Effect of Concomitant Lateral Meniscal Management on ACL Reconstruction Revision Rate and Secondary Meniscal and Cartilaginous Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous meniscal tears are often present with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, and in the acute setting, the lateral meniscus (LM) is more commonly injured than the medial meniscus. PURPOSE: To investigate how a concomitant LM injury, repaired, resected, or left in situ during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR), affects the ACL revision rate and cartilaginous and meniscal status at the time of revision within 2 years after the primary ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data for 31,705 patients with primary ACLR, extracted from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry, were used. The odds of revision ACLR, and cartilaginous as well as meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR, were assessed between the unexposed comparison group (isolated ACLR) and the exposed groups of interest (ACLR + LM repair, ACLR + LM resection, ACLR + LM repair + LM resection, or ACLR + LM injury left in situ). RESULTS: In total, 719 (2.5%) of the included 29,270 patients with 2 years follow-up data underwent revision ACLR within 2 years after the primary ACLR. No significant difference in revision rate was found between the groups. Patients with concomitant LM repair (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.57-8.10; P = .0024) or LM resection (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.62; P = .0055) had higher odds of concomitant meniscal injuries (medial or lateral) at the time of revision ACLR than patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR. Additionally, higher odds of concomitant cartilage injuries at the time of revision ACLR were found in patients with LM resection at index ACLR compared with patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.14-2.63; P = .010). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated higher odds of meniscal and cartilaginous injuries at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM resection and higher odds of meniscal injury at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM repair compared with isolated ACLR. Surgeons should be aware of the possibility of concomitant cartilaginous and meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR after index ACLR with concomitant LM injury, regardless of the index treatment type received.

Superior Outcome of Early ACL Reconstruction versus Initial Non-reconstructive Treatment With Late Crossover to Surgery: A Study From the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry.

BACKGROUND: Although comparable clinical and functional outcomes have been reported after nonsurgical and surgical anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) treatment, few studies have investigated the effects of early versus late ACL reconstruction with initial rehabilitation. PURPOSE: To determine patient-reported knee function in patients who initially undergo nonreconstructive treatment after an ACL injury but who later choose to undergo ACL reconstruction as compared with (1) patients undergoing ACL reconstruction close to the index injury and (2) patients treated nonreconstructively at 1 to 10 years of follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Results from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were extracted from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry for patients treated with nonreconstruction, early ACL reconstruction, and initial nonreconstruction but subsequent ACL reconstruction (crossover group). The KOOS4 (a mean of 4 KOOS subscales) was analyzed cross-sectionally at baseline and at the 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year follow-ups. Additionally, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) was applied to all KOOS subscales from baseline to the 10-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1,074 crossover, 484 nonreconstruction, and 20,352 early ACL reconstruction cases were included. The crossover group reported lower KOOS4 values than the group undergoing early ACL reconstruction at baseline and at all follow-ups (mean difference [95% CI]): baseline, -6.5 (-8.0 to -5.0); 1 year, -9.3 (-10.9 to -7.7); 2 years, -4.8 (-6.3 to -3.2); 5 years, -6.1 (-8.8 to -3.4); and 10 years, -10.9 (-16.3 to -5.2). Additionally, a smaller proportion of the crossover cohort achieved a PASS on KOOS subscales at baseline and through the 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year follow-ups as compared with the early ACL reconstruction cohort. No differences were observed between crossover and nonreconstruction cases on either the KOOS4 or the PASS at any follow-up. CONCLUSION: A greater proportion of patients treated with early ACL reconstruction reported acceptable knee function and superior overall knee function as compared with patients who decided to cross over from nonreconstructive treatment to ACL reconstruction.