft failures were compared between the groups. Results: In total, 47 patients had traumatic partial graft rupture (group A, n = 10; group B, n = 37). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of clinical scores, laxity tests, radiological outcomes, or graft failure. Conclusion: The clinical and radiological outcomes of nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial graft rupture after ACL reconstruction were comparable with those of revision ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative treatment of traumatic partial ACL graft rupture can produce satisfactory outcomes in selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The aim of this study is to find a correlation between linear measurements and the graft length required for different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision techniques, to extract formulas to predict required graft length during the preoperative planning. Methods At time 0 and 30 days later, two observers measured eight linear distances on standard 2D knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nine curved distances on 3D MRI sequences, corresponding to different techniques for ACL revision, anatomic anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction, and lateral extrarticular tenodesis (LET). Intra- and interobserver reliability was tested for 2D and 3D measurements. The correlation between 2D and 3D measurements was tested. The 2D measurements with highest repeatability and reproducibility, and with strongest correlation with 3D measurements were used to extract formulas to calculate the graft length from 2D values. Results Fifty MRIs acquired with both 2D and 3D sequences were used. The intra- and interobserver reliability of linear 2D measurement was high, with the transepicondylar distance (TD) showing the highest reproducibility and repeatability. The intra- and interobserver reliability of 3D measurements was lower than 2D, but acceptable for all measurements except for ALL reconstruction. The TD showed the strongest correlation with 3D measurements. The formulas extracted to calculate the graft length from the TD proved to be accurate. Conclusion Accurate formulas were created to calculate the graft length needed for different ACL revision techniques and ALL reconstruction/LET techniques from TD. These formulas can be used during preoperative planning of ACL revision cases.

Abstract Background Secondary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures are a relevant clinical concern after surgical treatment of a primary ACL rupture. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence related to the role of muscle strength prior to revision surgery in a second ACL rupture. The aim of this study was to assess differences in knee extensor and flexor strength in patients before primary and secondary ACL reconstruction compared to healthy controls. Methods In total, n = 69 age, weight and sex matched individuals were included in the study: n = 23 patients with isolated primary ACL rupture, n = 23 with secondary ACL rupture, and n = 23 matched healthy controls. Maximal isokinetic knee extension and flexion torque normalized to body mass was assessed for both legs. Results For patients with secondary ACL ruptures, torques were reduced in the non-injured (extension: 1.94 Nm/kg vs. 2.46 Nm/kg, p

Purpose: The study analysed unique data on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries among German professional male team sports over five consecutive seasons with the aim of improving medical outcomes in the future. Sport-specific differences in injury occurrence, concomitant injuries, timing of ACL reconstruction, graft type selection and short-term complications were examined. Methods: This retrospective study analysed trauma insurance data on all complete ACL tears from players with at least one competitive match appearance in the two highest divisions of German male basketball, ice hockey, football and handball. Each complete ACL tear registered by clubs or physicians between the 2014/15 and 2018/19 seasons with the German statutory accidental insurance for professional athletes (VBG) as part of occupational accident reporting was included. Results: In total, 189 out of 7517 players (2.5%) sustained an ACL injury, mainly in handball (n = 82; 43.4%) and football (n = 72; 38.1%) followed by ice hockey (n = 20; 10.6%) and basketball (n = 15; 7.9%).Seventeen players (9.0%) also sustained a second ACL injury. Thus, 206 ACL injuries were included in the analysis. The overall match incidence of ACL injuries was 0.5 per 1000 h and was highest in handballs (1.1 injuries per 1000 h). A total of 70.4% of ACL injuries involved concomitant injury to other knee structures, and 29.6% were isolated ACL injuries. The highest rate of isolated ACL injuries was seen in ice hockey (42.9%). All ACL injuries, except for one career-ending injury, required surgery. In the four analysed team sports, hamstring tendons (71.4%) were the most commonly used grafts for ACL reconstruction; football had the highest percentage of alternative grafts (48.7%). During rehabilitation, 22.9% of all surgically treated ACL injuries (n = 205) required at least two surgical interventions, and 15.6% required revision arthroscopy. The main cause of revision arthroscopy (n = 32; 50.0%) was range-of-motion deficit due to arthrofibrosis or cyclops formation. Conclusion: The present study shows an overall high rate of revision arthroscopy after ACLR (15.6%), which should encourage surgeons and therapists to evaluate their treatment and rehabilitation strategies in this specific subpopulation. Hamstring tendon grafts are most commonly used for ACL reconstruction but have the highest revision and infection rates. Handball shows the highest ACL injury risk of the four evaluated professional team sports. Concomitant injuries occur in the majority of cases, with the highest share of isolated ACL injuries occurring in ice hockey. Level of evidence: Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed at reporting the long-term second revision rate and subjective clinical outcomes from a cohort of patients who underwent a double-bundle (DB) ACLR first revision with allograft at a single institution. Methods: The Institutional database was searched according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients that underwent DB-ACL first revision with Achilles tendon allograft, (2) surgery performed between January 2000 and December 2012, (3) age at revision ≥ 18 y/o. Patients' general information, history, surgical data, and personal contacts were extracted from charts. An online survey platform was implemented to collect responses via email. The survey questions included: date of surgeries, surgical data, date of graft failure and subsequent second ACL revision surgery, any other surgery of the index knee, contralateral ACLR, KOOS score, and Tegner scores. Results: Eighty-one patients were included in the survival analysis, mean age at revision 32 ± 9.2 y/o, 71 males, mean BMI 24.7 ± 2.7, mean time from ACL to revision 6.8 ± 5.4 years, mean follow-up time 10.7 ± 1.4 years. There were 12 (15%) second ACL revisions during the follow-up period, three females and nine males, at a mean of 4.5 ± 3 years after the index surgery. The overall survival rates were 85% from a second ACL revision and 68% from all reoperations of the index knee. Considering only the successful procedures (61 patients), at final follow-up, the mean values for the KOOS subscales were 84 ± 15.5 for Pain, 88.1 ± 13.6 for Symptoms, 93 ± 11.6 for ADL, 75 ± 24.5 for Sport, and 71 ± 19.6 for Qol. Twenty-nine (48%) patients performed sports activity at the same level as before ACLR failure. Conclusions: Double-bundle ACL revision with fresh-frozen Achilles allograft yields satisfactory results at long-term follow-up, with an 85% survival rate from a second ACL revision at mean 10 years' follow-up and good patient-reported clinical scores. Level of evidence: Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study is to find a correlation between linear measurements and the graft length required for different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision techniques, to extract formulas to predict required graft length during the preoperative planning.Methods: At time 0 and 30 days later, two observers measured eight linear distances on standard 2D knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nine curved distances on 3D MRI sequences, corresponding to different techniques for ACL revision, anatomic anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction, and lateral extrarticular tenodesis (LET). Intra- and interobserver reliability was tested for 2D and 3D measurements. The correlation between 2D and 3D measurements was tested. The 2D measurements with highest repeatability and reproducibility, and with strongest correlation with 3D measurements were used to extract formulas to calculate the graft length from 2D values.Results: Fifty MRIs acquired with both 2D and 3D sequences were used. The intra- and interobserver reliability of linear 2D measurement was high, with the transepicondylar distance (TD) showing the highest reproducibility and repeatability. The intra- and interobserver reliability of 3D measurements was lower than 2D, but acceptable for all measurements except for ALL reconstruction. The TD showed the strongest correlation with 3D measurements. The formulas extracted to calculate the graft length from the TD proved to be accurate.Conclusion: Accurate formulas were created to calculate the graft length needed for different ACL revision techniques and ALL reconstruction/LET techniques from TD. These formulas can be used during preoperative planning of ACL revision cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome at 5-year follow-up of a one-step procedure combining anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and partial meniscus replacement using a polyurethane scaffold for the treatment of symptomatic patients with previously failed ACL reconstruction and partial medial meniscectomy. Moreover, the implanted scaffolds have been evaluated by MRI protocol in terms of morphology, volume, and signal intensity. Methods: Twenty patients with symptomatic knee laxity after failed ACL reconstruction and partial medial meniscectomy underwent ACL revision combined with polyurethane-based meniscal scaffold implant. Clinical assessment at 2- and 5-year follow-ups included VAS, Tegner Activity Score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Lysholm Score. MRI evaluation of the scaffold was performed according to the Genovese scale with quantification of the scaffold's volume at 1- and 5-year follow-ups. Results: All scores revealed clinical improvement as compared with the preoperative values at the 2- and 5-year follow-ups. However, a slight, but significant reduction of scores was observed between 2 and 5 years. Concerning the MRI assessment, a significant reduction of the scaffold's volume was observed between 1 and 5 years. Genovese Morphology classification at 5 years included two complete resorptions (Type 3) and all the remaining patients had irregular morphology (Type 2). With regard to the Genovese Signal at the 5-year follow-up, three were classified as markedly hyperintense (Type 1), 15 as slightly hyperintense (Type 2), and two as isointense (Type 1). Conclusion: Simultaneous ACL reconstruction and partial meniscus replacement using a polyurethane scaffold provides favourable clinical outcomes in the treatment of symptomatic patients with previously failed ACL reconstruction and partial medial meniscectomy at 5 years. However, MRI evaluation suggests that integration of the scaffold is not consistent. Level of evidence: Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As machine learning becomes increasingly utilized in orthopaedic clinical research, the application of machine learning methodology to cohort data from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) presents a valuable opportunity to translate data into patient-specific insights., Purpose: To apply novel machine learning methodology to MARS cohort data to determine a predictive model of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) graft failure and features most predictive of failure., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: The authors prospectively recruited patients undergoing rACLR from the MARS cohort and obtained preoperative radiographs, surgeon-reported intraoperative findings, and 2- and 6-year follow-up data on patient-reported outcomes, additional surgeries, and graft failure. Machine learning models including logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and a validated ensemble algorithm (AutoPrognosis) were built to predict graft failure by 6 years postoperatively. Validated performance metrics and feature importance measures were used to evaluate model performance., Results: The cohort included 960 patients who completed 6-year follow-up, with 5.7% (n = 55) experiencing graft failure. AutoPrognosis demonstrated the highest discriminative power (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: AutoPrognosis, 0.703; RF, 0.618; GB, 0.660; XGBoost, 0.680; LR, 0.592), with well-calibrated scores (model Brier score: AutoPrognosis, 0.053; RF, 0.054; GB, 0.057; XGBoost, 0.058; LR, 0.111). The most important features for AutoPrognosis model performance were prior compromised femoral and tibial tunnels (placement and size) and allograft graft type used in current rACLR., Conclusion: The present study demonstrated the ability of the novel AutoPrognosis machine learning model to best predict the risk of graft failure in patients undergoing rACLR at 6 years postoperatively with moderate predictive ability. Femoral and tibial tunnel size and position in prior ACLR and allograft use in current rACLR were all risk factors for rACLR failure in the context of the AutoPrognosis model. This study describes a unique model that can be externally validated with larger data sets and contribute toward the creation of a robust rACLR bedside risk calculator in future studies., Registration: NCT00625885 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant 5R01-AR060846). See Supplemental Material for individual disclosures. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Aims: There is limited information on outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) in soccer (association football) athletes, particularly on return to sport and the rate of additional knee surgery. The purpose of this study was to report return to soccer after rACLR, and to test the hypothesis that patient sex and graft choice are associated with return to play and the likelihood of future knee surgery in soccer players undergoing rACLR. Methods: Soccer athletes enrolled in a prospective multicentre cohort were contacted to collect ancillary data on their participation in soccer and their return to play following rACLR. Information regarding if and when they returned to play and their current playing status was recorded. If they were not currently playing soccer, they were asked the primary reason they stopped playing. Information on any subsequent knee surgery following their index rACLR was also collected. Player demographic data and graft choice were collected from their baseline enrolment data at rACLR. Results: Soccer-specific follow-up was collected on 76% (33 male, 39 female) of 95 soccer athletes. Subsequent surgery information was collected on 95% (44 male, 46 female). Overall, 63% of athletes returned to soccer a mean 9.6 months (SD 5.8) after index revision surgery but participation in soccer decreased to 19% at a mean of 6.4 years (SD 1.3) after surgery. There was no significant association of patient sex or graft choice with return to play, time of return to play, or long-term return to play. Females were more likely than males to have subsequent knee surgery following rACLR (20% (9/46) vs 5% (2/44); p = 0.050). The rate of recurrent graft tear (5.6%; 5/90) was similar between males and females. Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of soccer players return to sport after rACLR, but the rate of participation drops significantly over time. Neither patient sex nor graft choice at the time of rACLR were associated with return to play. Female soccer players face a higher risk for additional knee surgery after rACLR than male soccer players. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1043–1048.

Background: Secondary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures are a relevant clinical concern after surgical treatment of a primary ACL rupture. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence related to the role of muscle strength prior to revision surgery in a second ACL rupture. The aim of this study was to assess differences in knee extensor and flexor strength in patients before primary and secondary ACL reconstruction compared to healthy controls. Methods: In total, n = 69 age, weight and sex matched individuals were included in the study: n = 23 patients with isolated primary ACL rupture, n = 23 with secondary ACL rupture, and n = 23 matched healthy controls. Maximal isokinetic knee extension and flexion torque normalized to body mass was assessed for both legs. Results: For patients with secondary ACL ruptures, torques were reduced in the non-injured (extension: 1.94 Nm/kg vs. 2.46 Nm/kg, p < 0.05, flexion: 1.25 Nm/kg vs. 1.59 Nm/kg, p < 0.05) and the injured leg (extension: 1.70 Nm/kg vs. 2.46 Nm/kg, p < 0.05, flexion: 1.14 Nm/kg vs. 1.59 Nm/kg, p < 0.05) compared to healthy controls. For patients with a primary ACL rupture torques were reduced in the non-injured (extension: 1.92 Nm/kg vs. 2.46 Nm/kg, p < 0.05, flexion: 1.24 Nm/kg vs. 1.59 Nm/kg, p < 0.05) and the injured leg (extension: 1.38 Nm/kg vs. 2.46 Nm/kg, p < 0.05, flexion: 1.01 Nm/kg vs. 1.59 Nm/kg, p < 0.05) compared to healthy controls. There were no differences between patients with primary and secondary ruptures, except of the knee extension on the injured leg showing higher values after a secondary ACL rupture (1.38 Nm/kg vs. 1.70 Nm/kg, p < 0.05). Conclusions: The findings indicate that maximal knee torques were significantly reduced in patients with primary and secondary ACL ruptures before surgical reconstruction for the non-injured and injured leg as compared to healthy controls. Further investigations are needed to assess strength abilities before and after a second revision within a prospective design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Operative Orthopädie und Traumatologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: External validation of machine learning predictive models is achieved through evaluation of model performance on different groups of patients than were used for algorithm development. This important step is uncommonly performed, inhibiting clinical translation of newly developed models. Machine learning analysis of the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register (NKLR) recently led to the development of a tool capable of estimating the risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision (https://swastvedt.shinyapps.io/calculator%5frev/). The purpose of this study was to determine the external validity of the NKLR model by assessing algorithm performance when applied to patients from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry (DKLR). Methods: The primary outcome measure of the NKLR model was probability of revision ACL reconstruction within 1, 2, and/or 5 years. For external validation, all DKLR patients with complete data for the five variables required for NKLR prediction were included. The five variables included graft choice, femur fixation device, KOOS QOL score at surgery, years from injury to surgery, and age at surgery. Predicted revision probabilities were calculated for all DKLR patients. The model performance was assessed using the same metrics as the NKLR study: concordance and calibration. Results: In total, 10,922 DKLR patients were included for analysis. Average follow-up time or time-to-revision was 8.4 (± 4.3) years and overall revision rate was 6.9%. Surgical technique trends (i.e., graft choice and fixation devices) and injury characteristics (i.e., concomitant meniscus and cartilage pathology) were dissimilar between registries. The model produced similar concordance when applied to the DKLR population compared to the original NKLR test data (DKLR: 0.68; NKLR: 0.68–0.69). Calibration was poorer for the DKLR population at one and five years post primary surgery but similar to the NKLR at two years. Conclusion: The NKLR machine learning algorithm demonstrated similar performance when applied to patients from the DKLR, suggesting that it is valid for application outside of the initial patient population. This represents the first machine learning model for predicting revision ACL reconstruction that has been externally validated. Clinicians can use this in-clinic calculator to estimate revision risk at a patient specific level when discussing outcome expectations pre-operatively. While encouraging, it should be noted that the performance of the model on patients undergoing ACL reconstruction outside of Scandinavia remains unknown. Level of evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A significant proportion of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) later experience graft failure. Some studies suggest an association between a steep posterior tibial slope (PTS) and graft failure. Purpose: To examine the PTS in a large cohort of patients about to undergo ACLR and to determine whether a steep PTS is associated with later revision surgery. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review of a cohort undergoing isolated ACLR between 2002 and 2012 (with 8-19 years of follow-up) was conducted. Preoperative sagittal radiographs of knees in full extension were used for measurements of the PTS. There were 2 independent examiners who performed repeated measurements to assess the reliability of the method. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the PTS in the groups with and without later revision surgery. Results: A total of 728 patients, with a mean age of 28 years at the time of surgery, were included. Overall, 10% (n = 76) underwent revision surgery during the observation period. The group of injured knees had a significantly steeper PTS compared with the group of uninjured knees (9.5° vs 8.7°, respectively; P <.05). The mean PTS in the no revision group was 9.5° compared with 9.3° in the revision group (not significant). Dichotomized testing of revision rates related to PTS cutoff values of ≥10°, ≥12°, ≥14°, ≥16°, and ≥18° showed no association of PTS steepness (not significant) to graft failure. Patients with revision were younger than the ones without (mean age, 24 ± 8 vs 29 ± 10 years, respectively) and had a shorter time from injury to ACLR (mean, 14 ± 27 vs 24 ± 44 months, respectively) as well as a smaller graft size (8.2 vs 8.4 mm, respectively; P =.040). Conclusion: The current study did not find any association between a steep PTS measured on lateral knee radiographs and revision ACL surgery. However, a steeper PTS was seen in the group of injured knees compared with the group of uninjured (contralateral) knees. Independent of the PTS, younger patients, those with a shorter time from injury to surgery, and those with a smaller graft size were found to undergo revision surgery more often. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundMost surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome; however, graft choice for revision may be limited due to previously used grafts.HypothesesAutograft use would result in increased sports function, increased activity level, and decreased osteoarthritis symptoms (as measured by validated patient-reported outcome instruments). Autograft use would result in decreased graft failure and reoperation rate 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsPatients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 sites. Data collected included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathologic abnormalities, and the results of a series of validated, patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating score). Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Incidences of additional surgery and reoperation due to graft failure were also recorded. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, Marx scores, graft rerupture, and reoperation rate at 2 years after revision surgery.ResultsA total of 1205 patients (697 [58%] males) were enrolled. The median age was 26 years. In 88% of patients, this was their first revision, and 341 patients (28%) were undergoing revision by the surgeon who had performed the previous reconstruction. The median time since last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Revision using an autograft was performed in 583 patients (48%), allograft was used in 590 (49%), and both types were used in 32 (3%). Questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 subjects (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 (92%). The IKDC, KOOS, and WOMAC scores (with the exception of the WOMAC stiffness subscale) all significantly improved at 2-year follow-up (P < .001). In contrast, the 2-year Marx activity score demonstrated a significant decrease from the initial score at enrollment (P < .001). Graft choice proved to be a significant predictor of 2-year IKDC scores (P = .017). Specifically, the use of an autograft for revision reconstruction predicted improved score on the IKDC (P = .045; odds ratio [OR] = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.01-1.70). The use of an autograft predicted an improved score on the KOOS sports and recreation subscale (P = .037; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73). Use of an autograft also predicted improved scores on the KOOS quality of life subscale (P = .031; OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). For the KOOS symptoms and KOOS activities of daily living subscales, graft choice did not predict outcome score. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 2-year Marx activity level scores (P = .012). Graft rerupture was reported in 37 of 1112 patients (3.3%) by their 2-year follow-up: 24 allografts, 12 autografts, and 1 allograft and autograft. Use of an autograft for revision resulted in patients being 2.78 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture compared with allograft (P = .047; 95% CI, 1.01-7.69).ConclusionImproved sports function and patient-reported outcome measures are obtained when an autograft is used. Additionally, use of an autograft shows a decreased risk in graft rerupture at 2-year follow-up. No differences were noted in rerupture or patient-reported outcomes between soft tissue and bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. Surgeon education regarding the findings of this study has the potential to improve the results of revision ACL reconstruction.

BackgroundThe factors that lead to patients failing multiple anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are not well understood.HypothesisMultiple-revision ACL reconstruction will have different characteristics than first-time revision in terms of previous and current graft selection, mode of failure, chondral/meniscal injuries, and surgical charactieristics.Study designCase-control study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsA prospective multicenter ACL revision database was utilized for the time period from March 2006 to June 2011. Patients were divided into those who underwent a single-revision ACL reconstruction and those who underwent multiple-revision ACL reconstructions. The primary outcome variable was Marx activity level. Primary data analyses between the groups included a comparison of graft type, perceived mechanism of failure, associated injury (meniscus, ligament, and cartilage), reconstruction type, and tunnel position. Data were compared by analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey test.ResultsA total of 1200 patients (58% men; median age, 26 years) were enrolled, with 1049 (87%) patients having a primary revision and 151 (13%) patients having a second or subsequent revision. Marx activity levels were significantly higher (9.77) in the primary-revision group than in those patients with multiple revisions (6.74). The most common cause of reruptures was a traumatic, noncontact ACL graft injury in 55% of primary-revision patients; 25% of patients had a nontraumatic, gradual-onset recurrent injury, and 11% had a traumatic, contact injury. In the multiple-revision group, a nontraumatic, gradual-onset injury was the most common cause of recurrence (47%), followed by traumatic noncontact (35%) and nontraumatic sudden onset (11%) (P < .01 between groups). Chondral injuries in the medial compartment were significantly more common in the multiple-revision group than in the single-revision group, as were chondral injuries in the patellofemoral compartment.ConclusionPatients with multiple-revision ACL reconstructions had lower activity levels, were more likely to have chondral injuries in the medial and patellofemoral compartments, and had a high rate of a nontraumatic, recurrent injury of their graft.

Background: Physicians' and patients' decision-making process between bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) and hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) may be influenced by a variety of factors in the young, active athlete. Purpose: To determine the incidence of both ACL graft revisions and contralateral ACL tears resulting in subsequent ACLR in a cohort of high school– and college-aged athletes who initially underwent primary ACLR with either a BTB or a hamstring autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Study inclusion criteria were patients aged 14 to 22 years who were injured in sports, had a contralateral normal knee, and were scheduled to undergo unilateral primary ACLR with either a BTB or a hamstring autograft. All patients were prospectively followed for 6 years to determine whether any subsequent ACLR was performed in either knee after their initial ACLR. Multivariable regression modeling controlled for age, sex, ethnicity/race, body mass index, sport and competition level, baseline activity level, knee laxity, and graft type. The 6-year outcomes were the incidence of subsequent ACLR in either knee. Results: A total of 839 patients were eligible, of which 770 (92%) had 6-year follow-up for the primary outcome measure of the incidence of subsequent ACLR. The median age was 17 years, with 48% female, and the distribution of BTB and hamstring grafts was 492 (64%) and 278 (36%), respectively. The incidence of subsequent ACLR at 6 years was 9.2% in the ipsilateral knee, 11.2% in the contralateral normal knee, and 19.7% for either knee. High-grade preoperative knee laxity (odds ratio [OR], 2.4 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.9]; P =.001), autograft type (OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.5]; P =.004), and age (OR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-1.0]; P =.009) were the 3 most influential predictors of ACL graft revision in the ipsilateral knee. The odds of ACL graft revision were 2.1 times higher for patients receiving a hamstring autograft than patients receiving a BTB autograft (95% CI, 1.3-3.5; P =.004). No significant differences were found between autograft choices when looking at the incidence of subsequent ACLR in the contralateral knee. Conclusion: There was a high incidence of both ACL graft revisions and contralateral normal ACL tears resulting in subsequent ACLR in this young athletic cohort. The incidence of ACL graft revision at 6 years after index surgery was 2.1 times higher with a hamstring autograft compared with a BTB autograft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Graft choice for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) is debated, with considerable controversy and variability among surgeons. Autograft tendons are actually the most used grafts for primary surgery; however, allografts have been used in greater frequency for both primary and revision ACL surgery over the past decade. Given the great debate on the use of allografts in ACL-R, the "Allografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction" consensus statement was developed among orthopedic surgeons and members of SIGASCOT (Società Italiana del Ginocchio, Artroscopia, Sport, Cartilagine, Tecnologie Ortopediche), with extensive experience in ACL-R, to investigate their habits in the use of allograft in different clinical situations. The results of this consensus statement will serve as benchmark information for future research and will help surgeons to facilitate the clinical decision making.Methods: In March 2017, a formal consensus process was developed using a modified Delphi technique method, involving a steering group (9 participants), a rating group (28 participants) and a peer-review group (31 participants). Nine statements were generated and then debated during a SIGASCOT consensus meeting. A manuscript has been then developed to report methodology and results of the consensus process and finally approved by all steering group members.Results: A different level of consensus has been reached among the topics selected. Strong agreement has been reported in considering harvesting, treatment and conservation methods relevant for clinical results, and in considering biological integration longer in allograft compared to autograft. Relative agreement has been reported in using allograft as the first-line graft for revision ACL-R, in considering biological integration a crucial aspect for rehabilitation protocol set-up, and in recommending a delayed return to sport when using allograft. Relative disagreement has been reported in using allograft as the first-line graft for primary ACL-R in patients over 50, and in not considering clinical results of allograft superior to autograft. Strong disagreement has been reported in using allograft as the first-line graft for primary ACL-R and for skeletally immature patients.Conclusions: Results of this consensus do not represent a guideline for surgeons, but could be used as starting point for an international discussion on use of allografts in ACL-R.Level Of Evidence: IV, consensus of experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyze the contribution of increased lateral (LTPS) and medial tibial slopes (MTPS) as independent risk factors of graft failure following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients with graft failure after ACL reconstruction who underwent revision surgery between 2009 and 2014 were enrolled and matched to a control group of 69 patients with primary anatomic successful ACL reconstruction. Patients were matched based on age, sex, date of primary surgery and graft type. LTPS and MTPS were measured on MRI in a blinded fashion. Tibial and femoral tunnel positions were determined on CT scans. Independent t test was used to compare the MTPS and LTPS between subgroups. Risks of graft failure associated with an increasing MTPS and LTPS were analyzed using binary logistic analysis.Results: The means of LTPS (7.3°) and MTPS (6.7°) in the graft failure group were found to be significantly greater than in the control group (4.6° and 4.1°, respectively; p = < 0.001). Non-anatomic and anatomic tunnel positions were found in 42 cases (73.7%) and 15 cases (26.3%), respectively. There were no significant differences in MTPS or LTPS between patients with anatomic and non-anatomic tunnel positions within the graft failure group. An increase of the MTPS of 1° was associated with an 1.24 times increased likelihood of exhibiting graft failure [95% CI 1.07-1.43] (p = 0.003) and an increase of the LTPS of 1° was associated with an 1.17 times increased likelihood of exhibiting graft failure [95% CI 1.04-1.31] (p = 0.009). The increased risk was most evident in patients with a lateral tibial posterior slope of ≥ 10°.Conclusions: Increased LTPS and MTPS are independent risk factors for graft failure following ACL reconstruction regardless whether tunnel position is anatomic or non-anatomic. This information may be helpful to clinicians when considering slope correction in selected revision ACL reconstruction procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zusammenfassung Das höchste Risiko einer Reruptur der primären VKB-Plastik haben junge, sportliche Athleten im Alter zwischen 15 und 20 Jahren. Häufig tritt diese innerhalb der ersten 2 Jahre nach der primären Operation auf. Ursächlich für eine erneute Instabilität können neben einem Versagen des Transplantates im Rahmen eines adäquaten Traumas eine fehlende biologische Heilung oder ein technischer Fehler sein. Entsprechend ist eine genaue Ursachenanalyse notwendig, um den Revisionseingriff zu planen. Neben der klinischen Untersuchung ist hier eine erweiterte Bildgebung notwendig. Des Weiteren ist es entscheidend, sich ein Bild über die bereits verwendeten Transplantate zu machen und diese mit in die Strategie der Revision einzubeziehen. Wesentlich für den Erfolg nach einer Revision einer VKB-Plastik ist die realistische Erwartungshaltung und die kontrollierte Wiederkehr zum Sport. Summary Young and sportive Athletes, aged between 15 and 20 years, have the highest risk of reinstability. Besides clinical examination, an extended radiological examination is important following primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Especially within the first two years, the risk of reinjury is very high. Indications for revision ACL surgery include re-rupture, persistent or increasing instability due to concomitant ligament instability being untreated, and technical or biological failure. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of failure causes is necessary. Besides clinical examination, an extended radiological examination is important. Furthermore, graft choice depends on already used grafts. Medical history and clinical examination are also helpful to find the right treatment strategy in revision cases. Essential for success following revision ACL reconstruction are well-informed patients and a controlled retu to play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies have renewed interest in the structures of the anterolateral aspect of the knee. Concomitant damage to these structures in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament rupture has led to various surgical techniques to address these combined injuries. This article is a description of the rationale and the indications for lateral extra-articular tenodesis as well as surgical technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients who present for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision with a high-grade pivot shift at the time of an index ACL revision procedure and subsequent reconstruction failure or a high-grade pivot shift at revision surgery, patients with generalized joint laxity, and those requiring softs tissue grafts should be considered candidates for lateral tenodesis to supplement intraarticular graft revision. Although there is no consensus regarding the optimal lateral tenodesis technique, due to the tibial positioning associated with tensioning and fixation of extra-articular procedures, a lateral tenodesis should not be used in patients with posterolateral corner injuries or lateral compartment articular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the general success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACL-R), there are still studies reporting a high failure rate. Orthopedic surgeons are therefore increasingly confronted with the treatment of ACL retears, which are often accompanied by other lesions, such as meniscus tears and cartilage damage and which, if overlooked, can lead to poor postoperative clinical outcomes. The literature shows a wide variety of causes for ACL-R failure. Main causes are further trauma and possible technical errors during surgery, among which the position of the femoral tunnel is thought to be one of the most important. A successful postoperative outcome after ACL-revision surgery requires good preoperative planning, including a thorough evaluation of patient's medical history, e.g. instability during daily or sports activity, increased general joint laxity, and hints for a low-grade infection. A careful clinical examination should be performed. Additionally, comprehensive imaging is necessary. Besides a magnetic resonance imaging, a CT scan is helpful to determine location of tunnel apertures and to analyze for tunnel enlargement. A lateral knee radiograph is helpful to determine the tibial slope. The range of surgical options for the treatment of ACL-R failure is broad today. Orthopedic surgeons and experts in Sports Medicine must deal with various possible associated injuries of the knee or unfavorable anatomical conditions for ACL-R. The aim of this review was to highlight predictors and reasons of failures of ACL-R as well as describe diagnostic procedures to individualize treatment strategies for improved outcome after revision ACL-R.

Background: Injury to the ipsilateral graft used for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or a new injury to the contralateral ACL are disastrous outcomes after successful ACL reconstruction (ACLR), rehabilitation, and return to activity. Studies reporting ACL reinjury rates in younger active populations are emerging in the literature, but these data have not yet been comprehensively synthesized. Purpose: To provide a current review of the literature to evaluate age and activity level as the primary risk factors in reinjury after ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted via searches in PubMed (1966 to July 2015) and EBSCO host (CINAHL, Medline, SPORTDiscus [1987 to July 2015]). After the search and consultation with experts and rating of study quality, 19 articles met inclusion for review and aggregation. Population demographic data and total reinjury (ipsilateral and contralateral) rate data were recorded from each individual study and combined using random-effects meta-analyses. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for the total population data as well as the following subsets: young age, return to sport, and young age + return to sport. Results: Overall, the total second ACL reinjury rate was 15%, with an ipsilateral reinjury rate of 7% and contralateral injury rate of 8%. The secondary ACL injury rate (ipsilateral + contralateral) for patients younger than 25 years was 21%. The secondary ACL injury rate for athletes who return to a sport was also 20%. Combining these risk factors, athletes younger than 25 years who return to sport have a secondary ACL injury rate of 23%. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that younger age and a return to high level of activity are salient factors associated with secondary ACL injury. These combined data indicate that nearly 1 in 4 young athletic patients who sustain an ACL injury and return to high-risk sport will go on to sustain another ACL injury at some point in their career, and they will likely sustain it early in the return-to-play period. The high rate of secondary injury in young athletes who return to sport after ACLR equates to a 30 to 40 times greater risk of an ACL injury compared with uninjured adolescents. These data indicate that activity modification, improved rehabilitation and return-to-play guidelines, and the use of integrative neuromuscular training may help athletes more safely reintegrate into sport and reduce second injury in this at-risk population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is characterized by a variety of possibilities concerning its implementation. Different choices for grafts, fixation methods and tunnel positioning, as well as diverse technical tools are available and have clinical significance. Besides specific pre- and post-operative procedures, different indications for surgery and further surgeon-/clinic-related factors add variability to the treatment. In response to the lack of descriptive statistics about the implementation of these factors and the increasing numbers of ACL reconstructions this study has been conducted to display the current state of the treatment for ACL tears throughout Germany. Materials and Methods: 709 clinics with surgical and orthopedic departments were provided an online-questionnaire that surveyed their statistical records (e.g. annually implemented operations, number of surgeons, duration of operations), implemented techniques (e.g. choice of grafts, construction of drilling tunnel, tibial/femoral fixation) and personal assessment (e.g. frequency/cause of graft failure, frequency/handling of infection). The response rate was 22 % (n = 155). Based on the statistical records a specialized group within the respondents was identified, enabling a cross-comparison between high- and low-volume surgeons. Results: On average, the German orthopedic surgeons in the clinics surveyed annually performs 35 ACL reconstructions, with each operation lasting an average of 67 min. After subdividing the data with references to annually performed surgeries into high- and low-volume-surgeons, differences and common features between the subgroups become apparent. Differences between high- and low-volume-surgeons, respectively, show shorter duration of both ACL reconstructions (55 vs. 71 min) and revision ACL reconstructions (75 vs. 90 min), higher membership rates in professional associations (83 vs. 38 % have at least one membership), more frequent implementation of stability examinations (47 vs. 21 %) and different frequencies of femoral drilling techniques (using the anterolateral portal in 71 vs. 54 %). With reference to evaluating operation dates, choosing grafts and assessing reasons for graft failure both groups share commonalities, as well as regarding the predominant use of monofixation for femoral fixation (88 % of the participants-mainly with endobutton in 38 % and transfixation pin in 27 %) and for tibial fixation (81 % of the participants-mainly with bioabsorbable screw in 60 %). Conclusions: The treatment of ACL tears in the group of German clinics studied is characterized by a variety of surgical possibilities. This condition might reflect the entirety of clinics reconstructing ACL in Germany. For the first time, a descriptive statistical survey was implemented to display this variety and to provide insight into the current status quo. Within the entirety of surgeons implementing ACL reconstruction a specialized subgroup with a particular expertise seems to exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Revision ACL reconstruction requires careful analysis of failure causes particularly in cases of two previous graft ruptures. Intrinsic factors as excessive tibial slope or narrow femoral notch increase failure risks but are rarely addressed in revision surgery. The authors report outcomes, at minimum follow-up of 2 years, for second revision ACL reconstructions combined with tibial deflexion osteotomy for correction of excessive slope (>12°).Methods: Nine patients that underwent second revision ACL reconstruction combined with tibial deflexion osteotomy were retrospectively studied. The mean age was 30.3 ± 4.4 years (median 28; range 26-37), and mean follow-up was 4.0 ± 2.0 years (median 3.6; range 2.0-7.6). Autografts were harvested from the quadriceps tendon (n = 8) or hamstrings (n = 1), and tibial osteotomy was done by anterior closing wedge, without detachment of the patellar tendon, to obtain a slope of 3° to 5°.Results: All patients had fused osteotomies, stable knees, and there were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The mean posterior tibial slope decreased from 13.2° ± 2.6° (median 13°; range 12°-18°) preoperatively to 4.4° ± 2.3° (median 4°; range 2°-8°) postoperatively. The mean Lysholm score was 73.8 ± 5.8 (median 74; range 65-82), and the IKDC-SKF was 71.6 ± 6.1 (median 72.8; range 62.2-78.5).Conclusion: The satisfactory results of second revision ACL reconstruction combined with tibial deflexion osteotomy at minimum follow-up of 2 years suggest that tibia slope correction protects reconstructed ACL from fatigue failure in this study. The authors stress the importance of careful analysis failure causes prior to revision ACL reconstruction, and recommend correction of tibial slope if it exceeds 12°, to reduce the risks of graft retear.Level Of Evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examined the effect of graft choice on the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Results show that compared with allograft, autograft use for ACL revision resulted in patients being 2.78 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture. It concluded that the use of autograft is associated with improved sports function and patient-reported outcome measures.

The article discusses research which investigated the clinical outcomes associated with revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery with proximal tibial anterior closing wedge osteotomy. Topics explored include factors like poor tunnel placement that contribute to ACL reconstruction failure, the radiological assessment performed on participating patients, and the postoperative rehabilitation process which prohibits weightbearing.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is first to report the outcomes, at 4 years follow-up, in revision ACL surgery using allografts in patients younger than 40 years old, and then compared soft tissue allografts to bone tendon allografts. Methods: This retrospective study included 47 patients who underwent ACL revision surgery with fresh-frozen allografts. Patellar tendon allograft or tibialis anterior allograft was used. Twenty-seven patients undergoing ACL revision with patellar tendon allograft were compared retrospectively with twenty-two patients undergoing the same procedure with soft tissue tibialis anterior allograft. Lysholm, IKDC, and KT-1000 values were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively. Results: The average patient follow-up was 4.6 years (±2.5). The mean age at time of the revision was 34 years old (±6.3). Overall, patients reported the overall condition of their knee as excellent or good in 85 % of the patients (10 excellent, 33 good). Based on their experience, 85 % would have the surgery again if they had the same problem in the other knee. Both subgroups experienced significant improvement in Lysholm, IKDC, and KT-1000 values, with no difference found between groups at final follow-up. Conclusion: Revision ACL with allografts has excellent and good results in 85 % of patients younger than 40 years old. No statistical difference was seen between soft tissue (tibialis anterior) and patellar tendon allograft. Level of evidence: IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, and methods pf extra-articular tenodesis with the help of diagrams. It sheds light on hamstrings for both ACL techniques, and extra-articular tenodesis. Results of the different techniques used to control both anterior tibial translation and rotary laxity are discussed. It states that extra-articular tendosis along with intra-articular ACL reconstruction may improve rotational in patients with explosive pivot shift test.

Revision ACL presents many technical issues that are not seen in the primary ACL reconstruction. A variety of surgical techniques for revising ACL reconstruction have been described in the literature to address these concerns. The purpose of this article is to present a novel technique consisting in a non-anatomic double-bundle ACL revision reconstruction, using a fresh-frozen Achilles tendon allograft with soft tissue fixation. This technique is a valid treatment option when faced with a complex scenario such as ACL revision surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are currently more than 100,000 anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions performed annually in the United States. The overall rate of success of ACL reconstruction in terms of restoration of stability, loss of sensation of giving way and relief of symptoms is reported between 75% and 90% in the literature. Approximately 8% of these patients have an unsatisfactory result due to recurrent instability and graft failure. An ACL reconstruction failure may consist of a combination of subjective factors of pain, instability, or stiffness as well as objective findings of laxity, progressive degenerative changes, or loss of motion. For many of those patients who experience a failure following an ACL reconstruction, revision ACL reconstruction is indicated to provide the patient with a stable knee, to prevent further injury to the cartilage and menisci, and to improve patient function. Operative considerations include the timing of the surgery, graft selection, and surgical technique. Other considerations include the treatment of combined instabilities, the treatment of pre-existing meniscal or articular pathology, and the necessity of performing any corrective limb realignment procedures. This article will discuss the mechanisms of failure of ACL reconstructions, will provide an approach to patients with ACL reconstruction failures, and will discuss the rationale for primary grafting and for staged revision surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arthroskopie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: The goal of the modified Ellison operation as a supplement to a conventional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is to decrease anterolateral rotational instability of a knee joint after ACL rupture, to improve the stability and prevent ACL re-rupture., Indications: An ACL rupture with high risk of re-rupture (young age, high-performance sport, hyperlaxity, contralateral ACL rupture in history), increased subjective and objective anterolateral rotational instability of the knee after ACL rupture, ACL re-rupture., Contraindications: Gonarthrosis, additive instabilities (e.g. posterolateral, medial), non-anatomical ACL reconstruction with persistent instability, general contraindications to surgery (e.g. infections), chronic irritation of the knee joint., Surgical Technique: Supine position. Mark the typical landmarks. Incision from Gerdy's tubercle extending proximally along the iliotibial tract (ITT) to the lateral collateral ligament (approx. 5 cm). Incise the ITT in the line of its fibers about 10 mm anterior to its posterior border and continue the incision proximally to 5 mm proximal to the LCL. Make a parallel incision 10-12 mm anterior to the first incision. Use sharp subperiosteal dissection to elevate the strip of the ITT from Gerdy's tubercle. Secure the distal end of the ITT strip with a nonabsorbable suture (e.g. FiberWire No. 2, Arthrex, Naples, USA). Expose the LCL and pass the ITT strip deep to the LCL from proximal to distal and back to Gerdy's tubercle. Reattach the distal end of the strip of the ITT to its original position at Gerdy's tubercle with a bone anchor. The defect in the ITT can be closed with an absorbable suture (e.g. Vicryl, Ethicon, USA) in the proximal part. Layered closure., Postoperative Management: Knee brace for at least 6 weeks, movement limitation of 0‑0-90° for 6 weeks, 2 weeks 20 kg partial weight bearing., Results: A total of 36 patients (mean age 18.9 years) with a high risk of ACL re-rupture have been treated with ACL reconstruction and modified Ellison procedure. Follow-up over 2 years. Of the patients 35 returned to the previous sports level, 1 patient suffered a re-rupture, 2 patients had cyclops resection and 1 patient contralateral ACL rupture., (© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Aims: There is limited information on outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) in soccer (association football) athletes, particularly on return to sport and the rate of additional knee surgery. The purpose of this study was to report return to soccer after rACLR, and to test the hypothesis that patient sex and graft choice are associated with return to play and the likelihood of future knee surgery in soccer players undergoing rACLR., Methods: Soccer athletes enrolled in a prospective multicentre cohort were contacted to collect ancillary data on their participation in soccer and their return to play following rACLR. Information regarding if and when they returned to play and their current playing status was recorded. If they were not currently playing soccer, they were asked the primary reason they stopped playing. Information on any subsequent knee surgery following their index rACLR was also collected. Player demographic data and graft choice were collected from their baseline enrolment data at rACLR., Results: Soccer-specific follow-up was collected on 76% (33 male, 39 female) of 95 soccer athletes. Subsequent surgery information was collected on 95% (44 male, 46 female). Overall, 63% of athletes returned to soccer a mean 9.6 months (SD 5.8) after index revision surgery but participation in soccer decreased to 19% at a mean of 6.4 years (SD 1.3) after surgery. There was no significant association of patient sex or graft choice with return to play, time of return to play, or long-term return to play. Females were more likely than males to have subsequent knee surgery following rACLR (20% (9/46) vs 5% (2/44); p = 0.050). The rate of recurrent graft tear (5.6%; 5/90) was similar between males and females., Conclusion: Approximately two-thirds of soccer players return to sport after rACLR, but the rate of participation drops significantly over time. Neither patient sex nor graft choice at the time of rACLR were associated with return to play. Female soccer players face a higher risk for additional knee surgery after rACLR than male soccer players. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open  2021;2(12):1043-1048.