PDF herunterladen
J Knee Surg 2018; 31(09): 895-904
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1627446
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction—A Systematic Review of Techniques, Outcomes, and Complications

Darren de SA
1   Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj
2   Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Melissa Weidman
3   Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Devin C. Peterson
1   Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Nicole Simunovic
4   Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Volker Musahl
5   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Olufemi R. Ayeni
1   Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

21. April 2017

23. Dezember 2017

Publikationsdatum:
08. Februar 2018 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

The all-inside technique (AIT) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is gaining popularity as a more anatomic, less invasive, technique with the potential for more rapid recovery. This systematic review aims to critically assess components of the technique, its safety profile, outcomes, and complications. PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were searched for studies discussing primary ACLR using the AIT. Article screening, quality assessment, and data abstraction were completed in duplicate, and a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to frame the descriptive results in a clinically significant context. A total of 13 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five-hundred twenty six patients (mean age 31.9 ± 5.9 years) underwent ACLR using the AIT. The mean follow-up was 18.2 ± 7.7 months. Graft choice included autograft (73.8%) and allograft (26.2%). Drilling techniques for femoral sockets were outside-in (53.4%) and through the anteromedial portal (35.4%), whereas tibial sockets were drilled outside-in (35.0%) and through the superomedial portal (3.8%). The rehabilitation protocol had an immediate focus on obtaining full knee extension, jogging permitted 2 to 4 months postoperatively in 61.5% of studies, and return to cutting and pivoting sports 6 to 9 months postoperatively in 69.2% of studies. A MCID was reached for subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores at 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up and Lysholm knee score at 24 months follow-up. An improvement in outcomes was most notably between 6 and 12 months postoperatively. There was a total of 31 complications (5.89%) and included graft rerupture (2.47%), loss of extension of 1° to 10° (1.14%), and cartilage or meniscus injuries on the operated knee (0.760%). Complications related to the surgical technique were not reported. The AIT for ACLR shows potential as a minimally invasive approach given the low graft failure rates and short-term improvements in knee function and stability, pain and patient important outcomes from this approach. Comparative studies with large sample sizes and a long-term follow-up are required to assess the proposed advantages of this technique. This is a Level IV study.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - ACL reconstruction - all-inside

Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Di Benedetto P, Di Benedetto E, Fiocchi A, Beltrame A, Causero A. Causes of failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and revision surgical strategies. Knee Surg Relat Res 2016; 28 (04) 319-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vaishya R, Agarwal AK, Ingole S, Vijay V. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a review. Cureus 2015; 7 (11) e378
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Potalivo G, Placella G, Sebastiani E. History of the “all-inside” technique and its clinical application. J Orthop 2011; 3 (02) 81-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Morgan CD. The All-Inside ACL Reconstruction (Operative Technique Manual). Naples, FL: Arthrex Inc; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Cerulli G, Zamarra G, Vercillo F, Pelosi F. ACL reconstruction with “the original all-inside technique”. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (05) 829-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Benea H, d'Astorg H, Klouche S, Bauer T, Tomoaia G, Hardy P. Pain evaluation after all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and short term functional results of a prospective randomized study. Knee 2014; 21 (01) 102-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Volpi P, Bait C, Cervellin M. , et al. No difference at two years between all inside transtibial technique and traditional transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J 2014; 4 (01) 95-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wilson AJ, Yasen SK, Nancoo T, Stannard R, Smith JO, Logan JS. Anatomic all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the translateral technique. Arthrosc Tech 2013; 2 (02) e99-e104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lubowitz JH. No-tunnel anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the transtibial all-inside technique. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (08) 900.e1-e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lubowitz JH. All-inside ACL: retroconstruction controversies. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2010; 18 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Smith PA, Schwartzberg RS, Lubowitz JH. No tunnel 2-socket technique: all-inside anterior cruciate ligament double-bundle retroconstruction. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (10) 1184-1189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A (01) 1-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. , et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73 (09) 712-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Valkering KP, van Bergen CJA, Buijze GA, Nagel PH, Tuinebreijer WE, Breederveld RS. Pain experience and functional outcome of inpatient versus outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, an equivalence randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. Knee 2015; 22 (02) 111-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Otsuka H, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Sasaki K, Toh S. Comparison of three techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. Differences in anterior tibial translation and tunnel enlargement with each technique. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31 (02) 282-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lansdown DA, Allen C, Zaid M. , et al. A comprehensive in vivo kinematic, quantitative MRI and functional evaluation following ACL reconstruction--A comparison between mini-two incision and anteromedial portal femoral tunnel drilling. Knee 2015; 22 (06) 547-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Watanabe S, Takahashi T, Hino K. , et al. Short-term study of the outcome of a new instrument for all-inside double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (10) 1893-1902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schurz M, Tiefenboeck TM, Winnisch M. , et al. Clinical and functional outcome of all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (02) 332-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lubowitz JH, Schwartzberg R, Smith P. Randomized controlled trial comparing all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a full tibial tunnel. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (07) 1195-1200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lubowitz JH, Schwartzberg R, Smith P. Cortical suspensory button versus aperture interference screw fixation for knee anterior cruciate ligament soft-tissue allograft: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (09) 1733-1739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brandsson S, Faxén E, Eriksson BI, Swärd L, Lundin O, Karlsson J. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: comparison of outside-in and all-inside techniques. Br J Sports Med 1999; 33 (01) 42-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dujardin D, Fontanin N, Geffrier A, Morel N, Mensa C, Ohl X. Muscle recovery after ACL reconstruction with 4-strand semitendinosus graft harvested through either a posterior or anterior incision: a preliminary study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015; 101 (05) 539-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fu FH, Cohen S. Current concepts in ACL reconstruction. Thorofare: N.J.; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Buda R, Ruffilli A, Cavallo M. , et al. Anatomic all-inside reconstruction: surgical technique and results. [abstract] J Orthop 2013; 5 (03) 135-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 (11, Suppl 11): S208-S228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. , et al; International Knee Documentation Committee. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (10) 1567-1573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chuang L-H, Garratt A, Brealey S. Comparative responsiveness and minimal change of the Knee Quality of Life 26-item (KQoL-26) questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2013; 22 (09) 2461-2475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Brown M, Yasen S, Logan J, Wilson A. Anatomical ACL reconstruction using the TransLateral, all-inside technique and a quadrupled semitendinosus graft: six-month and one-year outcomes anatomical acl reconstruction using the TransLateral all-inside technique: six-month and one-year outcomes. Int J Surg 2013; 11 (08) 672-673
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ciccotti MC, Secrist E, Tjoumakaris F, Ciccotti MG, Freedman KB. Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction via independent tunnel drilling: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing patellar tendon and hamstring autografts. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (05) 1062-1071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kurosaka M, Yoshiya S, Andrish JT. A biomechanical comparison of different surgical techniques of graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1987; 15 (03) 225-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Morgan CD, Kalmam VR, Grawl DM. Isometry testing for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction revisited. Arthroscopy 1995; 11 (06) 647-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Leonardi AB de A, Duarte Junior A, Severino NR. Bone tunnel enlargement on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Ortop Bras 2014; 22 (05) 240-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wilson TC, Kantaras A, Atay A, Johnson DL. Tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (02) 543-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Blackman AJ, Stuart MJ. All-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2014; 27 (05) 347-352
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lubowitz JH. All-inside anterior cruciate ligament graft link: graft preparation technique. Arthrosc Tech 2012; 1 (02) e165-e168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 McCarthy MM, Graziano J, Green DW, Cordasco FA. All-epiphyseal, all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique for skeletally immature patients. Arthrosc Tech 2012; 1 (02) e231-e239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hwang MD, Piefer JW, Lubowitz JH. Anterior cruciate ligament tibial footprint anatomy: systematic review of the 21st century literature. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (05) 728-734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lubowitz JH, Akhavan S, Waterman BR, Aalami-Harandi A, Konicek J. Technique for creating the anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket: optimizing femoral footprint anatomic restoration using outside-in drilling. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (03) 522-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Piefer JW, Pflugner TR, Hwang MD, Lubowitz JH. Anterior cruciate ligament femoral footprint anatomy: systematic review of the 21st century literature. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (06) 872-881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Siebold R, Ellert T, Metz S, Metz J. Tibial insertions of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament: morphometry, arthroscopic landmarks, and orientation model for bone tunnel placement. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (02) 154-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Siebold R, Ellert T, Metz S, Metz J. Femoral insertions of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the anterior cruciate ligament: morphometry and arthroscopic orientation models for double-bundle bone tunnel placement--a cadaver study. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (05) 585-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Howell SM, Clark JA. Tibial tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and graft impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (283): 187-195
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Bradley JP, Tejwani SG. All-inside patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2009; 17 (04) 252-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 McAdams TR, Biswal S, Stevens KJ, Beaulieu CF, Mandelbaum BR. Tibial aperture bone disruption after retrograde versus antegrade tibial tunnel drilling: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16 (09) 818-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Baldassarri M, Buda R, Pagliazzi G. , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament lesions: comparison between 4 different reconstruction techniques. [abstract] J Orthop Traumatol 2013; 14 (Suppl. 01) S47-S82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar