Incidence of Osteoarthritis Between ACL Reconstruction With Different Graft Types and Between ACL Reconstruction and Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Variation in stiffness, fixation methods, and donor-site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with different graft types and with anterior cruciate ligament suture repair (ACLSR) can lead to differences in dynamic knee laxity and consequent differences in posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) development. Purpose: To compare the incidence of PTOA between different graft types used for primary ACLR and between primary ACLR and ACLSR. It was hypothesized that the incidence of PTOA would vary between ACLR with different autografts and allografts and between ACLR and ACLSR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A search of the literature was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radiographic evidence of PTOA after ACLR between different graft types-hamstring tendon (HT) autograft, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft, quadriceps tendon autograft, and allograft-and between ACLR and ACLSR. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. Study quality was assessed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. A meta-analysis was performed to determine whether there was a difference in the incidence of PTOA between the different graft types and between ACLR and ACLSR. Results: Eleven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis-HT: 440 patients (mean follow-up, 9.7 years); BPTB: 307 patients (mean follow-up, 11.8 years); allograft: 246 patients (mean follow-up, 5 years); ACLSR, 22 patients (5 years). No study reporting the incidence after ACLR with quadriceps tendon was included. The study quality ranged from 70 to 88. The meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in the incidence of PTOA between graft types used for ACLR and between ACLR and ACLSR (risk ratios: HT vs BPTB, 1.05; HT vs allograft, 0.81; BPTB vs allograft, 0.82; HT vs ACLSR, not estimable [P > .05 for all]). The combined number of patients with PTOA in all studies per graft type showed that patients who underwent ACLR with a BPTB autograft had the highest percentage of PTOA (HT, 23.4%; BPTB, 29.6%; allograft, 8.1%; ACLSR, 0%). However, excluding studies with a follow-up <5 years resulted in similar outcomes for patients with an HT autograft and a BPTB autograft. Conclusion: This meta-analysis reported no difference in the incidence of PTOA between graft types used for ACLR and between ACLR and ACLSR. More research is necessary to make a reliable conclusion about which technique is associated with the lowest incidence of PTOA after ACL surgery.

High-demand tasks show that ACL reconstruction is not the only factor in controlling range of tibial rotation: a preliminary investigation.

BACKGROUND: Excessive range of tibial rotation (rTR) may be a reason why athletes cannot return to sports after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). After ACLR, rTR is smaller in reconstructed knees compared to contralateral knees when measured during low-to-moderate-demand tasks. This may not be representative of the amount of rotational laxity during sports activities. The purpose of this study is to determine whether rTR is increased after ACL injury compared to the contralateral knee and whether it returns to normal after ACLR when assessed during high-demand hoptests, with the contralateral knee as a reference. METHODS: Ten ACL injured subjects were tested within three months after injury and one year after reconstruction. Kinematic motion analysis was conducted, analysing both knees. Subjects performed a level-walking task, a single-leg hop for distance and a side jump. A paired t-test was used to detect a difference between mean kinematic variables before and after ACL reconstruction, and between the ACL-affected knees and contralateral knees before and after reconstruction. RESULTS: RTR was greater during high-demand tasks compared to low-demand tasks. Pre-operative, rTR was smaller in the ACL-deficient knees compared to the contralateral knees during all tests. After ACLR, a greater rTR was seen in ACL-reconstructed knees compared to pre-operative, but a smaller rTR compared to the contralateral knees, even during high-demand tasks. CONCLUSION: The smaller rTR, compared to the contralateral knee, seen after a subacute ACL tear may be attributed to altered landing technique, neuromuscular adaptation and fear of re-injury. The continued reduction in rTR one year after ACLR may be a combination of this neuromuscular adaptation and the biomechanical impact of the reconstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR: www.trialregister.nl , registration ID NL7686).

Higher return to pre-injury type of sports after revision anterior ligament reconstruction with lateral extra-articular tenodesis compared to without lateral extra-articular tenodesis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of return to pre-injury type of sports (RTS type) in patients after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) compared to patients after revision ACLR without LET. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients who underwent revision ACLR with an autologous ipsilateral bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft with and without LET were included at least one year after surgery (mean follow-up: 43.9, SD: 29.2 months). All patients filled in a questionnaire about RTS type, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form (IKDCsubjective), and the Tegner activity score. RESULTS: The RTS type for revision ACLR with LET was 22 of 42 (52%), whereas 11 of 36 (31%) of the patients who underwent revision ACLR without LET returned to the pre-injury type of sport (p = 0.05). No significant differences were found in KOOS subscores, IKDCsubjective, and Tegner activity scores. CONCLUSION: An additional LET increases the rate of RTS type after revision ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Copers and Noncopers Use Different Landing Techniques to Limit Anterior Tibial Translation After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: At 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), two-thirds of patients manage to return to sports (copers), whereas one-third of patients do not return to sports (noncopers). Copers and noncopers have different muscle activation patterns, and noncopers may not be able to control dynamic anterior tibial translation (ATTd) as well as copers. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate whether (1) there is a positive correlation between passive ATT (ATTp; ie, general joint laxity) and ATTd during jump landing, (2) whether ATTd is moderated by muscle activating patterns, and (3) whether there is a difference in moderating ATTd between copers and noncopers. We hypothesized that patients who have undergone ACLR compensate for ATTd by developing muscle strategies that are more effective in copers compared with noncopers. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 40 patients who underwent unilateral ACLR performed 10 single-leg hops for distance with both legs. Lower body kinematic and kinetic data were measured using a motion-capture system, and ATTd was determined with an embedded method. Muscle activity was measured using electromyographic signals. Bilateral ATTp was measured using a KT-1000 arthrometer. In addition, the Beighton score was obtained. RESULTS: There was no significant correlation between ATTp and ATTd in copers; however, there was a positive correlation between ATTp and ATTd in the operated knee of noncopers. There was a positive correlation between the Beighton score and ATTp as well as between the Beighton score and ATTd in both copers and noncopers in the operated knee. Copers showed a negative correlation between ATTd and gastrocnemius activity in their operated leg during landing. Noncopers showed a positive correlation between ATTd and knee flexion moment in their operated knee during landing. CONCLUSION: Copers used increased gastrocnemius activity to reduce ATTd, whereas noncopers moderated ATTd by generating a smaller knee flexion moment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study showed that copers used different landing techniques than noncopers. Patients who returned to sports after ACLR had sufficient plantar flexor activation to limit ATTd.

Sagittal knee kinematics in relation with the posterior tibia slope during jump landing after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: An increased posterior tibia plateau angle is associated with increased risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury and re-rupture after reconstruction. The aims of this study were to determine whether the tibia plateau angle correlates with dynamic anterior tibia translation (ATT) after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and whether the tibia plateau angle correlates with aspects of knee kinematics and kinetics during jump landing. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft hamstring tendon were included. Knee flexion angle and knee extension moment during single leg hops for distance were determined using a motion capture system and the dynamic ATT with its embedded method. The medial and lateral posterior tibia plateau angle were measured using MRI. Moreover, passive ATT was measured using the KT-1000 arthrometer. RESULTS: A weak negative correlation was found between the maximal dynamic ATT and the medial tibia plateau angle (p = 0.028, r = - 0.36) and between the maximal knee flexion angle and the lateral tibia plateau angle (p = 0.025, r = - 0.37) during landing. Patients with a smaller lateral tibia plateau angle show larger maximal knee flexion angle during landing than the patients with larger lateral tibia plateau angle. Also, the lateral tibia plateau angle is associated the amount of with muscle activity. CONCLUSION: The posterior medical tibia plateau angle is associated with dynamic ATT. The maximal knee flexion angle and muscle activity are associated with the posterior lateral tibia plateau angle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Healthy subjects with lax knees use less knee flexion rather than muscle control to limit anterior tibia translation during landing.

PURPOSE: It has been reported that there is no correlation between anterior tibia translation (ATT) in passive and dynamic situations. Passive ATT (ATTp) may be different to dynamic ATT (ATTd) due to muscle activation patterns. This study aimed to investigate whether muscle activation during jumping can control ATT in healthy participants. METHODS: ATTp of twenty-one healthy participants was measured using a KT-1000 arthrometer. All participants performed single leg hops for distance during which ATTd, knee flexion angles and knee flexion moments were measured using a 3D motion capture system. During both tests, sEMG signals were recorded. RESULTS: A negative correlation was found between ATTp and the maximal ATTd (r = - 0.47, p = 0.028). An N-Way ANOVA showed that larger semitendinosus activity was seen when ATTd was larger, while less biceps femoris activity and rectus femoris activity were seen. Moreover, larger knee extension moment, knee flexion angle and ground reaction force in the anterior-posterior direction were seen when ATTd was larger. CONCLUSION: Participants with more ATTp showed smaller ATTd during jump landing. Muscle activation did not contribute to reduce ATTd during impact of a jump-landing at the observed knee angles. However, subjects with large ATTp landed with less knee flexion and consequently showed less ATTd. The results of this study give information on how healthy people control knee laxity during jump-landing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Technical note: sensitivity analysis of the SCoRE and SARA methods for determining rotational axes during tibiofemoral movements using optical motion capture.

PURPOSE: The first aim was to report the sensitivity of calculated tibiofemoral movements for the choice of placement of the set of femoral markers. The second aim was to report the influence of accuracy of the motion captured positions of the markers on the calculated tibiofemoral movements. METHODS: Tibiofemoral kinematics during single leg hops for distance were calculated. For the first aim, an experiment was conducted in which four different setups of the femoral markers were used to calculated tibiofemoral movements. For the second aim, an experiment was conducted in which all raw marker positions were mathematically moved independently with the known Vicon position error with a distance and in a random direction in each frame, repeated a hundred times. Each time, the tibiofemoral movements were calculated. RESULTS: The first experiment yields that the standard deviation of the calculated anterior tibia translation between marker setups was 0.88 mm and the standard deviation of the external tibia rotation between marker setups was 0.76 degrees. The second experiment yields that the standard deviation was 0.76 mm for anterior tibia translation and 0.38 degrees for external tibia rotation. CONCLUSION: A combined standard deviation of both experiments revealed that transients in anterior tibia translation less than 2.32 mm and external tibia rotations less than 1.70 degrees should be taken with caution. These results are 19.42% of the range of the anterior tibia translation and 13.51% of the rotation range during the jump task. The marker setup should be chosen carefully.

Superior return to sports rate after patellar tendon autograft over patellar tendon allograft in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: After revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), the rate of return to the pre-injury type of sport (RTS type) is low and graft choice might be an important factor. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in outcome after revision ACLR using a patellar tendon allograft compared to an ipsilateral patellar tendon autograft. It was hypothesized that the rate of RTS type using an ipsilateral patellar tendon autograft will be superior to using patellar tendon allograft. METHODS: The design is a retrospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent revision ACLR with a minimum follow-up of 1 year after revision using a patellar allograft or ipsilateral autograft. Primary study parameter was rate of RTS type. Secondary study parameters were RTS level, subscores of the KOOS, the IKDCsubjective, the Tegner score and reasons for no RTS. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients participated in this study (36 allografts and 46 autografts). In patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 year, rate of RTS type was 51.4% for the patellar tendon allograft and 62.8% for the patellar tendon autograft group (n.s.). In patients with a minimum follow-up rate of 2 years, rate of RTS type was 43.3 versus 75.0%, respectively (p = 0.027). No differences in secondary study parameters were found. In patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 year, rate of RTS type was significantly higher (p = 0.025) for patients without anxiety compared to patients who were anxious to perform certain movements. CONCLUSION: After a minimum follow-up of 2 years, rate of RTS type is in favour of using an ipsilateral patellar tendon autograft when compared to using a patellar tendon allograft in patients undergoing revision ACLR; after a minimum follow-up of 1 year, no significant difference was found. In revision ACLR, the results of this study might influence graft choice in favour of autologous graft when the use of an allograft or autograft patellar tendon is considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.