RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To understand if anatomic physeal-sparing ACL reconstruction in the immature host preserves range of motion, permits a return to sports, and avoids limb length discrepancy and accelerated intra-articular degeneration with a cross-sectional radiographic, physical examination and patient-reported outcomes analysis. METHODS: A cross-sectional recall study included 38 patients aged 7-15 who underwent all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction with hamstring allograft performed by a single surgeon at a large academic medical center. All-epiphyseal reconstructions were performed using a modified Anderson physeal-sparing technique, with the femoral tunnel placed using an "inside-out" technique. Assessments consisted of a physical exam, long leg cassette radiographs, KT-1000 measurements, subjective patient metrics, and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (56.7%) of 66 eligible patients returned for in-person clinical and radiographic exams. Patients were 11.4 ± 1.8 years at the time of surgery. Five patients were females (13.2%). Mean follow-up was 5.5 ± 2.4 years. ACL re-injuries occurred in four patients (10.5%), all of whom underwent revision reconstructions. Thirty-three of the remaining 34 (97.1%) patients returned to sports following their reconstruction, and 24 (70.6%) returned to their baseline level of competition. Mean limb length discrepancy (LLD) was 0.2 ± 1.4 cm. Nine patients had an LLD of > 1 cm (26.5%), which occurred at an equivalent age as those with < 1 cm LLD (10.8 ± 2.0 vs. 11.7 ± 1.7, n.s.). Pre-operative Marx scores (13.1 ± 3.5) were not significantly different from post-operative values (12.3 ± 5.1, n.s.). Patients who required ACL revisions had significantly lower Marx scores than those with intact primary grafts (8.3 ± 7.1 vs. 13.4 ± 4.5, p = 0.047). Cohort mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 89.7 ± 12.7. CONCLUSION: Anatomic all-epiphyseal anatomic ACL reconstruction appears to be useful in patients with significant projected remaining growth, with good return-to-sport outcomes and minimal risk of clinically significant physeal complications. However, given the limited patient recall possible in the present study, further large sample size, high-quality works are necessary to validate our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.