Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(12): 1312-1319
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1723765
Original Article

Good Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Low Rates of Return to Sports after Repeat Revision ACL Reconstruction

Tomás D. Gorodischer 
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Institute of Orthopedics “Carlos E. Ottolenghi,” Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
,
Juan Pablo Zicaro
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Institute of Orthopedics “Carlos E. Ottolenghi,” Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
,
Carlos Yacuzzi
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Institute of Orthopedics “Carlos E. Ottolenghi,” Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
,
Matías Costa Paz
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Institute of Orthopedics “Carlos E. Ottolenghi,” Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Repeat revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) is a rare, demanding procedure and, as such, has not been well studied. Most of the available literature shows improved functional outcomes compared with preoperative state but inferior results when compared with primary ACL-R, particularly regarding return to preinjury level of sports. The purpose of this study was to assess functional outcomes in patients who had undergone repeat revision ACL-R. The secondary aims were to register return to sports, associated meniscal and/or chondral lesions, and evaluate radiological anatomical parameters. Nine patients between 2011 and 2017 were evaluated, who had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Median age at repeat ACL-R was 32 years (interquartile range [IQR], 30–34 years) and the median follow-up was 27 months (IQR, 24–39 months). Data collected prior to surgery and at last follow-up included patient demographics, operative findings, physical examination findings including pivot shift and KT-1000 arthrometer measurement; Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores; and return to sports and level using the Tegner score. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subjective score and radiographic anatomical parameters were recorded at last follow-up. Mean IKDC and Lysholm score improvement was 25 points (confidence interval [CI] 12–37) and 25 points (CI 11–39), respectively (p < 0.001). The median postoperative KOOS score was pain: 93 (IQR, 64–96); symptoms: 94 (IQR, 83–97); activities of daily life: 96 (IQR, 90–100); sports: 75 (IQR, 50–90); and quality of life: 50 (IQR, 43–81). Postoperative median side-to-side KT-1000 arthrometer difference was 2 mm (IQR, 1–8 mm). The median radiographic posterior tibial slope was 10 degrees (IQR, 9–10). One patient was considered a failure at 16 months postoperative. Only 44% (four out of nine) patients were able to return to their sports. None of these patients had a cartilage injury, while three out of five patients who did not return to their sports had International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society grade III or IV cartilage injury. Patients should be counseled on the challenging outcomes of repeat revision ACL-R. This is Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Keywords

knee - arthroscopy - ACL repeat revision - clinical outcomes - return to sports

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires: Comité de Ética de Protocolos de Investigación (CEPI) (cepi@hospitalitaliano.org.ar). Protocol #3819.


The study was approved by our Institutional Review Board.


Authors' Contributions

T.D.G. and J.P.Z. were involved in the conception, design, and acquisition of data as well as in the drafting of the manuscript. M.C.P. and C.Y. made substantial contributions to data interpretation and critical revising of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 29 June 2020

Accepted: 17 December 2020

Article published online:
05 February 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Liechti DJ, Chahla J, Dean CS. et al. Outcomes and risk factors of rerevision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2016; 32 (10) 2151-2159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lynch TS, Parker RD, Patel RM. et al; MOON Group. The impact of the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) research on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and orthopaedic practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (03) 154-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lind M, Lund B, Faunø P, Said S, Miller LL, Christiansen SE. Medium to long-term follow-up after ACL revision. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (01) 166-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 van Eck CF, Schkrohowsky JG, Working ZM, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH. Prospective analysis of failure rate and predictors of failure after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (04) 800-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Grassi A, Macchiarola L, Urrizola Barrientos F. et al. Steep posterior tibial slope, anterior tibial subluxation, deep posterior lateral femoral condyle, and meniscal deficiency are common findings in multiple anterior cruciate ligament failures: an MRI case-control study. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (02) 285-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Leroux T, Wasserstein D, Dwyer T. et al. The epidemiology of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in Ontario, Canada. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (11) 2666-2672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schlumberger M, Schuster P, Schulz M. et al. Traumatic graft rupture after primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: retrospective analysis of incidence and risk factors in 2915 cases. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (05) 1535-1541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 MARS Group, MARS Group. Effect of graft choice on the outcome of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (10) 2301-2310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Vap AR, Persson A, Fenstad AM, Moatshe G, LaPrade RF, Engebretsen L. Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evaluation from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry. Arthroscopy 2019; 35 (06) 1695-1701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wyatt RWB, Inacio MCS, Liddle KD, Maletis GB. Prevalence and incidence of cartilage injuries and meniscus tears in patients who underwent both primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (08) 1841-1846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Denti M, Lo Vetere D, Bait C, Schönhuber H, Melegati G, Volpi P. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: causes of failure, surgical technique, and clinical results. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36 (10) 1896-1902
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Buda R, Ruffilli A, Di Caprio F. et al. Allograft salvage procedure in multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (02) 402-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ding DY, Zhang AL, Allen CR. et al; MARS Group. Subsequent surgery after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: rates and risk factors from a multicenter cohort. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (09) 2068-2076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chen JL, Allen CR, Stephens TE. et al; Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Group. Differences in mechanisms of failure, intraoperative findings, and surgical characteristics between single- and multiple-revision ACL reconstructions: a MARS cohort study. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (07) 1571-1578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wegrzyn J, Chouteau J, Philippot R, Fessy M-H, Moyen B. Repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective review of management and outcome of 10 patients with an average 3-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (04) 776-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aglietti P, Buzzi R, D'Andria S, Zaccherotti G. Long-term study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for chronic instability using the central one-third patellar tendon and a lateral extraarticular tenodesis. Am J Sports Med 1992; 20 (01) 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Eberhardt C, Kurth AH, Hailer N, Jäger A. Revision ACL reconstruction using autogenous patellar tendon graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2000; 8 (05) 290-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Grossman MG, ElAttrache NS, Shields CL, Glousman RE. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: three- to nine-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (04) 418-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Borchers JR, Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Wright RW. MOON Consortium and the MARS Group. Intra-articular findings in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a comparison of the MOON and MARS study groups. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (09) 1889-1893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sonnery-Cottet B, Mogos S, Thaunat M. et al. Proximal tibial anterior closing wedge osteotomy in repeat revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (08) 1873-1880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Griffith TB, Allen BJ, Levy BA, Stuart MJ, Dahm DL. Outcomes of repeat revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (06) 1296-1301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Andernord D, Desai N, Björnsson H, Ylander M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K. Patient predictors of early revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 16,930 patients with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (01) 121-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB. Incidence and outcome after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish registry for knee ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (07) 1551-1557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Saper M, Pearce S, Shung J, Zondervan R, Ostrander R, Andrews JR. Outcomes and return to sport after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescent athletes. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (04) 2325967118764884
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Dejour D, Saffarini M, Demey G, Baverel L. Tibial slope correction combined with second revision ACL produces good knee stability and prevents graft rupture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (10) 2846-2852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kennedy MI, Claes S, Fuso FAF. et al. The anterolateral ligament: an anatomic, radiographic, and biomechanical analysis. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (07) 1606-1615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Grassi A, Signorelli C, Urrizola F. et al. Anatomical features of tibia and femur: influence on laxity in the anterior cruciate ligament deficient knee. Knee 2018; 25 (04) 577-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mayr R, Rosenberger R, Agraharam D, Smekal V, El Attal R. Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an update. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132 (09) 1299-1313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Buyukdogan K, Laidlaw MS, Miller MD. Two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using allograft bone dowels. Arthrosc Tech 2017; 6 (04) e1297-e1302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Uribe JW, Hechtman KS, Zvijac JE, Tjin-A-Tsoi EW. Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: experience from Miami. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (325) 91-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A. et al; MOON Cohort. Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: two-year results from the MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 2007; 20 (04) 308-311
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 George MS, Dunn WR, Spindler KP. Current concepts review: revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (12) 2026-2037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar