Search

Smaller anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) size in females has been hypothesized to be a key contributor to a higher incidence of ACL tears in that population, as a lower cross‐sectional area (CSA) directly corresponds to a larger stress on the ligament for a given load. Prior studies have used a mid‐length CSA measurement to quantify ACL size. In this study, we used magnetic resonance imaging to quantify the CSA along the entire length of the intact ACL. We hypothesized that changes in the ACL CSA along its length would have different patterns in males and females. We also hypothesized that changes in ACL CSA along its length would be associated with body size or knee size with different associations in females and males. MR images of contralateral ACL‐intact knees of 108 patients (62 females, 13–35 years) undergoing ACL surgery were used to measure the CSA along the ACL length, using a custom program. For both females and males, the largest CSA was located at 37%–39% of ACL length from the tibial insertion. Compared to females, males had a significantly larger CSA only within the distal 41% of the ACL (p < 0.001). ACL CSA was associated with patient height and weight in males (r > 0.3; p < 0.05), whereas it was associated with intercondylar notch width in females (r > 0.3; p < 0.05). These findings highlight the importance of standardizing the location of measurement of ACL CSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-invasive methods to document healing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) structural properties could potentially identify patients at risk for revision surgery. The objective was to evaluate machine learning models to predict ACL failure load from magnetic resonance images (MRI) and to determine if those predictions were related to revision surgery incidence. It was hypothesized that the optimal model would demonstrate a lower mean absolute error (MAE) than the benchmark linear regression model, and that patients with a lower estimated failure load would have higher revision incidence 2 years post-surgery. Support vector machine, random forest, AdaBoost, XGBoost, and linear regression models were trained using MRI T2* relaxometry and ACL tensile testing data from minipigs (n = 65). The lowest MAE model was used to estimate ACL failure load for surgical patients at 9 months post-surgery (n = 46) and dichotomized into low and high score groups via Youden's J statistic to compare revision incidence. Significance was set at alpha = 0.05. The random forest model decreased the failure load MAE by 55% (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: p = 0.01) versus the benchmark. The low score group had a higher revision incidence (21% vs. 5%; Chi-square test: p = 0.09). ACL structural property estimates via MRI may provide a biomarker for clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) methods were developed to establish the integrity of healing anterior cruciate ligaments (ACLs) and grafts. Whether qMRI variables predict risk of reinjury is unknown. Purpose: To determine if qMRI measures at 6 to 9 months after bridge-enhanced ACL restoration (BEAR) can predict the risk of revision surgery within 2 years of the index procedure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Originally, 124 patients underwent ACL restoration as part of the BEAR I, BEAR II, and BEAR III prospective trials and had consented to undergo an MRI of the surgical knee 6 to 9 months after surgery. Only 1 participant was lost to follow-up, and 4 did not undergo MRI, leaving a total of 119 patients for this study. qMRI techniques were used to determine the mean cross-sectional area; normalized signal intensity; and a qMRI-based predicted failure load, which was calculated using a prespecified equation based on cross-sectional area and normalized signal intensity. Patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score), clinical measures (hamstring strength, quadriceps strength, and side-to-side knee laxity), and functional outcomes (single-leg hop) were also measured at 6 to 9 months after surgery. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) for revision surgery based on the qMRI and non-imaging variables. Patient age and medial posterior tibial slope values were included as covariates. Results: In total, 119 patients (97%), with a median age of 17.6 years, underwent MRI between 6 and 9 months postoperatively. Sixteen of 119 patients (13%) required revision ACL surgery. In univariate analyses, higher International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score at 6 to 9 months postoperatively (OR = 1.66 per 10-point increase; P =.035) and lower qMRI-based predicted failure load (OR = 0.66 per 100-N increase; P =.014) were associated with increased risk of revision surgery. In the multivariable model, when adjusted for age and posterior tibial slope, the qMRI-based predicted failure load was the only significant predictor of revision surgery (OR = 0.71 per 100 N; P =.044). Conclusion: Quantitative MRI-based predicted failure load of the healing ACL was a significant predictor of the risk of revision within 2 years after BEAR surgery. The current findings highlight the potential utility of early qMRI in the postoperative management of patients undergoing the BEAR procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery is challenging for both patients and surgeons. Understanding the risk factors for failure after bridge-enhanced ACL restoration (BEAR) may help with patient selection for ACL restoration versus ACL reconstruction. Purpose: To identify the preoperative risk factors for ACL revision surgery within the first 2 years after BEAR. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data from the prospective BEAR I, II, and III trials were used to determine the preoperative risk factors for ACL revision surgery. All patients with a complete ACL tear (aged 13-47 years, depending on the trial), who met all other inclusion/exclusion criteria and underwent a primary BEAR procedure within 30 to 50 days from the injury (dependent on the trial), were included. Demographic data (age, sex, body mass index), baseline patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective score, Marx activity score), preoperative imaging results (ACL stump length, notch size, tibial slope), and intraoperative findings (knee hyperextension, meniscal status) were evaluated to determine their contribution to the risk of ipsilateral ACL revision surgery. Results: A total of 123 patients, with a median age of 17.6 years (interquartile range, 16-23 years), including 67 (54%) female patients, met study criteria. Overall, 18 (15%) patients required ACL revision surgery in the first 2 years after the BEAR procedure. On bivariate analyses, younger age (P =.011), having a contact injury at the time of the initial tear (P =.048), and increased medial tibial slope (MTS; P =.029) were associated with a higher risk of ipsilateral revision surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified 2 independent predictors of revision: patient age and MTS. The odds of ipsilateral revision surgery were decreased by 32% for each 1-year increase in age (odds ratio, 0.684 [95% CI, 0.517-0.905]; P =.008) and increased by 28% for each 1° increase in MTS (odds ratio, 1.280 [95% CI, 1.024-1.601]; P =.030). Sex, baseline IKDC or Marx score, knee hyperextension, and meniscal status were not significant predictors of revision. Conclusion: Younger age and higher MTS were predictors of ipsilateral ACL revision surgery after the BEAR procedure. Younger patients with higher tibial slopes should be aware of the increased risk for revision surgery when deciding to undergo ACL restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Magnetic resonance–based measurements of signal intensity have been used to track healing of surgically treated anterior cruciate ligaments (ACLs). However, it is unknown how the signal intensity values in different regions of the ligament or graft change during healing. Hypotheses: (1) Normalized signal intensity of the healing graft or repaired ACL is heterogeneous; (2) temporal changes in normalized signal intensity values differ among the tibial, middle, and femoral regions; and (3) there are no differences in regional normalized signal intensity values 2 years postoperatively among grafts, repaired ACLs, and contralateral native ACLs. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging scans were analyzed from patients in a trial comparing ACL reconstruction (n = 35) with bridge-enhanced ACL repair (n = 65). The ACLs were segmented from images acquired at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively and were partitioned into 3 sections along the longitudinal axis (femoral, middle, and tibial). Linear mixed modeling was used to compare location-specific differences in normalized ligament signal intensity among time points (6, 12, and 24 months) and groups (ACL reconstruction, repair, and contralateral native ACL). Results: For grafts, the middle region had a higher mean normalized signal intensity when compared with the femoral region at all time points (P <.01) but compared with the tibial region only at 6 months (P <.01). For repaired ACLs, the middle region had a higher mean normalized signal intensity versus the femoral region at all time points (P <.01) but versus the tibial region only at 6 and 12 months (P <.04). From 6 to 24 months, the grafts showed the greatest reduction in normalized signal intensity in the femoral and middle regions (vs tibial regions; P <.01), while there were no regional differences in repaired ACLs. At 2 years after surgery, repaired ACLs had a lower normalized signal intensity in the tibial region as compared with reconstructed grafts and contralateral native ACLs (P <.01). Conclusion: The results suggest that graft remodeling is location specific. Repaired ACLs were more homogeneous, with lower or comparable normalized signal intensity values at 2 years as compared with the contralateral native ACL and reconstructed grafts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preclinical studies suggest that for complete midsubstance anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, a suture repair of the ACL augmented with a protein implant placed in the gap between the torn ends (bridge-enhanced ACL repair [BEAR]) may be a viable alternative to ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patients treated with BEAR would have a noninferior patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] Subjective Score; prespecified noninferiority margin, –11.5 points) and instrumented anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity (prespecified noninferiority margin, +2-mm side-to-side difference) and superior muscle strength at 2 years after surgery when compared with patients who underwent ACLR with autograft. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: One hundred patients (median age, 17 years; median preoperative Marx activity score, 16) with complete midsubstance ACL injuries were enrolled and underwent surgery within 45 days of injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either BEAR (n = 65) or autograft ACLR (n = 35 [33 with quadrupled semitendinosus-gracilis and 2 with bone–patellar tendon–bone]). Outcomes—including the IKDC Subjective Score, the side-to-side difference in instrumented AP knee laxity, and muscle strength—were assessed at 2 years by an independent examiner blinded to the procedure. Patients were unblinded after their 2-year visit. Results: In total, 96% of the patients returned for 2-year follow-up. Noninferiority criteria were met for both the IKDC Subjective Score (BEAR, 88.9 points; ACLR, 84.8 points; mean difference, 4.1 points [95% CI, –1.5 to 9.7]) and the side-to-side difference in AP knee laxity (BEAR, 1.61 mm; ACLR, 1.77 mm; mean difference, –0.15 mm [95% CI, –1.48 to 1.17]). The BEAR group had a significantly higher mean hamstring muscle strength index than the ACLR group at 2 years (98.2% vs 63.2%; P <.001). In addition, 14% of the BEAR group and 6% of the ACLR group had a reinjury that required a second ipsilateral ACL surgical procedure (P =.32). Furthermore, the 8 patients who converted from BEAR to ACLR in the study period and returned for the 2-year postoperative visit had similar primary outcomes to patients who had a single ipsilateral ACL procedure. Conclusion: BEAR resulted in noninferior patient-reported outcomes and AP knee laxity and superior hamstring muscle strength when compared with autograft ACLR at 2-year follow-up in a young and active cohort. These promising results suggest that longer-term studies of this technique are justified. Registration: NCT02664545 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]