Secondary Restraints in ACL Reconstruction: State of the Art.

At-risk patients continue to experience a high likelihood of graft rupture after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). This narrative review seeks to provide the reader with an evidence-based synopsis of state-of-the-art concepts related to secondary restraint lesions, and how addressing them surgically might result in improved outcomes of ACLR.

High prevalence of associated injuries in anterior cruciate ligament tears: A detailed magnetic resonance imaging analysis of 254 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the type and prevalence of associated injuries by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. METHODS: Data from the Natural Corollaries and Recovery after ACL injury multicenter longitudinal cohort study were analyzed. Between May 2016 and October 2018, patients aged between 15 and 40 years, who had experienced an ACL tear within the last 6 weeks and sought medical attention at one of seven healthcare clinics in Sweden, were invited to participate. The mean time from injury to MRI was 19.6 ± 15.2 days. An orthopedic knee surgeon and a musculoskeletal radiologist reviewed all the MRI scans. The following structures were assessed: posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), medial collateral ligament (MCL) complex, lateral collateral ligament (LCL), popliteus tendon, medial meniscus (MM), lateral meniscus (LM), and cartilage. In addition, the presence of bone bruising, impaction fractures in the lateral femoral condyle (LFC) or posterolateral tibia (PLT), and Segond fractures were also assessed.  RESULTS: A total of 254 patients (48.4% males) with a mean age of 25.4 ± 7.1 years were included. The prevalence of associated injuries was as follows: PCL (0.4%), MCL {41.3% [superficial MCL and deep MCL (dMCL) 16.5%; isolated dMCL 24.8%]}, LCL (2.4%), MM (57.4%), LM (25.2%), cartilage (15.0%), bone bruising (92.9%), impaction fracture in the LFC (45.7%) and PLT (4.7%), and Segond fracture (7.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of associated injuries in patients with ACL tears was high. The findings reported in this study may serve as a reference tool for orthopedic surgeons and radiologists in the diagnosis of associated injuries using MRI in patients with ACL tears.

High Prevalence of Superficial and Deep Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears.

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence of and factors associated with medial collateral ligament (MCL) complex injuries on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Natural Corollaries and Recovery After ACL Injury (NACOX) multicenter longitudinal cohort study. Between May 2016 and October 2018, patients who presented to 1 of 7 health care clinics across Sweden with an ACL tear sustained no more than 6 weeks earlier and who were aged between 15 and 40 years at the time of injury were invited to participate. All the patients included in this study underwent MRI. The mean time from injury to MRI was 19.6 ± 15.2 days. An orthopaedic surgeon specializing in knee surgery and a musculoskeletal radiologist reviewed all MRI scans. Injuries to the superficial MCL (sMCL), deep MCL (dMCL), and posterior oblique ligament were identified. Stepwise forward multiple binary logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, preinjury Tegner activity level, and activity at injury) and injuries on MRI (lateral meniscus [LM] injury, medial meniscus [MM] injury, pivot shift-type bone bruising, medial femoral condyle [MFC] bone bruising, and lateral femoral condyle [LFC] impaction) associated with the presence of MCL complex tears. RESULTS: In total, 254 patients (48.4% male patients) with a mean age of 25.4 ± 7.1 years were included. The overall prevalence of MCL (sMCL and dMCL) injuries and isolated dMCL injuries was 16.5% (42 of 254) and 24.8% (63 of 254), respectively. No isolated sMCL injuries were found. Posterior oblique ligament injuries were found in 12 patients (4.7%) with MCL (sMCL and dMCL) injuries. An LM injury (odds ratio [OR], 3.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.73-8.94; P = .001) and LFC impaction (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.11-5.07; P = .02) increased the odds of having an MCL injury, whereas an MM injury (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.59; P = .001) reduced the odds. Isolated dMCL injuries were significantly associated with MFC bone bruising (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.92-9.25; P < .001) and LFC impaction (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.99-7.49; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall combined prevalence of MCL (sMCL and dMCL) injuries and isolated dMCL injuries in patients with ACL tears was high (16.5% + 24.8% = 41.3%). The presence of an LM injury and LFC impaction increased the odds of having an MCL injury, whereas the presence of an MM injury reduced the odds. MFC bone bruising and LFC impaction were associated with the presence of isolated dMCL injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

The Addition of the Gracilis Tendon to a Semitendinosus Tendon Autograft Is Not Associated With Knee Muscle Strength, Subjective Knee Function, or Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare isokinetic knee muscle (extension and flexion) strength, single-leg hop (SLH) test performance, anterior knee laxity, subjective knee function, and the 2-year revision surgery risk between patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with semitendinosus tendon (ST) autografts and patients who underwent ACLR with ST and gracilis tendon (ST-G) autografts. METHODS: We identified patients aged 16 years or older who underwent primary ACLR with hamstring tendon autografts at our institution from January 2005 to December 2020 and had no associated ligament injuries. Isokinetic knee muscle strength and SLH test performance were assessed 6 months postoperatively. Anterior knee laxity (KT-1000 arthrometer, 134 N) was assessed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Patients who underwent revision ACLR at any institution in Sweden within 2 years of primary surgery were identified through the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. RESULTS: A total of 6,974 patients (5,479 with ST and 1,495 with ST-G) were included. There were no significant differences in extension and flexion strength or SLH test performance between the groups. Preoperatively, there was no significant difference in knee laxity between the ST and ST-G groups. Postoperatively, the ST-G group had significantly increased mean side-to-side (STS) laxity (2.1 ± 2.3 mm vs 1.7 ± 2.2 mm, P < .001) and showed a trend toward increased STS laxity according to the International Knee Documentation Committee form, with significantly fewer patients with STS laxity of 2 mm or less (58.4% vs 65.8%) and significantly more patients with STS laxity between 3 and 5 mm (35.0% vs 29.9%) or greater than 5 mm (6.6% vs 4.3%) (P < .001). The only significant difference in subjective knee function was for the KOOS Quality of Life subscale score in favor of the ST group preoperatively (37.3 ± 21.4 vs 35.1 ± 19.9, P = .001). No other significant differences between the groups were found preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively for any of the KOOS subscales. The overall revision ACLR rate within 2 years of primary surgery was 2.0% (138 of 6,974 patients). The revision ACLR risk in the ST-G group (1.7%, 25 of 1,495 patients) was not significantly different from that in the ST group (2.1%, 113 of 5,479 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.24; P = .32). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of the gracilis tendon to an ST autograft was not associated with knee muscle strength, SLH test performance, subjective knee function, or the risk of revision surgery after ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer.

Peer review is an essential process to ensure that scientific articles meet high standards of methodology, ethics and quality. The peer-review process is a part of the academic mission for physicians in the university setting. The work of reviewers is of great value for authors, as it gives constructive criticism and improves manuscript quality before publication. Often, however, reviews are of suboptimal quality. Usually, reviewers do not receive formal training either on how to perform a review or on the peer-review process. In addition, it is generally believed that experienced authors are great reviewers, but this may not always be true. The overarching goal of a review is to make the manuscript better; to help the authors. The purpose of this article is to offer relevant suggestions and provide a checklist on how to perform a useful review.

Poorer patient-reported knee function and quality of life, but not activity level, after revision ACL reconstruction compared with primary ACL reconstruction: a matched-pair analysis with a minimum 5-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: An appropriate method for comparing knee function and activity level between patients with primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is to perform a matched-group analysis. The aim was to assess and compare knee function, knee-related quality of life and activity level between patients with revision ACLR and primary ACLR at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Patients aged ≤ 40 years old who underwent revision ACLR between 2010 and 2015 and a matched control group (primary ACLR) (1:1) with age ± 2 years, year of ACLR, sex, and pre-injury sport and Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) were retrospectively identified in our clinic database. The preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and surgical data were extracted and analyzed. Patients were mailed KOOS and EQ-5D questionnaires at a minimum of 5-years after revision ACLR. Study-specific questions about knee function, limitation in sport, satisfaction, and activity level according to the TAS (all scales of 1-10, 10 best) were also asked by telephone. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients with a revision ACLR (mean age ± SD, 29.9 ± 6.0 years) matched with seventy-eight patients with a primary ACLR (30.2 ± 5.8 years) were included. The follow-up for the revision ACLR group was 7.0 ± 1.5 years and for the primary ACLR group 7.7 ± 1.6 years. The revision ACLR group reported poorer KOOS scores in all subscales (p < 0.05) except the Symptoms subscale, poorer EQ-5D VAS (mean 79.2 ± 20.1 vs 86.0 ± 20.1, p = 0.012), and less satisfaction with current knee function (median 7 (6-8) vs 8 (7-9), p < 0.001). Patients with revision ACLR also experienced greater limitation in sports (median 7 (4-8) vs 8 (6-9), p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the EQ-5D (mean 0.86 ± 0.17 vs 0.89 ± 0.11, p = 0.427), activity level (median 2 (2-5) vs 4 (2-7), p = 0.229), or satisfaction with activity level (median 8 (5-9) vs 8 (6-10), p = 0.281) between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: At a minimum 5-year follow-up, the revision ACLR group reported poorer knee function and quality of life, less satisfaction with knee function and a greater limitation in sports but no differences in activity level and satisfaction with activity level compared with the primary ACLR group.

Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part III-indications for different clinical scenarios using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

PURPOSE: The aim of the ESSKA 2022 consensus Part III was to develop patient-focused, contemporary, evidence-based, guidelines on the indications for revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery (ACLRev). METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to provide recommendations on the appropriateness of surgical treatment versus conservative treatment in different clinical scenarios based on current scientific evidence in conjunction with expert opinion. A core panel defined the clinical scenarios with a moderator and then guided a panel of 17 voting experts through the RAM tasks. Through a two-step voting process, the panel established a consensus as to the appropriateness of ACLRev for each scenario based on a nine-point Likert scale (in which a score in the range 1-3 was considered 'inappropriate', 4-6 'uncertain', and 7-9 'appropriate'). RESULTS: The criteria used to define the scenarios were: age (18-35 years vs 36-50 years vs 51-60 years), sports activity and expectation (Tegner 0-3 vs 4-6 vs 7-10), instability symptoms (yes vs no), meniscus status (functional vs repairable vs non-functional meniscus), and osteoarthritis (OA) (Kellgren-Lawrence [KL] grade 0-I-II vs grade III). Based on these variables, a set of 108 clinical scenarios was developed. ACLRev was considered appropriate in 58%, inappropriate in 12% (meaning conservative treatment is indicated), and uncertain in 30%. Experts considered ACLRev appropriate for patients with instability symptoms, aged ≤ 50 years, regardless of sports activity level, meniscus status, and OA grade. Results were much more controversial in patients without instability symptoms, while higher inappropriateness was related to scenarios with older age (51-60 years), low sporting expectation, non-functional meniscus, and knee OA (KL III). CONCLUSION: This expert consensus establishes guidelines as to the appropriateness of ACLRev based on defined criteria and provides a useful reference for clinical practice in determining treatment indications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Anatomical hamstring tendons ACL reconstruction with the "linking rings" technique.

Hamstring tendons (HTs) are one of the most commonly used autografts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). However, the tendon-to-bone healing of the HTs grafts within the bone tunnels has always been a concern. Periosteum contains pluripotent stem cells with osteogenic and chondrogenic potential which can allow a direct, stronger and faster healing of the HTs graft within the bone tunnels. In this technical note, we present a modification of anatomical ACLR with the semitendinosus tendon (ST) graft and periosteum augmentation using the "linking rings" technique. The ST is harvested together with periosteum from its distal insertion. An additional free periosteal flap is harvested from the proximal tibia, below the ST insertion. The two free ends of the ST are then linked with a strong non-resorbable suture forming a ring and then folded again creating a quadruple construct with two loops at each end. The periosteum is then wrapped and sutured around the quadruple ST graft on both sides of the linking rings near the femoral and tibial tunnel opening. A technical pearl is to use one artery clamp inside the double rings at the graft ends, pull apart simultaneously and equal the tension between the strands. Another technical pearl is to not pull the periosteum to obtain the flaps, but to use instead a periosteal elevator to preserve the cambium layer which contains the pluripotent stem cells.

High prevalence of meniscal ramp lesions in anterior cruciate ligament injuries.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of and factors associated with meniscal ramp lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. METHODS: Data from the Natural Corollaries and Recovery after ACL injury multicentre longitudinal cohort study (NACOX) were analysed. Only patients who underwent MRI were included in this study. All MRI scans were reviewed by an orthopaedic knee surgeon and a musculoskeletal radiologist. The patients were divided into two groups, those with and without ramp lesions according to MRI findings. Univariable and stepwise forward multiple logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate patient characteristics (age, gender, body mass index, pre-injury Tegner activity level, activity at injury) and concomitant injuries on MRI (lateral meniscus, medial collateral ligament [MCL], isolated deep MCL, lateral collateral ligament, pivot-shift-type bone bruising, posteromedial tibial [PMT] bone bruising, medial femoral condyle bone bruising, lateral femoral condyle [LFC] impaction and a Segond fracture) associated with the presence of meniscal ramp lesions. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients (52.2% males) with a mean age of 25.4 ± 7.1 years were included. The overall prevalence of meniscal ramp lesions was 39.5% (100/253). Univariate analyses showed that contact sports at ACL injury, pivot-shift-type bone bruising, PMT bone bruising, LFC impaction and the presence of a Segond fracture increased the odds of having a meniscal ramp lesion. Stepwise forward multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of a meniscal ramp lesion was associated with contact sports at ACL injury [odds ratio (OR) 2.50; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.32-4.72; P = 0.005], pivot-shift-type bone bruising (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.01-1.67; P = 0.04), PMT bone bruising (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.61-8.19; P < 0.001) and the presence of a Segond fracture (OR 4.38; 95% CI 1.40-13.68; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of meniscal ramp lesions in patients with ACL injuries was high (39.5%). Contact sports at ACL injury, pivot-shift-type bone bruising, PMT bone bruising and the presence of a Segond fracture on MRI were associated with meniscal ramp lesions. Given their high prevalence, meniscal ramp lesions should be systematically searched for on MRI in patients with ACL injuries. Knowledge of the factors associated with meniscal ramp lesions may facilitate their diagnosis, raising surgeons' and radiologists' suspicion of these tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Failure of primary ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization may result in a high risk of two-stage ACL reconstruction: a case series of ten patients.

PURPOSE: Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) is a technique for the repair of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential challenges of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) following failure of DIS. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with failure of primary ACL repair performed with DIS was undertaken. Failure was defined as abnormal knee laxity (positive Lachman and/or pivot shift) and/or severely restricted range of motion. Medical and surgical records were reviewed and preoperative standard anteroposterior and lateral X-rays were assessed. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and May 2022, 10 patients (3 males, 7 females, median age 28 years, range 18-52 years) with failure of DIS were referred to and surgically treated at a single centre. In four patients, single-stage ACLR was performed following the removal of the tibial monoblock. In six patients, arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR. These patients underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis and tibial tunnel bone grafting as a first-stage revision procedure. CONCLUSION: In the present case series, single-stage ACLR was performed in only four (40%) of ten patients following failure of ACL repair with DIS. Arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR in six (60%) patients. It is important for clinicians to inform patients that, in the event of failure of ACL repair with DIS, they may run a high risk of undergoing two-stage ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Case Series.

Comparison of Knee Function and Activity Level Between Bilateral and Unilateral ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Group Analysis With Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

Background: There is a lack of knowledge regarding knee function and activity level after bilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) at midterm follow-up. Purpose: To compare activity level, patient-reported knee function, and quality of life in patients with bilateral ACLR and matched controls with unilateral ACLR at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bilateral ACLR who were aged ≤40 years and had a second ACLR performed between 2010 and 2015 were identified in the authors' local database. Surgical data and preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were extracted. The patients were sent a letter with questionnaires including the KOOS, EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D), and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) and were asked study-specific questions by telephone regarding activity level and knee function at a minimum 5-year follow-up. For every patient with bilateral ACLR, a control matched for age ±2 years, sex, year ACLR was performed, and preinjury activity level or sport at the time of injury were identified in the database. Results: A total of 98 patients (mean age ± SD, 33.3 ± 7.3 years) with bilateral ACLR and 98 patients with unilateral ACLR (mean age ± SD, 33.1 ± 7.7 years) were included. The mean postoperative follow-up was 7.6 ± 1.8 years (from the second ACLR) for patients with bilateral ACLR and 7.8 ± 1.7 years for patients with unilateral ACLR. Patients with bilateral ACLR reported lower scores on all KOOS subscales, the EQ-5D, and the EQ-VAS at follow-up (P < .05). There was no difference in activity level between the groups at follow-up, but patients with bilateral ACLR were less satisfied with their activity level and knee function (P < .05). Conclusion: Patient-reported knee function and health-related quality of life were inferior in patients with bilateral ACLR compared with patients with unilateral ACLR. Patients with bilateral ACLR cannot expect the same knee function and quality of life as patients with unilateral ACLR.

Suture tape reinforcement of hamstring tendon graft reduces postoperative knee laxity after primary ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare subjective and objective knee outcomes following hamstring tendon (HT) and quadriceps tendon (QT) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with or without suture tape (ST) reinforcement. It was hypothesized that the addition of an intra-articular synthetic augmentation with a ST would reduce postoperative knee laxity and graft ruptures after ACLR. METHODS: A 1:1 matched-cohort comparison of patients who underwent HT and QT autograft ACLR with or without ST reinforcement was performed. Patients with ST reinforcement were consecutively assigned to the study groups until a number of 20 in each group was achieved. Medical records were reviewed for demographic characteristics and additional injuries. Laxity measurements with KT-1000, strength measurements and physical examination findings were collected both preoperatively and at 6 months and patient reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected both preoperatively and at 12 months, and comparison was made HT vs HT + ST and QT vs QT + ST. Reoperations and re-ruptures were recorded during the 24-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Overall, 80 patients who underwent ACLR were included. Patients with HT + ST had significant less laxity postoperatively compared to HT at 6 months, 1.9 vs 0.8 mm, p < 0.05. No differences were found between the QT and QT + ST group. At 6 weeks patients treated with ST, both QT and HT, had a significant deficit in flexion compared to those without ST. However, this resolved at 6 months. There were no significant differences between HT + ST vs HT, or QT + ST vs QT, regarding postoperative PROs or strength measurements. Furthermore, the incidence of subsequent surgery and graft rupture was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: ACLR with HT + ST reduces laxity at 6 months compared to ACLR without ST, a difference not seen when ACLR was performed using QT with or without ST. No other differences were seen between the two techniques comparing subjective and objective findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Age, time from injury to surgery and hop performance after primary ACLR affect the risk of contralateral ACLR.

PURPOSE: To evaluate factors affecting the risk of contralateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) within 5 years of primary ACLR. METHODS: Primary ACLRs performed at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, during the period 2005-2014, were reviewed. The outcome of the study was the occurrence of contralateral ACLR within 5 years of primary ACLR. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed to identify preoperative [age, gender, body mass index (BMI), time from injury to surgery, pre-injury Tegner activity level], intraoperative [graft type, medial meniscus (MM) and lateral meniscus (LM) resection or repair, cartilage injury] and postoperative [limb symmetry index (LSI) for quadriceps and hamstring strength and single-leg-hop test performance at 6 months] risk factors for contralateral ACLR. RESULTS: A total of 5393 patients who underwent primary ACLR were included. The incidence of contralateral ACLR within 5 years was 4.7%. Univariable analysis revealed that age ≥ 25 years, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, time from injury to surgery ≥ 12 months and the presence of a cartilage injury reduced the odds, whereas female gender, pre-injury Tegner activity level ≥ 6, quadriceps and hamstring strength and a single-leg-hop test LSI of ≥ 90% increased the odds of contralateral ACLR. Multivariable analysis showed that the risk of contralateral ACLR was significantly affected only from age ≥ 25 years (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28-0.58; P < 0.001), time from injury to surgery ≥ 12 months (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.75; P = 0.001) and a single-leg-hop test LSI of ≥ 90% (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.04-2.34; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Older age (≥ 25 years) and delayed primary ACLR (≥ 12 months) reduced the odds, whereas a symmetrical (LSI ≥ 90%) 6-month single-leg-hop test increased the odds of contralateral ACLR within 5 years of primary ACLR. Knowledge of the factors affecting the risk of contralateral ACLR is important when it comes to the appropriate counselling for primary ACLR. Patients should be advised regarding factors affecting the risk of contralateral ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Subsequent surgery after primary ACLR results in a significantly inferior subjective outcome at a 2-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To analyze minimal important change (MIC), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) and treatment failure after reoperation within 2 years of primary ACL reconstruction and compare them with patients without additional surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective follow-up study of a cohort from a single-clinic database with all primary ACLRs enrolled between 2005 and 2015. Additional surgery within 2 years of the primary ACLR on the ipsilateral knee was identified using procedural codes and analysis of medical records. Patients who completed the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up were included in the study. MIC, PASS and treatment failure thresholds were applied using the aggregate KOOS (KOOS4) and the five KOOS subscales. RESULTS: The cohort included 6030 primary ACLR and from this 1112 (18.4%) subsequent surgeries were performed on 1018 (16.9%) primary ACLRs. 24 months follow-up for KOOS was obtained on 523 patients (54%) in the reoperation group and 2084 (44%) in the no-reoperation group. MIC; the no-reoperation group had a significantly higher improvement on all KOOS subscales, Pain 70.3 vs 60.2% (p < 0.01), Symptoms 72.1 vs 57.4% (p < 0.01), ADL 56.3 vs 51.2% (p < 0.01), Sport/Rec 67.3 vs 54.4% (p < 0.01), QoL 73.9 vs 56.3% (p < 0.01). PASS; 62% in the non-reoperation group reported their KOOS4 scores to be satisfactory, while only 35% reported satisfactory results in the reoperated cohort (p < 0.05). Treatment failure; 2% in the non-reoperation group and 6% (p < 0.05) in the reoperation group considered their treatment to have failed. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent subsequent surgeries within 2 years of primary ACLR reported significantly inferior outcomes in MIC, PASS and treatment failure compared to the non-reoperated counterpart at the 2-year follow-up. This study provides clinicians with important information and knowledge about the outcomes after an ACLR with subsequent additional surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Age, time from injury to surgery and quadriceps strength affect the risk of revision surgery after primary ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To identify preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors associated with revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) within 2 years of primary ACLR. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary ACLR at our institution, from January 2005 to March 2017, were identified. The primary outcome was the occurrence of revision ACLR within 2 years of primary ACLR. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate preoperative [age, gender, body mass index (BMI), time from injury to surgery, pre-injury Tegner activity level], intraoperative [graft type, graft diameter, medial meniscus (MM) and lateral meniscus (LM) resection or repair, cartilage injury] and postoperative [side-to-side (STS) anterior laxity, limb symmetry index (LSI) for quadriceps and hamstring strength and single-leg-hop test performance at 6 months] risk factors for revision ACLR. RESULTS: A total of 6,510 primary ACLRs were included. The overall incidence of revision ACLR within 2 years was 2.5%. Univariate analysis showed that age < 25 years, BMI < 25 kg/m2, time from injury to surgery < 12 months, pre-injury Tegner activity level ≥ 6, LM repair, STS laxity > 5 mm, quadriceps strength and single-leg-hop test LSI of ≥ 90% increased the odds; whereas, MM resection and the presence of a cartilage injury reduced the odds of revision ACLR. Multivariate analysis revealed that revision ACLR was significantly related only to age < 25 years (OR 6.25; 95% CI 3.57-11.11; P < 0.001), time from injury to surgery < 12 months (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.25-4.17; P = 0.007) and quadriceps strength LSI of ≥ 90% (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.16-2.49; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Age < 25 years, time from injury to surgery < 12 months and 6-month quadriceps strength LSI of ≥ 90% increased the odds of revision ACLR within 2 years of primary ACLR. Understanding the risk factors for revision ACLR has important implications when it comes to the appropriate counseling for primary ACLR. In this study, a large spectrum of potential risk factors for revision ACLR was analyzed in a large cohort. Advising patients regarding the results of an ACLR should also include potential risk factors for revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare knee laxity and functional knee outcome between primary and contralateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary and subsequent contralateral ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, from 2001 to 2017, were identified in our local database. The inclusion criteria were: the same patients who underwent primary and contralateral hamstring tendon or bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft ACLR and no associated ligament injuries. The KT-1000 arthrometer, with an anterior tibial load of 134 N, was used to evaluate knee laxity preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients with isolated primary and contralateral ACLR met the inclusion criteria (47.9% males; mean age at primary ACLR 23.9 ± 9.4 years and contralateral ACLR 27.9 ± 10.1 years). The arthrometric laxity measurements were available for primary and contralateral ACLR for 226 patients. The mean preoperative and postoperative anterior tibial translation (ATT), as well as the mean ATT reduction from preoperatively to postoperatively, did not differ significantly between primary and contralateral ACLR. The KOOS was available for primary and contralateral ACLR for 256 patients. No significant differences were found preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up between primary and contralateral ACLR for any of the five KOOS subscales. CONCLUSION: The findings in this study showed that anterior knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR. It is important for clinicians to counsel patients about their expectations after contralateral ACLR. This study shows that the results after contralateral ACLR in terms of knee laxity and functional knee outcome are predictable and likely to be comparable to those after primary ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Delayed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Increases the Risk of Abnormal Prereconstruction Laxity, Cartilage, and Medial Meniscus Injuries.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between a delay in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and cartilage injuries, meniscus injuries, meniscus repair, and abnormal prereconstruction laxity. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary ACLR at our institution from January 2005 to March 2017, with no associated ligament injuries, were identified. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate whether delay in ACLR, age, sex, and BMI were risk factors for cartilage and meniscus injuries, meniscus repair, and abnormal (side-to-side difference >5 mm) prereconstruction laxity. RESULTS: A total of 3976 patients (mean age 28.6 ± 10.6 years, range 10-61 years) were included. The risk of cartilage injury increased with a delay in ACLR (12-24 months: odds ratio [OR] 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.29; P = .005; and > 24 months: OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.11-1.30; P < .001) and age ≥30 years (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.98-2.60; P < .001). The risk of medial meniscus (MM) injury increased with a delay in ACLR (12-24 months: OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.07-1.29; P = .001; and >24 months: OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.13-1.30; P < .001), male sex (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.04-1.30; P = .04) and age ≥30 years (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.04-1.33; P = .008). The risk of lateral meniscus (LM) injury decreased with a delay in ACLR of >3 months and age ≥30 years (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66-0.85; P < .001), whereas it increased with male sex (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.22-1.41; P < .001). MM repairs relative to MM injury decreased with a delay in ACLR (6-12 months: OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.54-0.92; P = .01; 12-24 months: OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.85; P < .001; >24 months: OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52-0.72; P < .001) and age ≥30 years (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.48-0.74; P < .001). LM repairs relative to LM injury only decreased with age ≥30 years (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.26-0.45; P < .001). The risk of having abnormal knee laxity increased with a delay in ACLR of >6 months and MM injury (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.16-1.97; P = .002), whereas it decreased with a BMI of ≥25 (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: A delay in ACLR of >12 months increased the risk of cartilage and MM injuries, whereas a delay of >6 months increased the risk of abnormal prereconstruction laxity and reduced the likelihood of MM repair. To reduce meniscus loss and the risk of jeopardizing knee laxity, ACLR should be performed within 6 months after the injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective therapeutic comparative study.

Autograft type affects muscle strength and hop performance after ACL reconstruction. A randomised controlled trial comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts with standard or accelerated rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare changes in quadriceps and hamstring strength and single-leg-hop (SLH) test performance over the first 24 postoperative months in patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) or hamstring tendon (HT) autografts and followed either a standard or an accelerated rehabilitation protocol. METHODS: A total of 160 patients undergoing ACLR were randomised in four groups depending on the graft that was used and the rehabilitation protocol (40 BPTB/standard rehab, 40 BPTB/accelerated rehab, 40 HT/standard rehab, 40 HT/accelerated rehab). Isokinetic concentric quadriceps and hamstring strength at 90°/s and the SLH test performance were assessed preoperatively and 4,6,8,12 and 24 months postoperatively. The results were reported as the limb symmetry index (LSI) at the same time point. Linear mixed models were used to compare the groups at the different time points. RESULTS: An average quadriceps strength LSI of 78.4% was found preoperatively. After ACLR, the LSI first decreased at 4 months and then increased from 6 to 24 months, reaching an overall value of 92.7% at the latest follow-up. The BPTB group showed a significantly decreased LSI at 4, 6, 8 and 12 months compared with the HT group. No significant differences between the graft groups were found at 24 months. An average hamstring strength LSI of 84.6% was found preoperatively. After ACLR, the LSI increased from 4 to 24 months in the BTPB group. In the HT group, the LSI first decreased at 4 months and then increased from 6 to 24 months. An LSI of 97.1% and 89.1% was found at the latest follow-up for the BPTB and the HT group, respectively. The HT group showed a significantly decreased LSI at all follow-ups compared with the BPTB group. An average SLH test LSI of 81% was found preoperatively. After ACLR, the LSI increased from 4 to 24 months, reaching 97.6% overall at the latest follow-up. The BPTB group showed a significantly decreased LSI only at 4 months postoperatively compared with the HT group. No significant differences in any of the three tests were found between the standard and accelerated rehabilitation groups for either of the graft groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: Muscle strength and SLH test performance recovered progressively after ACLR overall, but they did not all fully recover, as the injured leg performed on average less than 100% compared with the uninjured leg even 24 months postoperatively. After ACLR, inferior quadriceps strength and a poorer SLH test performance were found at 4, 6, 8 and 12 months and at 4 months, respectively, for the BTPB group compared with the HT group. Persistent, inferior hamstring strength was found at all postoperative follow-ups in the HT group. Rehabilitation, standard or accelerated, had no significant impact on the recovery of muscle strength and SLH test performance after ACLR in any of the graft groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.