Search

Background: Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires postoperatively compared to cohorts with primary ACL reconstruction. In a previously active population, it is unclear if patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with a return to activity (RTA) or vary by sports participation level (higher level vs. recreational athletes). Hypotheses: Individual RTA would be associated with improved outcomes (ie, decreased knee symptoms, pain, function) as measured using validated PROs. Recreational participants would report lower PROs compared with higher level athletes and be less likely to RTA. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: There were 862 patients who underwent a revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) and self-reported physical activity at any level preoperatively. Those who did not RTA reported no activity 2 years after revision. Baseline data included patient characteristics, surgical history and characteristics, and PROs: International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A binary indicator was used to identify patients with same/better PROs versus worse outcomes compared with baseline, quantifying the magnitude of change in each direction, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate risk factors for not returning to activity, the association of 2-year PROs after rACLR surgery by RTA status, and whether each PRO and RTA status differed by participation level. Results: At 2 years postoperatively, approximately 15% did not RTA, with current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.3; P = .001), female patients (aOR = 2.9; P < .001), recreational participants (aOR = 2.0; P = .016), and those with a previous medial meniscal excision (aOR = 1.9; P = .013) having higher odds of not returning. In multivariate models, not returning to activity was significantly associated with having worse PROs at 2 years; however, no clinically meaningful differences in PROs at 2 years were seen between participation levels. Conclusion: Recreational-level participants were twice as likely to not RTA compared with those participating at higher levels. Within a previously active cohort, no RTA was a significant predictor of lower PROs after rACLR. However, among patients who did RTA after rACLR, approximately 20% reported lower outcome scores. Most patients with rACLR who were active at baseline improved over time; however, patients who reported worse outcomes at 2 years had a clinically meaningful decline across all PROs.

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.

Infection is a rare occurrence after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR). Because of the low rates of infection, it has been difficult to identify risk factors for infection in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report the rate of infection following rACLR and assess whether infection is associated with patient- and surgeon- dependent risk factors. We reviewed two large prospective cohorts to identify patients with postoperative infections following rACLR. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, history of diabetes, and graft choice were recorded for each patient. The association of these factors with postoperative infection following rACLR was assessed. There were 1423 rACLR cases in the combined cohort, with 9 (0.6%) reporting post-operative infections. Allografts had a higher risk of infection than autografts (odds ratio=6.8; 95% CI: 0.9-54.5; p=0.045). Diabetes (odds ratio=28.6; 95% CI: 5.5-149.9; p=0.004) was a risk factor for infection. Patient age, sex, BMI and smoking status were not associated with risk of infection after rACLR. STATEMENT OF CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: While there is a low rate of infection following rACLR, use of allograft and comorbidity with diabetes are associated with a higher risk of infection following this surgery.

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in patients with isolated tears and tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have not been documented. Purpose: To examine the prevalence and 2-year operative success rate of meniscal repairs in the revision ACL setting. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All cases of revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since the initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify the pathologic condition and subsequent treatment. Results: In total, 218 patients (18%) from 1205 revision ACL reconstructions underwent concurrent meniscal repairs. There were 235 repairs performed: 153 medial, 48 lateral, and 17 medial and lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 178; 76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. Two-year surgical follow-up was obtained on 90% (197/218) of the cohort. Overall, the meniscal repair failure rate was 8.6% (17/197) at 2 years. Of the 17 failures, 15 were medial (13 all-inside, 2 inside-out) and 2 were lateral (both all-inside). Four medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACL reconstruction setting does not have a high failure rate at 2-year follow-up. Failure rates for medial and lateral repairs were both

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision cohorts continually report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires than primary ACL cohorts at similar time points after surgery. It is unclear how these outcomes are associated with physical activity after physician clearance for return to recreational or competitive sports after ACL revision surgery. Hypotheses: Participants who return to either multiple sports or a singular sport after revision ACL surgery will report decreased knee symptoms, increased activity level, and improved knee function as measured by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and compared with no sports participation. Multisport participation as compared with singular sport participation will result in similar increased PROMs and activity level. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 clinical sites. At the time of revision, baseline data collected included the following: demographics, surgical characteristics, previous knee treatment and PROMs, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, Marx activity score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). A series of multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale scores at 2 years after revision surgery by sports participation category, controlling for known significant covariates. Results: Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (986 of 1205) of the original cohort. Patients who reported not participating in sports after revision surgery had lower median PROMs both at baseline and at 2 years as compared with patients who participated in either a single sport or multiple sports. Significant differences were found in the change of scores among groups on the IKDC ( P < .0001), KOOS-Symptoms ( P = .01), KOOS–Sports and Recreation ( P = .04), and KOOS–Quality of Life ( P < .0001). Patients with no sports participation were 2.0 to 5.7 times more likely than multiple-sport participants to report significantly lower PROMs, depending on the specific outcome measure assessed, and 1.8 to 3.8 times more likely than single-sport participants (except for WOMAC-Stiffness, P = .18), after controlling for known covariates. Conclusion: Participation in either a single sport or multiple sports in the 2 years after ACL revision surgery was found to be significantly associated with higher PROMs across multiple validated self-reported assessment tools. During follow-up appointments, surgeons should continue to expect that patients who report returning to physical activity after surgery will self-report better functional outcomes, regardless of baseline activity levels.

Background: No consensus is available regarding the optimal choice of bone graft material for bone tunnel augmentation in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of different bone graft materials for staged revision ACL reconstruction. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were queried through use of the terms anterior cruciate ligament and revision to identify all studies reporting outcomes of bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction. Data extracted included indications for 2-stage surgery, surgical technique, graft material, time between surgeries, rehabilitation protocols, physical examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic and histologic findings. Results: The analysis included 7 studies with a total of 234 patients. The primary outcome in 2 studies was graft incorporation (mean follow-up, 8.8 months), whereas the other 5 studies reported clinical outcomes with follow-up mean ± SD of 4.2 ± 2.1 years. The indication for bone grafting and between-stage protocol varied among studies. Autograft was used in 4 studies: iliac crest bone autograft (ICBG, n = 3) and tibial bone autograft (TBA, n = 1). In 2 studies, the authors investigated the outcomes of allograft: allograft bone matrix (ABM) and allograft bone chips (AC). Finally, 1 study compared ICBG to a synthetic bone substitute. Radiographic evaluation of bone graft integration after the first stage was reported in 4 studies, with an average duration of 4.9 months. In 4 studies, the authors reported the time interval between first and second surgeries, with an average of 6.1 months for ICBG compared with 8.7 months for allogenic and synthetic grafts. Revision ACL graft failure rates were reported by 5 studies, including 1 study with ABM (6.1%), 1 study with AC (8.3%), 1 study with TBA (0%), and 2 studies with ICBG (0% and 2%). Conclusion: The indications for staged ACL reconstruction and the rehabilitation protocol between stages need to be clearly established. The available data indicate that autograft for bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage ACL revision may be associated with a lower risk of revision ACL reconstruction graft failure compared with allograft bone.

Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes than primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons remain varied and not completely understood. METHODS: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled. Data collected included baseline demographics, surgical technique and pathological condition, prescribed rehabilitation instructions, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments. Patients were followed for 2 years and asked to complete a set of outcome instruments identical to those completed at baseline. Subsequent surgical procedures on the ipsilateral knee were recorded. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, activity level, baseline outcome scores, and the above-mentioned rehabilitation-related variables in order to assess the factors affecting clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 843 patients met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled, and 82% (695) were followed for 2 years. Two rehabilitation-related factors were found to influence outcome. First, patients who were prescribed an ACL brace for their return to sports had a significantly better Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for sports and recreational activities at 2 years (odds ratio [OR] =1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 2.11; p = 0.019). Second, patients prescribed an ACL brace for the postoperative rehabilitation period were 2.3 times more likely to have subsequent surgery by 2 years (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.11 to 4.60; p = 0.024). The odds of a graft rerupture were not affected by any type of brace wear. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation-related factors that the physician can control at the time of an ACL reconstruction have the ability to influence clinical outcomes at 2 years. Weight-bearing and motion can be initiated immediately postoperatively. Bracing during the early postoperative period is not helpful. Use of a functional brace early in the postoperative period was associated with an increased risk of a reoperation. Use of a functional brace for a return to sports improved the KOOS on the sports/recreation subscale. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Articular cartilage and meniscal damage are commonly encountered and often treated at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Our understanding of how these injuries and their treatment relate to outcomes of ACLR is still evolving. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess whether articular cartilage and meniscal variables are predictive of 10-year outcomes after ACLR. We hypothesized that articular cartilage lesions and meniscal tears and treatment would be predictors of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (all 5 subscales), and Marx activity level outcomes at 10-year follow-up after ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Between 2002 and 2008, individuals with ACLR were prospectively enrolled and followed longitudinally using the IKDC, KOOS, and Marx activity score completed at entry, 2, 6, and 10 years. A proportional odds logistic regression model was built incorporating variables from patient characteristics, surgical technique, articular cartilage injuries, and meniscal tears and treatment to determine the predictors (risk factors) of IKDC, KOOS, and Marx outcomes at 10 years. Results: A total of 3273 patients were enrolled (56% male; median age, 23 years at time of enrollment). Ten-year follow-up was obtained on 79% (2575/3273) of the cohort. Incidence of concomitant pathology at the time of surgery consisted of the following: articular cartilage (medial femoral condyle [MFC], 22%; lateral femoral condyle [LFC], 15%; medial tibial plateau [MTP], 4%; lateral tibial plateau [LTP], 11%; patella, 18%; trochlea, 8%) and meniscal pathology (medial, 37%; lateral, 46%). Variables that were predictive of poorer 10-year outcomes included articular cartilage damage in the patellofemoral ( P < .01) and medial ( P < .05) compartments and previous medial meniscal surgery (7% of knees; P < .04). Compared with no meniscal tear, a meniscal injury was not associated with 10-year outcomes. Medial meniscal repair at the time of ACLR was associated with worse 10-year outcomes for 2 of 5 KOOS subscales, while a medial meniscal repair in knees with grade 2 MFC chondrosis was associated with better outcomes on 2 KOOS subscales. Conclusion: Articular cartilage injury in the patellofemoral and medial compartments at the time of ACLR and a history of medial meniscal surgery before ACLR were associated with poorer 10-year ACLR patient-reported outcomes, but meniscal injury present at the time of ACLR was not. There was limited and conflicting association of medial meniscal repair with these outcomes.

Knee dislocations (KDs) are devastating injuries for patients and present complex challenges for orthopaedic surgeons. Although short-term outcomes have been studied, there are few long-term outcomes of these injuries available in the literature. The purpose of this study is to determine factors that influence mid- to long-term clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of KD. A review of the current literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify clinical studies published from 2010 to 2019 with a minimum 2-year follow-up that reported outcomes following surgical treatment of KDs. Ten studies (6 level III, 4 level IV) were included. At mid- (2–10 y) to long-term (>10 y) follow-up, concomitant arterial, cartilage, and combined meniscus damage were predictive factors for inferior Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores when compared with patients without these associated injuries. Although concomitant neurological damage may influence short-term outcomes due to decreased mobility, at longer follow-up periods it does not appear to predict worse clinical outcomes when compared with patients without concomitant neurological injury. Frank and polytrauma KDs have been associated with worse mid- to long-term outcomes when compared with transient and isolated KDs. Patients who underwent surgery within 6 weeks of trauma experienced better long-term outcomes than those who underwent surgery longer than 6 weeks after the initial injury. However, the small sample size of this study makes it difficult to make valid recommendations. Lastly, female sex, patients older than 30 years at the time of injury and a body mass index (BMI) greater than 35 kg/m2 are factors that have been associated with worse mid- to long-term Lysholm and IKDC scores. The results of this review suggest that female sex, age >30 years, BMI >35 kg/m2, concomitant cartilage damage, combined medial and lateral meniscal damage, KDs that do not spontaneously relocate, and KDs associated with polytrauma may predict worse results at mid- to long-term follow-up.

Background: There remains a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) between skiers and non-skiers, particularly in older patient populations. Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes after ACLR between skiers and non-skiers, with a subanalysis based on age. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A nested cohort of 128 patients from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network cohort who underwent primary ACLR completed a series of patient-reported outcomes pre- and postoperatively at 2 and 6 years including the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Marx Activity Rating Scale, and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Data including patient sex, age at surgery, graft type, and sport participation were analyzed. Patients were stratified by participation in skiing (skiers vs non-skiers) and by age subgroup (≤29, 30-39, and ≥40 years). Student t tests and analysis of variance were used to compare mean improvement between pre- and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 44 skiers (female, 59.1%; age, 35.3 ± 11.6 years) and 84 non-skiers (female, 34.5%; age, 27.7 ± 11.3 years) were included. ACLR was performed using allograft in 36.7% (22 skiers, 25 non-skiers), autograft in 58.6% (19 skiers, 56 non-skiers), or hybrid autograft-allograft in 4.7% (3 skiers, 3 non-skiers). Although both non-skiers and skiers demonstrated improvements in outcomes from baseline to 2 and 6 years, non-skiers demonstrated significantly less overall improvement from 2 to 6 years postoperatively in KOOS Symptoms ( P = .01), KOOS Pain ( P = .002), and KOOS Activities of Daily Living ( P = .03) subscales compared with skiers. There were 15 skiers who were 29 years or younger (34.1%), 14 skiers between 30 and 39 years (31.8%), and 15 skiers 40 years or older (34.1%). Skiers 40 years and older demonstrated significantly greater mean improvement in KOOS Symptoms ( P = .02) and KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) ( P = .01) subscales at 2 years and KOOS QoL ( P = .01) at 6 years postoperatively compared with skiers 29 years or younger. Conclusion: Compared with non-skiers, skiers demonstrated significantly greater mean improvements in KOOS scores between 2 and 6 years after ACLR. In addition, skiers 40 years or older showed greater improvement in KOOS QoL compared with younger skiers. This information can be used to counsel skiers, especially those older than 40 years, as to their expected outcomes after ACLR.

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature in an effort to investigate sleep quality and disturbances and the association with clinical outcomes of patients undergoing shoulder surgery.A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All English-language literature reporting clinical outcomes and sleep quality and disturbance after shoulder surgery was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcomes assessed included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and sleep quality. Specific PROs included the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Shoulder Rating Scale, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES). Study methodology was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. Descriptive statistics are presented.Sixteen studies (11 level IV, 2 level III, 3 level II) with a total of 2748 shoulders were included (age, 12-91 years; follow-up, 0.25-132 months). In total, 2198 shoulders underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR), 131 shoulders underwent arthroscopic capsular release, 372 shoulders underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), 18 shoulders underwent comprehensive arthroscopic management, and 29 shoulders underwent sternoclavicular joint procedures. All shoulder surgeries improved self-reported sleep and PROs from before to after surgery. In RCR patients, PSQI scores were significantly associated with VAS scores, SST scores (r = 0.453, r = -0.490, P.05, respectively), but not significantly associated with UCLA Shoulder rating scale or the ASES scores (r = 0.04, r = 0.001, P.05, respectively). In TSA patients, PSQI scores were significantly associated with ASES scores (r = -0.08, P.05). All 4 RCR studies and 1 TSA study using PSQI found significant improvements in mean PSQI scores within 6 to 24 months (P.05).Surgical intervention for rotator cuff tear and glenohumeral osteoarthritis significantly improves self-reported sleep in patients with shoulder pain. However, there remains a dearth of available studies assessing the effects of surgical intervention for adhesive capsulitis, sternoclavicular joint instability, and sternoclavicular osteoarthritis on sleep. Future studies should use sleep-specific PROs and quantitative measures of sleep to further elucidate the relationship between sleep and the effect of shoulder surgery.Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Background: The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) has demonstrated inferior psychometric properties when compared with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form when assessing outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The KOOS, Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) is a validated short-form instrument to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after knee arthroplasty, and the purpose of this study was to determine if augmenting the KOOS, JR with additional KOOS items would allow for the creation of a short-form KOOS-based global knee score for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, with psychometric properties similar to those of the IKDC. Hypothesis: An augmented version of the KOOS, JR could be created that would demonstrate convergent validity with the IKDC but avoid the ceiling effects and limitations previously noted with several of the KOOS subscales. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Based on preoperative and 2-year postoperative responses to the KOOS questionnaires from a sample of 1904 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, an aggregate score combining the KOOS, JR and the 4 KOOS Quality of Life subscale questions, termed the KOOSglobal, was developed. Psychometric properties of the KOOSglobal were then compared with those of the IKDC subjective score. Convergent validity between the KOOSglobal and IKDC was assessed with a Spearman correlation (ρ). Responsiveness of the 2 instruments was assessed by calculating the pre- to postoperative effect size and relative efficiency. Finally, the presence of a preoperative floor or postoperative ceiling effect was defined with the threshold of 15% of patients reporting either the worst possible (0 for KOOSglobal and IKDC) or the best possible (100 for KOOSglobal and IKDC) scores, respectively. Results: The newly developed KOOSglobal was responsive after ACL reconstruction and demonstrated convergent validity with the IKDC. The KOOSglobal significantly correlated with the IKDC scores (ρ = 0.91, P < .001), explained 83% of the variability in IKDC scores, and was similarly responsive (relative efficiency = 0.63). While there was a higher rate of perfect postoperative scores with the KOOSglobal (213 of 1904, 11%) than with the IKDC (6%), the KOOSglobal was still below the 15% ceiling effect threshold. Conclusion: The large ceiling effects limit the ability to use several of the KOOS subscales with the younger, more active ACL population. However, by creating an aggregate score from the KOOS, JR and 4 KOOS Quality of Life subscale questions, the 11-item KOOSglobal offers a responsive PRO tool after ACL reconstruction that converges with the information captured with the IKDC. Also, by offering the ability to calculate multiple scores from a single questionnaire, the KOOSglobal may provide the orthopaedic community a single PRO platform to be used across knee-related subspecialties. Registration: NCT00478894 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background:When meniscal repair is performed during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), the effect of ACL graft type on meniscal repair outcomes is unclear.Hypothesis:The authors hypothesized that meniscal repairs would fail at the lowest rate when concomitant ACLR was performed with bone--patellar tendon--bone (BTB) autograft.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Patients who underwent meniscal repair at primary ACLR were identified from a longitudinal, prospective cohort. Meniscal repair failures, defined as any subsequent surgical procedure addressing the meniscus, were identified. A logistic regression model was built to assess the association of graft type, patient-specific factors, baseline Marx activity rating score, and meniscal repair location (medial or lateral) with repair failure at 6-year follow-up.Results:A total of 646 patients were included. Grafts used included BTB autograft (55.7%), soft tissue autograft (33.9%), and various allografts (10.4%). We identified 101 patients (15.6%) with a documented meniscal repair failure. Failure occurred in 74 of 420 (17.6%) isolated medial meniscal repairs, 15 of 187 (8%) isolated lateral meniscal repairs, and 12 of 39 (30.7%) of combined medial and lateral meniscal repairs. Meniscal repair failure occurred in 13.9% of patients with BTB autografts, 17.4% of patients with soft tissue autografts, and 19.4% of patients with allografts. The odds of failure within 6 years of index surgery were increased more than 2-fold with allograft versus BTB autograft (odds ratio = 2.34 [95% confidence interval, 1.12-4.92]; P = .02). There was a trend toward increased meniscal repair failures with soft tissue versus BTB autografts (odds ratio = 1.41 [95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.30]; P = .17). The odds of failure were 68% higher with medial versus lateral repairs ( P < .001). There was a significant relationship between baseline Marx activity level and the risk of subsequent meniscal repair failure; patients with either very low (0-1 points) or very high (15-16 points) baseline activity levels were at the highest risk ( P = .004).Conclusion:Meniscal repair location (medial vs lateral) and baseline activity level were the main drivers of meniscal repair outcomes. Graft type was ranked third, demonstrating that meniscal repairs performed with allograft were 2.3 times more likely to fail compared with BTB autograft. There was no significant difference in failure rates between BTB versus soft tissue autografts.Registration:NCT00463099 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background:Articular cartilage health is an important issue following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and primary ACL reconstruction. Factors present at the time of primary ACL reconstruction may influence the subsequent progression of articular cartilage damage.Hypothesis:Larger meniscus resection at primary ACL reconstruction, increased patient age, and increased body mass index (BMI) are associated with increased odds of worsened articular cartilage damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction.Study Design:Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Subjects who had primary and revision data in the databases of the Multicenter Orthopaedics Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) were included. Reviewed data included chondral surface status at the time of primary and revision surgery, meniscus status at the time of primary reconstruction, primary reconstruction graft type, time from primary to revision ACL surgery, as well as demographics and Marx activity score at the time of revision. Significant progression of articular cartilage damage was defined in each compartment according to progression on the modified Outerbridge scale (increase ≥1 grade) or >25% enlargement in any area of damage. Logistic regression identified predictors of significant chondral surface change in each compartment from primary to revision surgery.Results:A total of 134 patients were included, with a median age of 19.5 years at revision surgery. Progression of articular cartilage damage was noted in 34 patients (25.4%) in the lateral compartment, 32 (23.9%) in the medial compartment, and 31 (23.1%) in the patellofemoral compartment. For the lateral compartment, patients who had >33% of the lateral meniscus excised at primary reconstruction had 16.9-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact lateral meniscus ( P < .001). For the medial compartment, patients who had Conclusion:Excision of the medial and lateral meniscus at primary ACL reconstruction increases the odds of articular cartilage damage in the corresponding compartment at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Increased age is a risk factor for deterioration of articular cartilage in both tibiofemoral compartments, while increased BMI and the use of allograft for primary ACL reconstruction are associated with an increased risk of progression in the patellofemoral compartment.

Background: Understanding the risk factors for loss to follow-up in prospective clinical studies may allow for a targeted approach to minimizing follow-up bias and improving the generalizability of conclusions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and other sports-related interventions. Purpose: To identify independent risk factors associated with failure to complete (ie, loss to follow-up) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 2 years after ACLR within a well-funded prospective longitudinal cohort. Study Design: Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All patients undergoing primary or revision ACLR enrolled in the prospectively collected database of the multicenter consortium between 2002 and 2008 were included. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to determine which baseline risk factors were significantly associated with loss to follow-up at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. Predictors assessed for loss to follow-up were as follows: consortium site, sex, race, marital status, smoking status, phone number provided (home or cell), email address provided (primary or secondary), years of school completed, average hours worked per week, working status (full-time, part-time, homemaker, retired, student, or disabled), number of people living at home, and preoperative PROMs (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Marx Activity Rating Scale, and International Knee Documentation Committee). Results: A total of 3202 patients who underwent ACLR were enrolled. The 2-year PROM follow-up rate for this cohort was 88% (2821 of 3202). Multivariate analyses showed that patient sex (male: odds ratio [OR], 1.80) and race (black: OR, 3.64; other nonwhite: OR, 1.81) were independent predictors of 2-year loss to follow-up of PROMs. Education level was a nonconfounder. Conclusion: While education level did not predict loss to follow-up, patients who are male and nonwhite are at increased risk of loss to follow-up of PROM at 2 years. Capturing patient outcomes with minimal loss depends on equitable, not equal, opportunity to maximize generalizability and mitigate potential population-level health disparities. Registration: NCT00478894 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the effect that sex has on recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following primary arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization. Methods A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines was performed by searching PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies reporting recurrence rates following arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Patient demographics as well as preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative findings, including patient-reported outcomes and recurrence rates, were analyzed by 2 independent reviewers. Recurrence was defined as an episode of dislocation, subluxation or instability following primary arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization. Study methodological quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS). Risk bias was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS score). Descriptive statistics are presented. Results Ten studies (1 Level I, 1 Level II, 5 Level III, and 3 Level IV), including a total of 7,102 patients with primary traumatic and/or recurrent traumatic shoulder instability without previous procedures who underwent primary arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization, were included (mean follow-up, 34.6 months; mean age, 25.4 years). There was a total of 5,097 males (71.8%) and 2,005 females (28.2%). There was a higher recurrence rate in males (6%-37%) compared to females (0-32%). Clinical outcomes were inconsistently reported, so no quantitative analysis of clinical outcomes or return-to-sport between sexes was possible. The average MCMS of all 10 studies was 76.8 ± 8.0, indicating good methodology. Conclusions Males may have higher recurrence rates than females following primary arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization; however, the heterogeneity of the included studies precludes any definitive conclusions. Level of evidence IV, Systematic Review of Level I-IV.

Background: Injuries to the posterolateral corner (PLC) may occur concurrently with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients who underwent operative management of PLC injuries concurrently with ACL reconstruction in a prospective multicenter cohort. We hypothesized that there would be no differences in outcomes between patients who were treated with PLC repair and PLC reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were enrolled into a prospective longitudinal multicenter cohort between 2002 and 2008. Those with complete 6-year follow-up data (patient-reported outcomes and subsequent surgery information) were identified. Excluded from the study were patients with posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Patients who underwent PLC repair were compared with those who underwent PLC reconstruction with regard to interval from injury to surgery, need for revision surgery, and long-term outcomes at 6 years. Results: During the identified time frame, 3026 identified patients underwent primary ACL reconstruction; 34 (1.1%) also underwent concurrent PLC surgery (15 repairs, 19 reconstructions [18 allografts, 1 autograft]). With the numbers available, we did not detect significant differences between groups regarding the rate of meniscal or chondral injuries. Median time to PLC reconstruction was 121 days as compared with 19 days for concurrent ACL reconstruction and PLC repair ( P = .01). There were no between-group differences in Marx activity scores prior to surgery ( P = .4). At 6-year follow-up, there were no between-group differences in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score ( P = .36-.83) or International Knee Documentation Committee score ( P = .84); however, patients treated with PLC reconstructions had lower Marx activity scores (4.1 vs 9.4; P = .02). There was 1 ACL revision in the PLC reconstruction group, and 1 of the PLC repairs was revised to a reconstruction during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Good outcomes were achieved at 6-year follow-up with both repair and reconstruction of PLC injuries treated concurrently with ACL reconstruction. The PLC reconstruction group had lower activity levels 6 years after surgery. The present data suggest that, for appropriately selected patients undergoing acute surgical treatment of combined ACL and PLC injuries, PCL repair can achieve good long-term outcomes.

Background:The impact of preoperative opioid use on outcomes after shoulder surgery is unknown.Purpose/Hypothesis:To examine the role of preoperative opioid use on outcomes in patients after shoulder surgery. We hypothesized that preoperative opioid use in shoulder surgery will result in increased postoperative pain and functional deficits when compared with nonuse.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included were all English-language studies comparing clinical outcomes of shoulder surgery in patients who used opioids preoperatively (opioid group) as well as patients who did not (nonopioid group) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Outcomes included range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant-Murley score, and visual analog scale for pain. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and the MINORS score (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies).Results:Included were 5 studies (level 2, n = 1; level 3, n = 4): Two studies were on total shoulder arthroplasty, 2 on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, 1 on both, and 1 on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. There were 827 patients overall: 290 in the opioid group (age, 63.2 ± 4.0 years [mean ± SD]; follow-up, 38.9 ± 7.5 months) and 537 in the nonopioid group (age, 66.0 ± 4.7 years; follow-up, 39.5 ± 8.1 months). The opioid group demonstrated significantly worse pre- and postoperative visual analog scale and Constant-Murley score pain scores as compared with the nonopioid group. Mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were significantly lower in the opioid group at pre- and postoperative time points as compared with the nonopioid group ( P < .05 for all). However, both groups experienced similar improvement in outcomes pre- to postoperatively. One study showed that the opioid group consumed significantly more opioids postoperatively than the nonopioid group and for a longer duration ( P < .05). The overall mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score and MINORS score were 64.2 ± 14 and 15.8 ± 1.0, respectively.Conclusion:Opioid use prior to various shoulder surgical procedures negatively affected postoperative pain and functionality. Although the opioid group showed significantly worse scores postoperatively, the groups experienced similar improvements.

Purpose To determine which patient and injury factors are associated with the detection of high-grade laxity on examination under anesthesia before anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods We identified 2,318 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction without associated ligament injuries. Demographic data and information regarding meniscal tears were collected. Patients with high-grade Lachman (difference from contralateral side >10 mm), pivot-shift (International Knee Documentation Committee grade 3+), or anterior drawer (difference from contralateral side >10 mm) tests were identified by physical examination under anesthesia before ACL reconstruction. Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate whether chronicity of the ACL injury, patient age, sex, body mass index, generalized ligamentous laxity, and presence of meniscal tears were associated with increased odds of high-grade laxity, while we controlled for examining surgeon. Results Patients with chronic tears (>6 months from injury) had greater than twice the odds of having high-grade Lachman, pivot-shift, and anterior drawer tests (all P P P P = .013) meniscus tears were associated with increased odds of a high-grade Lachman test. Age younger than 20 years (OR, 1.34; P = .023), female sex (OR, 1.49; P = .001), generalized ligamentous laxity (OR, 3.46; P P P = .041) meniscus tear were associated with increased odds of a high-grade pivot-shift test. Generalized ligamentous laxity (OR, 2.27; P P = .001) or lateral (OR, 1.50; P = .010) meniscus tear were associated with increased odds of a high-grade anterior drawer test. Conclusions Chronic ACL tears, generalized ligamentous laxity, and meniscus tears are associated with increased odds of high-grade laxity with all 3 tests. Female patients and age younger than 20 years are associated with increased odds of a high-grade pivot-shift test. Level of Evidence Level II, lesser-quality prospective study.

Background:Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstructions.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to determine if the prevalence, location, and/or degree of meniscal and chondral damage noted at the time of revision ACL reconstruction predicts activity level, sports function, and osteoarthritis symptoms at 2-year follow-up. The hypothesis was that meniscal loss and high-grade chondral damage noted at the time of revision ACL reconstruction will result in lower activity levels, decreased sports participation, more pain, more stiffness, and more functional limitation at 2 years after revision surgery.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:Between 2006 and 2011, a total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction by 83 surgeons at 52 hospitals were accumulated for study of the relationship of meniscal and articular cartilage damage to outcome. Baseline demographic and intraoperative data, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity score, were collected initially and at 2-year follow-up to test the hypothesis. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, incidence of having a previous ACL reconstruction on the contralateral knee, previous and current meniscal and articular cartilage injury, graft choice, and surgeon years of experience to assess the meniscal and articular cartilage risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.Results:At 2-year follow-up, 82% (989/1205) of the patients returned their questionnaires. It was found that previous meniscal injury and current articular cartilage damage were associated with the poorest outcomes, with prior lateral meniscectomy and current grade 3 to 4 trochlear articular cartilage changes having the worst outcome scores. Activity levels at 2 years were not affected by meniscal or articular cartilage pathologic changes.Conclusion:Prior lateral meniscectomy and current grade 3 to 4 changes of the trochlea were associated with worse outcomes in terms of decreased sports participation, more pain, more stiffness, and more functional limitation at 2 years after revision surgery, but they had no effect on activity levels.Registration:NCT00625885

Background:Knot tying is a crucial component of successful arthroscopic shoulder surgery. It is currently unknown whether sliding or nonsliding techniques result in superior clinical outcomes.Purpose:To assess the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic sliding knot (SK)– versus nonsliding knot (NSK)–tying techniques during arthroscopic shoulder surgery, including rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All English-language literature published between 2000 and 2018 reporting clinical outcomes utilizing SK- or NSK-tying techniques during rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and SLAP repair with a minimum 24-month follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Information on type of surgery, knot used, failure rate, patient satisfaction, and patient-reported outcomes was collected. Patient-reported outcome measures included the Constant-Murley score, Rowe score, and visual analog scale for pain. Study quality was evaluated using the modified Coleman Methodology Score.Results:Overall, 9 studies (6 level 3 and 3 level 4) with a total of 671 patients (mean age, 52.8 years [range, 16-86 years]; 65.7% male; 206 SK and 465 NSK) were included. There were 4 studies that reported on Bankart repair in 148 patients (63 SK and 85 NSK), 3 on SLAP repair in 59 patients (59 SK), and 2 on rotator cuff repair in 464 patients (84 SK and 380 NSK). Also, 6 studies compared knot-tying with knotless techniques (3 Bankart repair studies and 3 SLAP repair studies), while the studies reporting the outcomes of SLAP repair evaluated SK-tying techniques only. The failure rate for Bankart repair was 3.2% (2/63) for SKs and 4.7% (4/85) for NSKs. The failure rate for rotator cuff repair was 2.4% (2/84) for SKs and 6.3% (24/380) for NSKs. The failure rate for SLAP repair was 11.9% (7/59). Because of inconsistencies in outcomes and procedures, no quantitative analysis was possible. The mean modified Coleman Methodology Score for all studies was 65.1 ± 8.77, indicating adequate methodology.Conclusion:The literature on clinical outcomes using SKs or NSKs for shoulder procedures is limited to level 4 evidence. Future studies should be prospective and focus on comparing the use of SKs and NSKs for shoulder procedures to elucidate which arthroscopic knot results in superior clinical outcomes.

Background:Knee laxity in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is often assessed through physical examination using the Lachman, pivot shift, and anterior drawer tests. The degree of laxity noted on these examinations may influence treatment decisions and prognosis.Hypothesis:Increased preoperative knee laxity is associated with increased risk of revision ACL reconstruction, increased risk of contralateral ACL reconstruction, and poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years postoperatively.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:2333 patients who underwent primary isolated ACL reconstruction without additional ligament injury were identified. Patients reported by the operating surgeons to have an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade D Lachman, anterior drawer, or pivot shift examination were classified as having a high-grade laxity. Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate whether having high-grade preoperative laxity was predictive of increased odds of undergoing subsequent revision or contralateral ACL reconstruction within 6 years of the index procedure, controlling for patient age, sex, body mass index, Marx activity level, sport, graft type, medial meniscal treatment, and lateral meniscal treatment. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to evaluate whether having high-grade preoperative laxity was predictive of poorer IKDC or Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Knee-Related Quality of Life (KOOS-QOL) scores at 6 years postoperatively, after controlling for baseline score, patient age, ethnicity, sex, body mass index, marital status, smoking status, sport participation, competition level, Marx activity rating score, graft type, and articular cartilage and meniscal status.Results:In total, 743 of 2325 patients (32.0%) were noted to have high-grade laxity on at least 1 physical examination test. High-grade Lachman was noted in 334 patients (14.4%), high-grade pivot shift was noted in 617 patients (26.5%), and high-grade anterior drawer was noted in 233 patients (10.0%). Six-year revision and contralateral ACL reconstruction data were available for 2129 patients (91.6%). High-grade prereconstruction Lachman was associated with significantly increased odds of ACL graft revision (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10-2.80, P = .02) and contralateral ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.69; P = .019). High-grade prereconstruction pivot shift was associated with significantly increased odds of ACL graft revision (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.19-2.54, P = .002) but not with significantly increased odds of contralateral ACL reconstruction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.89-1.87; P = .16). High-grade prereconstruction laxity was associated with statistically significantly lower 6-year IKDC (β = −2.26, P = .003), KOOS-QOL (β = −2.67, P = .015), and Marx activity scores (β = −0.54, P = .020), but these differences did not approach clinically relevant differences in patient-reported outcomes.Conclusion:High-grade preoperative knee laxity is predictive of increased odds of revision ACL reconstruction and contralateral ACL reconstruction 6 years after ACL reconstruction. Poorer patient-reported outcome scores in the high-grade laxity group were also noted, but the difference did not reach a level of clinical relevance.

Purpose To evaluate differences in repair and nonoperatively managed grade III medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods Patients enrolled in a multicenter prospective longitudinal group who underwent unilateral primary ACL reconstruction between 2002 and 2008 were evaluated. Patients with concomitant grade III MCL injuries treated either operatively or nonoperatively were identified. Concurrent injuries, subsequent surgeries, surgical chronicity, and MCL tear location were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were measured at time of ACL reconstruction and 2-year follow-up. Results Initially, 3,028 patients were identified to have undergone primary ACL reconstruction during the time frame; 2,586 patients completed 2-year follow-up (85%). Grade III MCL tears were documented in 1.1% (27 of 2,586): 16 operatively managed patients and 11 nonoperatively treated MCLs during ACL reconstruction. The baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were lower in patients who underwent operative MCL treatment. Reoperation rates for arthrofibrosis were 19% after repair and 9% after conservative management (P = .48). At 2 years, both groups significantly improved; however, the nonoperative MCL group maintained superior patient-reported outcomes in terms of minimal clinically important differences, but these differences did not reach statistical significance (KOOS sports/recreation [88.2 vs 74.4, P = .10], KOOS knee-related quality of life [81.3 vs 68.4, P = .13], and International Knee Documentation Committee [87.6 vs 76.0, P = .14]). Tibial-sided MCL injuries were associated with clinically inferior baseline scores compared with femoral-sided MCL (KOOS knee-related quality of life, 34.4 vs 18.5, P = .09), but these differences resolved by 2 years. Surgical chronicity did not influence 2-year outcome. Conclusions Both operative and nonoperative management of MCL tears in our patient group demonstrated clinical improvements between study enrollment and 2-year follow-up. MCL surgery during ACL reconstruction was assigned to patients with worse symptoms at enrollment and was associated with worse outcomes at 2 years. A subset of patients with severe combined ACL and medial knee injuries may benefit from operative management; however, that population has yet to be defined. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort.

Background: The occurrence of physiologic knee hyperextension (HE) in the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) population and its effect on outcomes have yet to be reported. Hypothesis/Purpose: The prevalence of knee HE in revision ACLR and its effect on 2-year outcome were studied with the hypothesis that preoperative physiologic knee HE ≥5° is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACLR were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing single-bundle graft reconstructions. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale) as well as provide information regarding revision ACL graft failure. A regression model with graft failure as the dependent variable included age, sex, graft type at the time of the revision ACL surgery, and physiologic preoperative passive HE ≥5° (yes/no) to assess these as potential risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACLR. Results: Analyses included 1145 patients, for whom 2-year follow-up was attained for 91%. The median age was 26 years, with age being a continuous variable. Those below the median were grouped as “younger” and those above as “older” (age: interquartile range = 20, 35 years), and 42% of patients were female. There were 50% autografts, 48% allografts, and 2% that had a combination of autograft plus allograft. Passive knee HE ≥5° was present in 374 (33%) patients in the revision cohort, with 52% being female. Graft rupture at 2-year follow-up occurred in 34 cases in the entire cohort, of which 12 were in the HE ≥5° group (3.2% failure rate) and 22 in the non-HE group (2.9% failure rate). The median age of patients who failed was 19 years, as opposed to 26 years for those with intact grafts. Three variables in the regression model were significant predictors of graft failure: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .002), use of allograft (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P = .003), and HE ≥5° (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.1-4.7; P = .03). Conclusion: This study revealed that preoperative physiologic passive knee HE ≥5° is present in one-third of patients who undergo revision ACLR. HE ≥5° was an independent significant predictor of graft failure after revision ACLR with a >2-fold OR of subsequent graft rupture in revision ACL surgery. Registration: NCT00625885 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: The long-term prognosis and risk factors for quality of life and disability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remain unknown. Hypothesis/Purpose: Our objective was to identify patient-reported outcomes and patient-specific risk factors from a large prospective cohort at a minimum 10-year follow-up after ACL reconstruction. We hypothesized that meniscus and articular cartilage injuries, revision ACL reconstruction, subsequent knee surgery, and certain demographic characteristics would be significant risk factors for inferior outcomes at 10 years. Study Design: Therapeutic study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Unilateral ACL reconstruction procedures were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2002 and 2004 from 7 sites in the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON). Patients preoperatively completed a series of validated outcome instruments, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Marx activity rating scale. At the time of surgery, physicians documented all intra-articular abnormalities, treatment, and surgical techniques utilized. Patients were followed at 2, 6, and 10 years postoperatively and asked to complete the same outcome instruments that they completed at baseline. The incidence and details of any subsequent knee surgeries were also obtained. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of the outcome. Results: A total of 1592 patients were enrolled (57% male; median age, 24 years). Ten-year follow-up was obtained on 83% (n = 1320) of the cohort. Both IKDC and KOOS scores significantly improved at 2 years and were maintained at 6 and 10 years. Conversely, Marx scores dropped markedly over time, from a median score of 12 points at baseline to 9 points at 2 years, 7 points at 6 years, and 6 points at 10 years. The patient-specific risk factors for inferior 10-year outcomes were lower baseline scores; higher body mass index; being a smoker at baseline; having a medial or lateral meniscus procedure performed before index ACL reconstruction; undergoing revision ACL reconstruction; undergoing lateral meniscectomy; grade 3 to 4 articular cartilage lesions in the medial, lateral, or patellofemoral compartments; and undergoing any subsequent ipsilateral knee surgery after index ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Patients were able to perform sports-related functions and maintain a relatively high knee-related quality of life 10 years after ACL reconstruction, although activity levels significantly declined over time. Multivariable analysis identified several key modifiable risk factors that significantly influence the outcome.

SummaryObjectiveThe prevalence of radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) approaches 50%, yet the prevalence of significant knee pain is unknown. We applied three different models of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) thresholds for significant knee pain to an ACLR cohort to identify prevalence and risk factors.DesignMulticenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) prospective cohort patients with a unilateral primary ACLR and normal contralateral knee were assessed at 2 and 6 years. Independent variables included patient demographics, validated Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO; Marx activity score, KOOS), and surgical characteristics. Models included: (1) KOOS criteria for a painful knee = quality of life subscale

To analyze failure rate in 2-year increments to determine if graft choice changed over time and graft failure rate.A prospective 2002-2008 database was used to identify risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) retear. Subjects who had primary ACL retear with no history of contralateral surgery and 2-year follow-up were included. Subjects who underwent a multiligament reconstruction were excluded. Graft type, age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, Marx activity level at index surgery, medial and lateral meniscus status at time of ACL retear, sport played after ACL reconstruction, and clinical site were evaluated. Analysis was repeated using 2002-2003 (early) and 2007-2008 (late) 2-year databases. Analysis of variance with post hoc analysis was performed to detect significant differences in age and Marx score by graft type over time.Two-year follow-up for graft failure was obtained on 2,497 of 2,692 (93%) subjects. There were 112 of 2,497 (4.5%) ACL retears identified at 2-year follow-up. The only predictor that changed between early/late periods was allograft use. Allograft odds ratio decreased from 13.1 to 9.5 (P.01). Allografts were used in older patients (31-40 years) and with lower Marx scores (10-8) from early to late periods. The mean age of subjects who received bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts did not significantly change over time (22.8-23.5). The mean age of subjects who received hamstring autografts fell (27.9-25.5). The mean age of subjects who received allografts rose significantly (31.3-39.8, P.01). The mean Marx score of subjects who received bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring autografts did not significantly change over time. The mean Marx score of subjects who received allografts decreased significantly (P.01).After early recognition, allograft use in young active patients was a risk factor for retear; graft choice by surgeons changed in the late period to use of allografts in older and less-active patients, which correlated with a significant decrease in retear risk.Level III, case control study.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether any regional or age-related patterns exist in graft choice for patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) within a large multicenter consortium. A retrospective cohort study was performed using data collected from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) on patients having undergone primary ACLR. Patients were stratified by age group (younger than 20, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, and 50+ years) and four demographic regions (Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, and West). A total of 2,149 patients (1,288 males, 861 females) were included. At least 70% of the patients were treated by a single surgeon in three of the four demographic regions. There were no clinically significant differences in body mass index (BMI), and no statistically significant differences in Marx activity rating scale (p > 0.05) between regions within any particular age group. There were significant differences in the proportion of autografts versus allografts used for primary ACLR between regions in every age group (p

Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Hypothesis: Certain factors under the control of the surgeon at the time of revision surgery can both negatively and positively affect outcomes. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline demographics, intraoperative surgical technique and joint disorders, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating scale) completed before surgery. Patients were followed up for 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, and a variety of previous and current surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: A total of 1205 patients (697 male [58%]) met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled. The median age was 26 years, and the median time since their last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (989/1205). Both previous and current surgical factors were found to be significant contributors toward poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years. Having undergone previous arthrotomy (nonarthroscopic open approach) for ACL reconstruction compared with the 1-incision technique resulted in significantly poorer outcomes for the 2-year IKDC ( P = .037; odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.05-5.88) and KOOS pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life (QOL) subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 2.38-4.35; 95% CI, 1.03-10.00). The use of a metal interference screw for current femoral fixation resulted in significantly better outcomes for the 2-year KOOS symptoms, pain, and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 1.70-1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.33) as well as WOMAC stiffness subscale ( P = .041; OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.02-3.03). Not performing notchplasty at revision significantly improved 2-year outcomes for the IKDC ( P = .013; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.40-1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93), and WOMAC stiffness and ADL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.41-1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05). Factors before revision ACL reconstruction that increased the risk of poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years included lower baseline outcome scores, a lower Marx activity score at the time of revision, a higher BMI, female sex, and a shorter time since the patient’s last ACL reconstruction. Prior femoral fixation, prior femoral tunnel aperture position, and knee flexion angle at the time of revision graft fixation were not found to affect 2-year outcomes in this revision cohort. Conclusion: There are certain surgical variables that the physician can control at the time of revision ACL reconstruction that can modify clinical outcomes at 2 years. Whenever possible, opting for an anteromedial portal or transtibial surgical exposure, choosing a metal interference screw for femoral fixation, and not performing notchplasty are associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes.

Background: While revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR. Purpose: To report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation. Results: Of the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged Conclusion: There was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age

Background: Most 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. Hypotheses: Autograft 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 Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients 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. Results: A 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). Conclusion: Improved 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.

AB Purpose: Diabetes has been associated with adverse outcomes after various types of surgery. There are no previously published data regarding the effect of diabetes on outcomes from anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that diabetes is associated with worse clinical outcomes and a higher prevalence of subsequent surgeries after ACLR. Methods: Anterior cruciate ligament-deficient patients (n = 2198) undergoing unilateral ACLR from a multicenter prospective study were included. Patients who self-reported diabetes on the basis of comorbidity questions before surgery were identified from the database. They were compared with the remainder of the cohort who did not self-report diabetes. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 yr after their index surgery. A minimum 2-yr follow-up was attained on 1905/2198 (87%) via completed outcome questionnaires and 2096/2198 (95%) regarding subsequent surgery. The primary outcome measures were three validated outcome instruments. The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of additional surgery on the ipsilateral and contralateral knees. Results: Patients with diabetes had a significantly higher activity level at 2 yr (OR = 2.96; 95% CI, 1.30-6.77; P = 0.01), but otherwise slightly worse clinical outcomes, compared with patients without diabetes (OR range = 0.42-0.59). The prevalence of subsequent surgeries in patients with diabetes was not significantly different from the prevalence in patients without diabetes. Conclusions: Patients with diabetes maintain a higher activity level after ACLR despite slightly lower patient-reported outcome scores compared with patients without diabetes and do not have a higher rate of subsequent surgery.

Unicompartmental changes in the knee of a young athlete remains a difficult and controversial problem in orthopaedics. Excessive premature loading of articular cartilage, most often the result of a knee injury, has been shown to result in increased degenerative changes and pain in the younger patient. Instability may also contribute to the degeneration of cartilage and must therefore be considered in the treatment of osteoarthritis in the young adult. High tibial osteotomy has been described as a treatment option for malalignment in the older, less active adult and has shown promising results in a younger, more active population. Osteotomies for instability are more controversial and should be considered in more complex injury patterns.

Data from large prospectively collected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) cohorts are being utilized to address clinical questions regarding ACL injury demographics and outcomes of ACL reconstruction. These data are affected by patient and injury factors as well as surgical factors associated with the site of data collection. The aim of this article is to compare primary ACL reconstruction data from patient cohorts in the United States and Norway, demonstrating the similarities and differences between two large cohorts. Primary ACL reconstruction data from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) in the United States and the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR) were compared to identify similarities and differences in patient demographics, activity at injury, preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), time to reconstruction, intraarticular pathology, and graft choice. Seven hundred and thirteen patients from the MOON cohort were compared with 4,928 patients from the NKLR. A higher percentage of males (NKLR 57%, MOON 52%; P < 0.01) and increased patient age (NKLR 27 years, MOON 23 years; P\0.001) were noted in the NKLR population. The most common sports associated with injury in the MOON cohort were basketball (20%), soccer (17%), and American football (14%); while soccer (42%), handball (26%), and downhill skiing (10%) were most common in the NKLR. Median time to reconstruction was 2.4 (Interquartile range [IQR] 1.2-7.2) months in the MOON cohort and 7.9 (IQR 4.2-17.8) months in the NKLR cohort (P < 0.001). Both meniscal tears (MOON 65%, NKLR 48%; P < 0.001) and articular cartilage defects (MOON 46%, NKLR 26%; P < 0.001) were more common in the MOON cohort. Hamstring autografts (MOON 44%, NKLR 63%) and patellar tendon autografts (MOON 42%, NKLR 37%) were commonly utilized in both cohorts. Allografts were much more frequently utilized in the MOON cohort (MOON 13%, NKLR 0.04%; P < 0.001). Significant diversity in patient, injury, and surgical factors exist among large prospective cohorts collected in different locations. Surgeons should investigate and consider the characteristics of these cohorts when applying knowledge gleaned from these groups to their own patient populations.

Background Meniscal repair is performed in an attempt to prevent posttraumatic arthritis resulting from meniscal dysfunction after meniscal tears. The socioeconomic implications of premature arthritis are significant in the young patient population. Investigations and techniques focusing on meniscus preservation and healing are now at the forefront of orthopaedic sports medicine. Hypothesis Concomitant meniscal repair with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is a durable and successful procedure at 2-year follow-up. Study Design Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods All unilateral primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions entered in 2002 in a cohort who had meniscal repair at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were evaluated. Validated patient-oriented outcome instruments were completed preoperatively and then again at the 2-year postoperative time point. Reoperation after the index procedure was also documented and confirmed by operative reports. Results A total of 437 unilateral primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were performed with 82 concomitant meniscal repairs (54 medial, 28 lateral) in 80 patients during the study period. Patient follow-up was obtained on 94% (77 of 82) of the meniscal repairs, allowing confirmation of meniscal repair success (defined as no repeat arthroscopic procedure) or failure. The overall success rate for meniscal repairs was 96% (74 of 77 patients) at 2-year follow-up. Conclusion Meniscal repair is a successful procedure in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. When confronted with a “repairable” meniscal tear at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, orthopaedic surgeons can expect an estimated >90% clinical success rate at 2-year follow-up using a variety of methods as shown in our study.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a common surgical knee procedure that requires intensive postoperative rehabilitation by the patient. A variety of randomized controlled trials have investigated aspects of ACL reconstruction rehabilitation. A systematic review of English language level 1 and 2 studies identified 54 appropriate randomized controlled trials of ACL rehabilitation. This part of the article discusses open versus closed kinetic chain exercises, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, accelerated rehabilitation, and miscellaneous topics.

There exists a growing number of patients with osteoarthritis who are difficult to classify and treat due to their younger age and higher activity level. Many of these athletic patients have sustained meniscal injury, previous meniscectomy, or articular cartilage injury, and may develop osteoarthritic symptoms. Fewer patients present with underlying malalignment or ligamentous instability and increasing arthrosis. Ostoeomies about the knee have been shown to unload isolated medial and lateral compartment osteoarthritis and decrease symptoms in the older adult patient who has been considered too young for total knee replacement. We describe a treatment approach to the younger athlete with isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis.

Symptomatic neuromas of the sural nerve are a rare but significant cause of pain and debilitation in athletes. Presentation is usually in the form of chronic pain and dysesthesias or paresthesias of the lateral foot and ankle. Treatment traditionally ranges from conservative measures, such as removing all external compressive forces, to administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin B6, tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, or topical anesthetics. This article reports a case of sural nerve entrapment in a 34-year-old male triathlete with a history of recurrent training-induced right-sided gastrocnemius strains. The patient presented with numbness in the right lateral foot and ankle that had persisted for 3 months, after he was treated unsuccessfully with extensive nonoperative measures, including anti-inflammatory drugs, activity modification, and a dedicated physical therapy program of stretching and strengthening. Orthopedic assessment showed worsening pain with forced passive dorsiflexion and manual pressure applied over the distal aspect of the gastrocnemius. Plain radiographs showed normal findings, but in-office ultrasound imaging showed evidence of sural nerve entrapment with edema and neuromatous scar formation in the absence of gastrocnemius or soleus pathology. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided hydrodissection of the sural nerve at the area of symptomatic neuroma and neural edema was performed the same day. The patient had complete relief of symptoms and full return to the preinjury level of participation in competitive sports. This case report shows that hydrodissection, when performed by an experienced physician, can be an effective, minimally invasive technique for neurolysis in the setting of sural nerve entrapment, resulting in improvement in clinical symptoms. [ Orthopedics. 2015; 38(11):e1046–e1050.]

SUMMARY Athletic hip injuries represent a wide spectrum of stress placed either acutely or chronically on the bony and soft tissue structures of the lower extremity. Hip injuries tend to occur less commonly than other lower extremity injuries, but because of the relatively deep structures involved, diagnosis and treatment can be a challenge. It is important to recognize two broad categories of hip injury in the athlete: avulsion injuries and stress fractures. Avulsion injuries tend to occur in the adolescent athlete and involve an acute injury or trauma. Stress fractures can occur in the older athlete as well and tend to be of a more chronic nature. Often, there will be a period of discomfort with activity followed by a sudden worsening of symptoms, indicating progression of a stress injury. This article focuses on the more common injuries of the athletic hip and discusses strategies of diagnosis and treatment.

Background: Little is known about surgeon agreement and accuracy using arthroscopic evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tunnel positioning. Purpose: To investigate agreement on ACL tunnel position evaluated arthroscopically between operating surgeons and reviewing surgeons. We hypothesized that operating and evaluating surgeons would characterize tunnel positions significantly differently. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twelve surgeons drilled ACL tunnels on 72 cadaveric knees using transtibial (TT), medial portal (MP), or 2-incision (TI) techniques and then completed a detailed assessment form on tunnel positioning. Then, 3 independent blinded surgeon reviewers each arthroscopically evaluated tunnel position and completed the assessment form. Statistical comparisons of tunnel position evaluation between operating and reviewing surgeons were completed. Three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) scans were performed and compared with arthroscopic assessments. Arthroscopic assessments were compared with CT tunnel location criteria. Results: Operating surgeons were significantly more likely to evaluate femoral tunnel position (92.6% vs 69.2%; P = .0054) and femoral back wall thickness as “ideal” compared with reviewing surgeons. Tunnels were judged ideal by reviewing surgeons more often when the TI technique was used compared with the MP and TT techniques. Operating surgeons were more likely to evaluate tibial tunnel position as ideal (95.5% vs 57.1%; P < .0001) and “acceptable” compared with reviewers. The ACL tunnels drilled using the TT technique were least likely to be judged as ideal on the tibia and the femur. Agreement among surgeons and observers was poor for all parameters (κ = −0.0053 to 0.2457). By 3D CT criteria, 88% of femoral tunnels and 78% of tibial tunnels were placed within applied criteria. Conclusion: Operating surgeons are more likely to judge their tunnels favorably than observers. However, independent surgeon reviewers appear to be more critical than results of 3D CT imaging measures. When subjectively evaluated arthroscopically, the TT technique yields more subjectively poorly positioned tunnels than the TI and MP techniques. Surgeons do not agree on the ideal placement for single-bundle ACL tunnels. Clinical Relevance: This study demonstrates that surgeons do not currently uniformly agree on ideal single-bundle tunnel placement and that the TT technique may yield more poorly placed tunnels.

Many clinicians believe that the results of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compare unfavorably with primary ACL reconstruction. However, few prospective studies have evaluated revision ACL reconstruction using validated patient-based metrics. This study was performed to evaluate and compare the results of revision ACL reconstruction and primary ACL reconstruction. The Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network consortium is an NIH-funded, hypothesis-driven, multicenter prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. All patients preoperatively complete a series of validated patient-oriented questionnaires. At scheduled 2-year follow-up all patients are given the same series of questionnaires to complete. The study evaluated the results of 2-year follow-up of revision ACL reconstruction performed in 2001. Parameters evaluated included Marx activity level, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. For this study 446 subjects met inclusion criteria; 2-year follow-up was obtained on 393 (88%). The study group consisted of 55% males with median age of 22 years. There were 33 revision ACL reconstruction cases, for which follow-up was available for 29 (88%). Median baseline Marx (interquartile range) was 12 (8 to 16) and 12 (6 to 16) for the primary ACL reconstruction and revision ACL reconstruction groups, respectively (p= 0.81). At 2 years, median Marx was 9 (4 to 13) and 5 (0 to 10) for the primary ACL reconstruction and revision ACL reconstruction groups, respectively (p= 0.03). Median 2-year IKDC was 75.9 (revision) versus 83.9 (primary) (p=0.003). Median KOOS subscale Knee Related Quality of Life (KRQOL) at 2 years was 62.5 (revision) versus 75 (primary) (p < 0.001), subscale Sports and Recreation was 75 (revision) and 85 (primary) (p = 0.005), subscale Pain was 83.3 (revision) and 91.7 (primary) (p= 0.002). Marx activity score declined at 2-year follow-up in revision ACL reconstruction compared with primary ACL reconstruction. IKDC and KRQOL were significantly decreased in revision ACL reconstruction compared with primary ACL reconstruction at 2-year followup. Revision ACL reconstruction resulted in a significantly worse outcome as measured by these patient-based measures at 2 years.

This study aimed to determine the incidence of meniscal tears and describe the tear morphology and selected treatment in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We also will discuss the potential market for future tissue engineering aimed at preserving meniscal function. A multicenter cohort of 1014 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction between January 2002 and December 2003 was evaluated. Data on patient demographics, presence of a meniscus tear at time of ACL reconstruction, tear morphology, and meniscal treatment were collected prospectively. Meniscal tears were categorized into 3 potential tissue engineering treatment strategies: all-biologic repair, advanced repair, and scaffold replacement. Of the knees, 36% had medial meniscal tears and 44% had lateral meniscal tears. Longitudinal tears were the most common tear morphology. The most frequent treatment method was partial meniscectomy. Thirty percent of medial meniscal tears and 10% of lateral meniscal tears are eligible for all-biologic repair; 35% of medial meniscal tears and 35% of lateral meniscal tears are eligible for an advanced repair technique; and 35% of medial meniscal tears and 55% of lateral meniscal tears are eligible for scaffold replacement. Although meniscal preservation is generally accepted in the treatment of meniscal tears, most tears in this cohort were not repairable, despite contemporary methods. The results of this cohort will hopefully stimulate and focus future research and development of new tissue engineering strategies for meniscus repair.