No evidence for the most appropriate postoperative rehabilitation protocol following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with concomitant articular cartilage lesions: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture commonly occurs in conjunction with articular cartilage injury. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate rehabilitation which should be carried out for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and the surgical management of articular cartilage lesions of the knee. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the recommended rehabilitation protocol for patients undergoing ACLR with concomitant articular cartilage injury with a view to develop guidelines on the most appropriate treatment. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched five database for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised comparative and retrospective cohort studies (CS) describing the management of concomitant ACL rupture and articular cartilage injury and the postoperative rehabilitation regimen. Risk of bias was performed using a modified Downs & Black's checklist. The primary outcome was specific rehabilitation protocols including weight-bearing status, immobilisation, continuous passive motion (CPM), and return to play criteria. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. A best evidence synthesis was performed. RESULTS: The review yielded six studies which reported on rehabilitation techniques. All studies were of low methodological quality. There was considerable variability in not only the chondral lesion reported but also the treatment techniques utilised and especially the rehabilitation regimes. No consensus was found on weight-bearing status, postoperative immobilisation, the use of CPM, or return to play criteria. Given the quality of the papers, there was no evidence to recommend any specific rehabilitation regime in the postoperative management of concomitant ACLR and articular cartilage lesions. CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed that despite how common concomitant ACL rupture and articular cartilage injury is, there is no evidence to support one, most appropriate rehabilitation protocol. From a clinical perspective, decisions on postoperative rehabilitation for patients undergoing ACLR and treatment of articular cartilage lesions should be made on a case-by-case basis with criteria-based progression until more robust evidence becomes available. A list of specific rehabilitation protocols based on the cartilage restoration technique is provided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

MRI is not reliable in diagnosing of concomitant anterolateral ligament and anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee.

PURPOSE: There has been a renewed interest in the anterolateral structures of the knee, including description of the anterolateral ligament (ALL) as a distinct structure. Recognizing injury to the ALL is challenging, particularly given the subjective nature of physical examination. Consequently, focus has turned to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to reach a preoperative diagnosis of this region. The aim of this study was to examine the ability of 3-Tesla (3T) MRI to identify the ALL in ACL-injured patients compared to a matched control group of ACL-intact patients. The hypothesis was that the ALL would be more difficult to identify in ACL-injured patients compared to ACL-intact patients. METHODS: A prospective case control study was performed comparing 3T MRI scans of 63-patients with an ACL rupture with a control group of 64-patients without ACL injury. An experienced musculoskeletal radiologist and an orthopaedic surgeon evaluated the scans performed using standard knee protocols. The ALL was considered in three regions for analysis: femoral, meniscal, and tibial. The status of the ALL was determined as visualized or non-visualized, and the integrity was assessed as intact, attenuated, or focal discontinuity. RESULTS: The detection rate of at least a portion of the ALL was 41/64 (64%) in the control group and 45/63 (72%) in the ACL-injured cohort, respectively. The entire length of the ALL could only be identified in 15/64 (23%) of the control group and 13/63 (21%) of the ACL-injured cases. In both groups, the visibility of the ALL was poorest at the femoral region and greatest at the tibial regions. The ALL, when visualized, was deemed to be intact in 55/63 (87%) of cases. Although the inter-observer reliability was excellent for detection of the ALL in the control group (κ = 0.86), this decreased to only moderate reliability in the ACL-injured group (κ = 0.52). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that MRI alone should not be relied upon to make a diagnosis of ALL injury in the setting of concomitant ACL injury due to the inability to accurately visualize this structure consistently in its entirety. To make a diagnosis of ALL injury or anterolateral instability of the knee and clinical correlation remains essential. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case-control study, Level III.

Isolated Posterior Cruciate Reconstruction Results in Improved Functional Outcome but Low Rates of Return to Preinjury Level of Sport: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Although isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) has become a more frequently performed procedure, reports of functional outcomes and return-to-sport (RTS) rates to support its use are still limited. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to determine the rates of RTS and the functional outcomes of patients after isolated PCLR. Study Design: Systematic review: Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Two reviewers independently searched 5 databases for patient-based clinical studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up that analyzed functional outcome and RTS following isolated PCLR. Studies with multiligament knee reconstruction were excluded. Risk of bias was performed with a modified Downs and Black checklist. The primary outcomes were Tegner and Lysholm scores, rates of RTS, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores. Secondary outcomes were IKDC objective scores, instrumented knee laxity assessment, and Telos radiographic analysis. Where feasible, these data were pooled via a random effects meta-analysis model. Results: Of the 240 titles identified, 14 studies were included. The median time from injury to surgery was 10.6 months (range, 6 weeks-21 years). The pooled mean postoperative Tegner and Lysholm scores were 5.7 (95% CI, 5.4-6.0) and 87.8 (95% CI, 85.6-90.0), respectively, following isolated PCLR; the pooled effect size between pre- and postoperative values was 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-4.0) and 3.7 (95% CI, 2.6-4.9), respectively. An RTS rate of 44% (95% CI, 23%-66%) was identified. IKDC subjective scores improved to a pooled mean of 73.5 (95% CI, 62.8-84.1), with an effect size of 3.0 (95% CI, 0.4-5.6). The proportion of patients with postoperative IKDC objective scores of grade A/B was 82%. The pooled postoperative KT-1000/KT-2000 side-to-side difference was 3.4 mm (95% CI, 2.5-4.3 mm), with an effect size of 2.8 (95% CI, 1.1-4.5). The pooled postoperative Telos side-to-side difference measurement was 3.5 mm (95% CI, 2.8-4.3 mm), with an effect size of 3.9 (95% CI, 3.3-4.5). Conclusion: The results of this review demonstrate that while isolated PCLR results in a significant improvement in functional outcome scores and improved knee laxity, there is a low rate of return to preinjury level of sport. The prolonged period from injury to surgery might reduce functional improvement and RTS following reconstruction. Therefore, comparison of the outcomes of isolated PCLR and nonoperative treatment is impracticable owing to the potential for selection bias.

The Role of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis and Best-Evidence Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The role of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LEAT) to augment primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains controversial. PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of LEAT to primary ACLR provides greater control of rotational laxity and improves clinical outcomes compared with ACLR alone and to assess the impact of early versus delayed ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched 7 databases for randomized and nonrandomized clinical studies comparing ACLR plus LEAT versus ACLR alone. Animal, cadaveric, and biomechanical studies; revision or repair procedures; and studies using synthetic ligaments and multiligamentous-injured knees were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with a modified Downs and Black checklist. The primary outcome was postoperative pivot shift. These data were pooled by use of a fixed-effects meta-analysis model. The studies were divided into delayed (>12 months) and early (≤12 months) reconstruction groups for meta-analysis. A best-evidence synthesis was performed on the remaining outcome measures. RESULTS: Of 387 titles identified, 11 articles were included (5 of high quality). Meta-analysis of postoperative pivot shift in 3 studies of delayed primary ACLR showed a statistically significant difference for the pivot-shift test in favor of ACLR with LEAT (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.81; P = .008; I2 = 0). Meta-analysis of 5 studies of early primary ACLR found no statistically significant difference with the addition of LEAT (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.09; P = .10; I2 = 33%). Insufficient evidence was available to determine whether the addition of LEAT had any effect on clinical, objective, subjective, and functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: In primary ACLR, no evidence is available showing additional benefit of LEAT in reducing the postoperative pivot shift in early reconstructions (≤12 months); however, LEAT may have a role in delayed ACLR. Strong evidence exists that a combined ACLR and LEAT reduces lateral femoral translation, but there is insufficient evidence to identify any benefit for other clinical outcomes.