Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2018; 06(03): 177-187
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1672157
Review Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

New Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of National Surveys of the Last 5 Years

Alberto Grassi
1   II Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCSS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
,
Christian Carulli
2   Orthopaedic Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Matteo Innocenti
2   Orthopaedic Clinic, Department of Surgery and Translational Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
,
Massimiliano Mosca
1   II Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCSS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
,
Stefano Zaffagnini
1   II Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCSS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
,
Corrado Bait
3   Joint Surgery and Sport Medicine Unit, Istituto Clinico Villa Aprica, Como, Italy
,
SIGASCOT Arthroscopy Committee › Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

28 September 2017

10 August 2018

Publication Date:
27 September 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze national surveys of orthopaedic surgeons on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to determine their preferences related to the preferred graft, femoral tunnel positioning, fixation and tensioning methods, antibiotic and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis, and use of tourniquet and drains. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were surveys of ACL reconstruction trends and preferences published in the past 5 years (2011–2016), involving members of national societies of orthopaedics. Information regarding survey modalities, population surveyed, graft choice both in the general or in the athletic population, surgical technique, fixation, use of antibiotic, tourniquet, drains, and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis was extracted. Eight national surveys were included from Europe (three), North or Latin America (three), and Asia (two). Overall, 7,420 questionnaires were sent, and 1,495 participants completed the survey (response rate ranging from 16 to 76.6%). All surveys reported the hamstring tendon (HT) autograft as the preferred graft, ranging from 45 to 89% of the surveyed population, followed by bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft (2–41%) and allograft (2–17%). Only two surveys focusing on graft choice in athletic population underlined how in high-demand sportive population the graft choices changes in favor of BPTB. Single-bundle reconstruction was the preferred surgical technique in the four surveys that investigated this issue. Five surveys were in favor of anteromedial (AM) portal and two in favor of trans-tibial technique. Suspension devices for femoral fixation were the preferred choice in all but one survey, while interference screws were the preferred method for tibial fixation. The two surveys that investigated graft tensioning were in favor of manual tensioning. The use of tourniquet, antibiotics, drains, and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis were vaguely reported. A trend toward the preference of HT autograft was registered in all the surveys; however, sport participation has been highlighted as an important variable for increased use of BPTB. Single-bundle reconstruction with AM portal technique and suspension femoral fixation and screws fixation for the tibia seem the preferred solution. Other variables such as tensioning, antibiotic, anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis, tourniquet use, and drains were investigated scarcely among the surveys; therefore, no clear trends could be delineated. This is a Level V, systematic review of expert opinion study.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament - reconstruction - systematic review - graft choice - national survey
 

  • References

  • 1 Holm I, Oiestad BE, Risberg MA, Gunderson R, Aune AK. No differences in prevalence of osteoarthritis or function after open versus endoscopic technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 12-year follow-up report of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (11) 2492-2498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shaerf DA, Pastides PS, Sarraf KM, Willis-Owen CA. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction best practice: a review of graft choice. World J Orthop 2014; 5 (01) 23-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Zeng C, Gao SG, Li H. , et al. Autograft versus allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (01) 153-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q. A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 2015; 22 (02) 100-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Giron F, Cuomo P, Aglietti P, Bull AMJ, Amis AA. Femoral attachment of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (03) 250-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tiamklang T, Sumanont S, Foocharoen T, Laopaiboon M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11: CD008413
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Riboh JC, Hasselblad V, Godin JA, Mather III RC. Transtibial versus independent drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (11) 2693-2702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Noh JH, Roh YH, Yang BG, Yi SR, Lee SY. Femoral tunnel position on conventional magnetic resonance imaging after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young men: transtibial technique versus anteromedial portal technique. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (05) 882-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Matassi F, Sirleo L, Carulli C, Innocenti M. Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: transtibial versus outside-in technique: SIGASCOT Best Paper Award Finalist 2014. Joints 2015; 3 (01) 6-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sirleo L, Innocenti M, Innocenti M, Civinini R, Carulli C, Matassi F. Post-operative 3D CT feedback improves accuracy and precision in the learning curve of anatomic ACL femoral tunnel placement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (02) 468-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Debieux P, Franciozi CES, Lenza M. , et al. Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 7 (07) CD009772
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Carulli C, Matassi F, Soderi S, Sirleo L, Munz G, Innocenti M. Resorbable screw and sheath versus resorbable interference screw and staples for ACL reconstruction: a comparison of two tibial fixation methods. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (04) 1264-1271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Vascellari A, Grassi A, Combi A, Tomaello L, Canata GL, Zaffagnini S. ; SIGASCOT Sports Committee. Web-based survey results: surgeon practice patterns in Italy regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (08) 2520-2527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Astur DC, Batista RF, Gustavo A, Cohen M. Trends in treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee in the public and private healthcare systems of Brazil. Sao Paulo Med J 2013; 131 (04) 257-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chechik O, Amar E, Khashan M, Lador R, Eyal G, Gold A. An international survey on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practices. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (02) 201-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Moksnes H, Engebretsen L, Seil R. The ESSKA paediatric anterior cruciate ligament monitoring initiative. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (03) 680-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Petersen W, Zantop T. Return to play following ACL reconstruction: survey among experienced arthroscopic surgeons (AGA instructors). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133 (07) 969-977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Fillingham YA. , et al. Orthopedic practice patterns relating to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in elite athletes. Am J Orthop 2015; 44 (12) E480-E485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Fillingham YA. , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practice patterns by NFL and NCAA football team physicians. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (06) 731-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Farber J, Harris JD, Kolstad K, McCulloch PC. Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries by major league soccer team physicians. Orthop J Sports Med 2014; 2 (11) 2325967114559892
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mall NA, Abrams GD, Azar FM. , et al. Trends in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction among National Basketball Association team physicians. Am J Orthop 2014; 43 (06) 267-271
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shafizadeh S, Jaecker V, Otchwemah R, Banerjee M, Naendrup JH. Current status of ACL reconstruction in Germany. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (05) 593-603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vaishya R, Agarwal AK, Ingole S, Vijay V. Current practice variations in the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Delhi. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2016; 7 (03) 193-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kirwan GW, Bourke MG, Chipchase L, Dalton PA, Russell TG. Graft tensioning practices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction amongst orthopaedic surgeons in Australia: a national survey. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135 (12) 1733-1741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ambra LF, Rezende FC, Xavier B, Shumaker FC, da Silveira Franciozi CE, Luzo MVM. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how do we perform it? Brazilian orthopedic surgeons' preference. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (03) 595-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Van der Bracht H, Goubau L, Stuyts B, Schepens A, Verdonk P, Victor J. Surgical management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Belgium anno 2013. Acta Orthop Belg 2015; 81 (04) 738-746
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 McRae SM, Chahal J, Leiter JR, Marx RG, Macdonald PB. Survey study of members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association on the natural history and treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin J Sport Med 2011; 21 (03) 249-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Budny J, Fox J, Rauh M, Fineberg M. Emerging trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (01) 63-69
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mahnik A, Mahnik S, Dimnjakovic D, Curic S, Smoljanovic T, Bojanic I. Current practice variations in the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Croatia. World J Orthop 2013; 4 (04) 309-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Grassi A, Vascellari A, Combi A, Tomaello L, Canata GL, Zaffagnini S. ; SIGASCOT Sports Committee. Return to sport after ACL reconstruction: a survey between the Italian Society of Knee, Arthroscopy, Sport, Cartilage and Orthopaedic Technologies (SIGASCOT) members. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2016; 26 (05) 509-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Suk M, Hanson B, Helfet DL. Evidence-based orthopedic surgery: is it possible?. Orthop Clin North Am 2010; 41 (02) 139-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, Whelan DB. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (09) CD005960
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Duquin TR, Wind WM, Fineberg MS, Smolinski RJ, Buyea CM. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2009; 22 (01) 7-12
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Baer GS, Harner CD. Clinical outcomes of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 2007; 26 (04) 661-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Reinhardt KR, Hetsroni I, Marx RG. Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a level I systematic review comparing failure rates and functional outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am 2010; 41 (02) 249-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Schoderbek Jr RJ, Treme GP, Miller MD. Bone-patella tendon-bone autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 2007; 26 (04) 525-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Poolman RW, Abouali JA, Conter HJ, Bhandari M. Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (07) 1542-1552
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Poolman RW, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Hamstring tendon autograft better than bone patellar-tendon bone autograft in ACL reconstruction: a cumulative meta-analysis and clinically relevant sensitivity analysis applied to a previously published analysis. Acta Orthop 2007; 78 (03) 350-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Matsumoto A, Yoshiya S, Muratsu H. , et al. A comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and bone-hamstring tendon-bone autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (02) 213-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Maletis GB, Inacio MC, Desmond JL, Funahashi TT. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: association of graft choice with increased risk of early revision. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (05) 623-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L. , et al. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (10) 2319-2328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen JE. , et al. Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004-2012. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (02) 285-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Tiamklang T, Sumanont S, Foocharoen T, Laopaiboon M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 11: CD008413
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Herbort M, Lenschow S, Fu FH, Petersen W, Zantop T. ACL mismatch reconstructions: influence of different tunnel placement strategies in single-bundle ACL reconstructions on the knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (11) 1551-1558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kato Y, Ingham SJ, Kramer S, Smolinski P, Saito A, Fu FH. Effect of tunnel position for anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction on knee biomechanics in a porcine model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (01) 2-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ. Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32 (03) 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Chambat P, Guier C, Sonnery-Cottet B, Fayard JM, Thaunat M. The evolution of ACL reconstruction over the last fifty years. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (02) 181-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Zantop T, Kubo S, Petersen W, Musahl V, Fu FH. Current techniques in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (09) 938-947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Voos JE, Musahl V, Maak TG, Wickiewicz TL, Pearle AD. Comparison of tunnel positions in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using computer navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (09) 1282-1289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Brophy RH, Wright RW, Matava MJ. Cost analysis of converting from single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (04) 683-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Pearle AD, Shannon FJ, Granchi C, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Comparison of 3-dimensional obliquity and anisometric characteristics of anterior cruciate ligament graft positions using surgical navigation. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (08) 1534-1541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Strauss EJ, Barker JU, McGill K, Cole BJ, Bach Jr BR, Verma NN. Can anatomic femoral tunnel placement be achieved using a transtibial technique for hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (06) 1263-1269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Bird JH, Carmont MR, Dhillon M. , et al. Validation of a new technique to determine midbundle femoral tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3-dimensional computed tomography analysis. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (09) 1259-1267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Brophy RH, Pearle AD. Single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of conventional, central, and horizontal single-bundle virtual graft positions. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (07) 1317-1323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Meredick RB, Vance KJ, Appleby D, Lubowitz JH. Outcome of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (07) 1414-1421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Verhelst L, Van Der Bracht H, Oosterlinck D, Bellemans J. ACL repair with a single or double tunnel: a comparative laboratory study of knee stability using computer navigation. Acta Orthop Belg 2012; 78 (06) 771-778
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Hettrich CM, Dunn WR, Reinke EK, Spindler KP. ; MOON Group. The rate of subsequent surgery and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: two- and 6-year follow-up results from a multicenter cohort. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (07) 1534-1540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Hosseini A, Lodhia P, Van de Velde SK. , et al. Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (04) 845-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Marchant BG, Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD, Fleckenstein C. Prevalence of nonanatomical graft placement in a series of failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (10) 1987-1996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Arno S, Bell CP, Alaia MJ. , et al. Does Anteromedial Portal Drilling Improve Footprint Placement in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (07) 1679-1689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind MC. Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (01) 98-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar