Good mid-term outcomes and low rates of residual rotatory laxity, complications and failures after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET).
Anterior cruciate ligament re-rupture
Anterolateral ligament
Lateral extra-articular plasty
Lateral tenodesis
Revision anterior cruciate ligament
Journal
Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
ISSN: 1433-7347
Titre abrégé: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9314730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
05
02
2019
accepted:
10
07
2019
pubmed:
22
7
2019
medline:
25
6
2020
entrez:
21
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Residual rotational instability remains a controversial factor when analysing failure rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Anatomical and biomechanical studies have demonstrated a very important role of anterolateral structures for rotational control. Revision ACL is considered one of the main indications for a lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). Yet, few series evaluating these procedures are published. To perform a systematic review of studies that assessed outcomes in patients treated with revision ACL surgery associated with a lateral extra-articular procedure. Systematic review. A comprehensive literature search was performed in February 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Search and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria were series of ACL revision reconstructions associated with lateral extra-articular procedures. Clinical outcomes (Lysholm, subjective IKDC, KOOS, Cincinnati and WOMAC), joint stability measures (Lachman test, pivot-shift, arthrometer assessment and navigation assessment), graft type, reported chondral and meniscal injury, radiographic outcomes, complications and failures were recorded. Articles were assessed for level of evidence and methodology using a modification of the ACL Methodology Score (AMS) system. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 231 abstracts; 9 retrospective evaluations, two prospective cohorts and one combination of two populations (a retrospective and prospective series). A total of 851 patients evaluated with a mean age of 28.8 years (range 16-68 years) and a weighted mean follow-up of 4.9 years (range 1-10 years). The mean time from primary ACL reconstruction to revision was 5.3 years (reported in 7 studies, including 710 patients). The Lysholm, IKDC, and KOOS scores indicated favorable results in studies that reported these outcomes. Objective evaluations reported 86% objective A and B IKDC results, 2.6 mm mean side-to-side arthrometric difference and 80% negative pivot-shift. About 74% of patients returned to their previous sport (evaluated in six studies). Few studies reported radiological evaluation. Fifty-nine complications (8.0%) and 24 failures (3.6%) were reported. The mean modified ACL Methodology Score was 55.5 (range 32-72). Good mid-term results were obtained for combined revision ACL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular procedures. Despite the fact that in clinical practice LET are a common indication associated with revision ACL, there are no high-level studies supporting this technique. IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Residual rotational instability remains a controversial factor when analysing failure rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Anatomical and biomechanical studies have demonstrated a very important role of anterolateral structures for rotational control. Revision ACL is considered one of the main indications for a lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). Yet, few series evaluating these procedures are published.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of studies that assessed outcomes in patients treated with revision ACL surgery associated with a lateral extra-articular procedure.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Systematic review.
METHODS
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in February 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Search and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria were series of ACL revision reconstructions associated with lateral extra-articular procedures. Clinical outcomes (Lysholm, subjective IKDC, KOOS, Cincinnati and WOMAC), joint stability measures (Lachman test, pivot-shift, arthrometer assessment and navigation assessment), graft type, reported chondral and meniscal injury, radiographic outcomes, complications and failures were recorded. Articles were assessed for level of evidence and methodology using a modification of the ACL Methodology Score (AMS) system.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 231 abstracts; 9 retrospective evaluations, two prospective cohorts and one combination of two populations (a retrospective and prospective series). A total of 851 patients evaluated with a mean age of 28.8 years (range 16-68 years) and a weighted mean follow-up of 4.9 years (range 1-10 years). The mean time from primary ACL reconstruction to revision was 5.3 years (reported in 7 studies, including 710 patients). The Lysholm, IKDC, and KOOS scores indicated favorable results in studies that reported these outcomes. Objective evaluations reported 86% objective A and B IKDC results, 2.6 mm mean side-to-side arthrometric difference and 80% negative pivot-shift. About 74% of patients returned to their previous sport (evaluated in six studies). Few studies reported radiological evaluation. Fifty-nine complications (8.0%) and 24 failures (3.6%) were reported. The mean modified ACL Methodology Score was 55.5 (range 32-72).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Good mid-term results were obtained for combined revision ACL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular procedures. Despite the fact that in clinical practice LET are a common indication associated with revision ACL, there are no high-level studies supporting this technique.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31324964
doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05625-w
pii: 10.1007/s00167-019-05625-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
418-431Investigateurs
Vincenzo Condello
(V)
Alberto Grassi
(A)
Kristian Samuelsson
(K)
Adrian Wilson
(A)
Corrado Bait
(C)
Marco Bonomo
(M)
Marc Strauss
(M)
Sven Scheffler
(S)
Christian Hoser
(C)
Karl Eriksson
(K)
Martin Wyman Rathcke
(MW)
Références
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;50(12):716-24
pubmed: 26809259
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Oct;475(10):2401-2408
pubmed: 28536855
Clin Sports Med. 2018 Jan;37(1):115-125
pubmed: 29173551
Oper Tech Orthop. 2017 Mar;27(1):63-69
pubmed: 28989265
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jun;39(6):1248-54
pubmed: 21335352
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Apr;25(4):997-1008
pubmed: 28286916
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Nov;45(13):3081-3088
pubmed: 28763623
Arthrosc Tech. 2015 Dec 28;4(6):e863-7
pubmed: 27284525
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Nov;88(11):2373-9
pubmed: 17079393
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015 Apr;44(4):E89-93
pubmed: 25844596
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Apr;45(5):1018-1027
pubmed: 28056513
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2301-10
pubmed: 25274353
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2007 Dec;93(8 Suppl):5S54-67
pubmed: 18185445
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jun;475(6):1583-1591
pubmed: 27798791
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Apr;21(4):934-41
pubmed: 23354169
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):402-10
pubmed: 23292987
Arthrosc Tech. 2017 Aug 07;6(4):e1229-e1238
pubmed: 29354422
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Apr;25(4):1117-1124
pubmed: 28349161
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Dec;103(8S):S223-S229
pubmed: 28889985
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Sep;41(9):2181-90
pubmed: 23548805
Arthrosc Tech. 2015 Jun 01;4(3):e239-44
pubmed: 26258037
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Jan;20(1):147-52
pubmed: 21717216
Arthroscopy. 2017 Aug;33(8):1575-1583
pubmed: 28502387
J Anat. 2013 Oct;223(4):321-8
pubmed: 23906341
Joints. 2017 Aug 11;5(3):156-163
pubmed: 29270546
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Mar 21;94(6):531-6
pubmed: 22438002
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jan;45(1):34-41
pubmed: 27530413
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Dec;103(8S):S215-S221
pubmed: 28917521
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Mar;43(3):669-74
pubmed: 25556221
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Aug;20(8):1565-70
pubmed: 22102009
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Oct 24;5(10):2325967117731767
pubmed: 29124075
Arthroscopy. 2018 Dec;34(12):3204-3213
pubmed: 30292594
Clin Sports Med. 2018 Jan;37(1):101-113
pubmed: 29173550
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Dec;45(14):3233-3242
pubmed: 28922015
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Oct;475(10):2438-2444
pubmed: 28477147
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Nov;102(7):863-866
pubmed: 27720633
Bone Joint J. 2017 Jun;99-B(6):714-723
pubmed: 28566389
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Sep;89 Suppl 2 Pt.2:196-213
pubmed: 17768215
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Mar;45(4):849-855
pubmed: 27932332
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Mar;46(4):839-845
pubmed: 29389221
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Dec;103(8S):S231-S236
pubmed: 28917520
Arthroscopy. 2015 Oct;31(10):2022-34
pubmed: 26116497
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Oct;475(10):2484-2499
pubmed: 28493217
Am J Sports Med. 2019 Mar;47(3):740-752
pubmed: 29401410
Arthrosc Tech. 2017 Jan 16;6(1):e81-e86
pubmed: 28373944
Clin Sports Med. 2018 Jan;37(1):9-19
pubmed: 29173561
Orthop J Sports Med. 2013 Dec 09;1(7):2325967113513546
pubmed: 26535259
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Nov;24(11):3496-3506
pubmed: 27628740
J Knee Surg. 2019 Sep;32(9):906-910
pubmed: 30227449