Bone consolidation under septic condition and hardware retention: about 69 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Management of infection on internal fixation hardware is particularly complex. The main aim of the present study was to assess bone consolidation rates under septic conditions in patients treated for bone and joint infection (BJI) with hardware retention. Secondary objectives were to determine a time limit beyond which it is unreasonable to retain hardware, and to assess risk factors for non-consolidation and functional results. The study hypothesis was that bone consolidation is possible under septic conditions without hardware exchange. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A single-center retrospective observational study was conducted on 69 patients for the period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019. We included all patients aged over 15 years with infection after internal fixation or fusion whose files had been discussed in the multidisciplinary team meeting during the study period. Bone healing was screened for on X-ray or CT. Study data comprised type of fracture, smoking status, time to treatment for open fracture, initial surgery time, type of hardware, interval between fixation and revision, and type of irrigation. Functional results were assessed at follow-up: walking, pain, return to work and SF12 and QuickDASH scores. RESULTS: The bone healing rate was 73.5% (50/68 patients) at a mean 24 weeks (range, 6-68 weeks). Time to revision did not significantly impact consolidation: 60% for 2 weeks (6/10 cases), 80% for 2-10 weeks (35/40 cases), and 64% for >10 weeks (9/14 cases) (p = 0.28). Smoking, longer initial surgery time and Gustilo type IIIb or IIIc were significant risks factors for non-consolidation. DISCUSSION: Bone consolidation under septic conditions with hardware retention adhering to an established medical and surgical protocol was reliable and straightforward, without extra morbidity. These findings are encouraging, and in line with the literature. We were unable to determine a time limit beyond which hardware prevented healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; descriptive epidemiological study.

Management of the Failed First Revision ACL Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes of Nonsurgical Management Versus Second Revision ACL Reconstruction From the SANTI Group.

BACKGROUND: The optimum management strategy after failure of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) is not clearly defined. The literature evaluating differences in outcomes between surgical and nonsurgical management is sparse. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to evaluate the outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical management of failed first RACLR. It was hypothesized that the long-term clinical outcomes of second RACLR would be superior with respect to knee stability, return to sport, and patient-reported outcome measures when compared with nonsurgical treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who experienced failure of first RACLR were evaluated. All participants followed the same rehabilitation protocol regardless of whether they underwent nonsurgical treatment or a second RACLR. Follow-up comprised regular clinical review and a standardized telephone interview at the end of the study period. Patient-reported outcome measures were recorded at the final follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients with a mean follow-up of 104 ± 52.7 months (range, 40-140 months) were evaluated. Of these, 31 underwent a second RACLR, and 10 patients chose nonsurgical treatment. There was a high rate of return to sport in both groups, but patients undergoing second RACLR had significantly better Tegner (6.35 vs 4.8; P = .012), Lysholm (88.5 vs 78.3; P = .0353), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (72.6 vs 56.3; P = .0490), and KOOS Sport and Recreation scores (81.4 vs 62.5; P = .0033). Significantly more patients undergoing second RACLR achieved the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for KOOS Sport and Recreation than those who underwent nonsurgical management (74.2% vs 30%; P = .015). The most important predictor of failure to achieve a good/excellent Lysholm score in multivariate analysis was nonsurgical management (P = .0095). CONCLUSION: Both second RACLR and nonsurgical management of failed first RACLR were associated with high rates of return to sport. However, second RACLR was associated with significantly better functional outcome scores with respect to Tegner, Lysholm, KOOS Quality of Life, and KOOS Sport and Recreation scores compared to nonsurgical management. In addition, nonsurgical treatment was the only significant predictor of failure to achieve a good/excellent Lysholm score at the final follow-up, and this was likely a function of inferior knee stability in that group.

Combined Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction.

There has been a substantial increase in the number of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions performed in the past decade. This Technical Note describes combined revision ACL and anterolateral ligament reconstruction using outside-in drilling, which avoids the need for 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction because it allows unconstrained anatomic placement.

Prevalence and Incidence of Chondral and Meniscal Lesions in Patients Undergoing Primary and Subsequent Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of 213 Patients From the SANTI Group.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a higher prevalence of meniscal and chondral lesions at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (R-ACLR) compared with primary ACLR procedures. However, studies that follow the development of meniscal and chondral status through primary and subsequent R-ACLR are scarce. PURPOSE: To compare the prevalence of meniscal and chondral injuries in patients undergoing primary ACLR and subsequent R-ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Patients who underwent ACLR and subsequently needed R-ACLR between January 2009 and February 2018 in a single center were included. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 59.7 months. The mean age was 22 years at primary ACLR and 26.1 years at the time of revision. The proportion of meniscal tears was higher at the time of R-ACLR compared with the time of primary reconstruction (70.0% vs 44.6%, respectively; P < .001). Similarly, the prevalence of chondral lesions was significantly higher at the time of revision versus the primary reconstruction (15.5% vs 7.0%, respectively; P = .003). CONCLUSION: R-ACLR is associated with a higher rate of concomitant meniscal and chondral lesions than primary ACLR.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft Combined With Modified Lemaire Technique Versus Hamstring Graft Combined With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Clinical Comparative Matched Study With a Mean Follow-up of 5 Years From The SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has recently been correlated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced failure rates in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). However, no data are available on clinical outcomes and reoperation after revision ACLR using different LET procedures. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of ACL + anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction using hamstring tendon graft (HT-ALL) and a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft + modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure (BPTB-Lemaire) in the setting of revision ACLR and to determine whether ALL reconstruction is associated with an increased rate of adverse outcomes when compared with a modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Descriptive data and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected from patients who underwent revision ACLR with LET between 2009 and 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients with an HT autograft combined with ALL reconstruction (HT-ALL group) were matched in a 1:1 propensity ratio to patients with a BPTB autograft combined with a modified Lemaire LET procedure (BPTB-Lemaire group). The evaluated parameters included complications and reoperations; knee laxity tests; return to sports; and various scores, including the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury scale, Marx activity rating scale, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. RESULTS: In total, 36 matched pairs were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up durations for the BPTB-Lemaire and HT-ALL groups were 56 ± 35 and 57 ± 23 months, respectively (P = .91). No significant differences were found in graft rupture rate (HT-ALL, 0%; BPTB-Lemaire, 11.1%; P = .13) or reoperations (HT-ALL, 8.3%; BPTB-Lemaire, 22.2%; P = .23). No specific complications with regard to LET were noted in either group. Additionally, there were no significant differences in knee laxity parameters, return to sports, or clinical scores between the groups at the final follow-up, except for the Tegner activity scale score (HT-ALL, 6.4; BPTB-Lemaire, 7.3; P = .03). HT-ALL was associated with a shorter surgical time (41.4 vs 59.8 minutes; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: HT-ALL was at least equivalent, in terms of clinical outcomes, to the more commonly performed procedure, BPTB-Lemaire. Performing ALL reconstruction in the setting of revision ACLR is therefore safe and effective.

Long-term Graft Rupture Rates After Combined ACL and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction Versus Isolated ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated significant advantages of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ACL+ALLR) over isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with respect to reduced graft rupture rates, a lower risk of reoperation for secondary meniscectomy, improved knee stability, and higher rates of return to sports. However, no long-term studies exist. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of isolated ACLR versus ACL+ALLR at long-term follow-up. The hypothesis was that patients who underwent combined procedures would experience significantly lower rates of graft rupture. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary ACL+ALLR between January 2011 and March 2012 were propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients who underwent isolated ACLR during the same period. A combination of face-to-face and telemedicine postoperative follow-up was undertaken. At the end of the study period (March 2020), medical notes and a final telemedicine interview were used to determine whether patients had experienced any complications or reoperations. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lysholm score, and Tegner score were collected for all patients. Graft survivorship was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Logistic regression was performed to account for the potential effect of activity level on graft rupture rates. RESULTS: A total of 86 matched pairs were included in the study. The mean ± SD age was 32.2 ± 8.8 years (range, 22-67 years) in the ACL+ALLR group and 34.7 ± 8.5 years (range, 21-61 years) in the isolated ACLR group. The mean duration of follow-up was 104.33 ± 3.74 months (range, 97-111 months). Patients who underwent combined ACL+ALLR versus isolated ACLR experienced significantly better ACL graft survivorship (96.5% vs 82.6%, respectively; P = .0027), lower overall rates of reoperation (15.3% vs 32.6%; P < .05), and lower rates of revision ACLR (3.5% vs 17.4%; P < .05). Patients undergoing isolated ACLR were at >5-fold greater risk of graft rupture (odds ratio, 5.549; 95% CI, 1.431-21.511; P = .0132), regardless of their preinjury activity level. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to other complications or any clinically important differences in patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent combined ACL+ALLR experienced significantly better long-term ACL graft survivorship, lower overall rates of reoperation, and no increase in complications compared with patients who underwent isolated ACLR. Further, patients who underwent isolated ACLR had a >5-fold increased risk of undergoing revision surgery at a mean follow-up of 104.3 months.

Arthroscopic ACL Reconstruction After Failed ACL Repair.

For some authors, repair of the torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in selected patients can be considered a valuable surgical treatment option. One of the main advantages is that it leaves all grafts available for any type of reconstruction in case the repair fails. This Technical Note describes arthroscopic ACL reconstruction after failure of an ACL repair.

Outside-In Drilling Allows Avoidance of Two-Stage Surgery in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

The presence of preoperative tunnel widening and/or malposition can pose technical challenges for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. This Technical Note describes the use of outside-in drilling to avoid the need for 2-stage reconstruction in the presence of tunnel widening or semi-anatomic tunnels.

Influence of Preoperative Tunnel Widening On the Outcomes of a Single Stage-Only Approach to Every Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of 409 Consecutive Patients From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative tunnel widening is a frequently reported indication for performing a 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) instead of a single-stage procedure. However, the strength of the available evidence to support a 2-stage strategy is low. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single stage-only approach to revision ACLR. It was hypothesized that this approach would be associated with significant improvements from baseline in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and knee stability and that there would be no significant differences in any postoperative outcomes between patients with and without preoperative tunnel widening. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of a large series of consecutive patients undergoing revision ACLR with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Preoperative tunnel widening was assessed using digital radiographs. All patients underwent single-stage surgery with an outside-in technique, regardless of the degree of tunnel widening. Clinical outcomes were compared according to whether tunnel widening was present (either tunnel ≥12 mm) or not (both tunnels <12 mm). RESULTS: The study included 409 patients with a mean ± SD follow-up of 69.6 ± 29.0 months. After revision ACLR, there was a significant reduction in the side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference, from 7.7 ± 2.2 mm preoperatively to 1.2 ± 1.1 mm at 2 years (P < .001). The mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and all subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) exceeded the thresholds for the Patient Acceptable Symptom State defined for primary ACLR. An overall 358 patients had retrievable preoperative radiographs. According to the tunnel diameter measurements, 111 patients were allocated to group A (both tunnels <12 mm) and 247 patients to group B (either/both tunnels ≥12 mm). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference, graft rupture rates, non-graft rupture related reoperations, or contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury rates. There was also no significant difference between groups that exceeded minimal detectable change thresholds for any of the PROMs recorded (ACL-RSI [Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sports After Injury], Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, KOOS). CONCLUSION: A single-stage approach to revision ACLR is associated with excellent clinical results when an outside-in drilling technique is utilized. The presence of preoperative tunnel widening does not significantly influence PROMs, knee stability, graft rupture rates, or non-graft rupture related reoperation rates.

Posterior Oblique Ligament Repair Concomitant to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

The associated lesion of the posterior oblique ligament (POL) in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament rupture is quite frequent due to the same rotational mechanism. The diagnosis of POL lesions is challenging, and physical examination is delicate; moreover, they can be easily missed on magnetic resonance imaging. Once recognized, POL lesions must be repaired to restore posteromedial corner kinematics. The aim of this Technical Note is to present a safe and effective method for POL repair in the set of an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.