MRI-determined anterolateral capsule injury did not affect the pivot-shift in anterior cruciate ligament-injured knees

ImportanceThis review highlights the differences in outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques.ObjectiveTo compare clinical and functional outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical ACLR techniques.Evidence reviewA search of MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed from 1 January 2000 to 24 October 2019 was conducted. Randomised and prospective primary ACLR studies using autograft and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included. The Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Checklist (AARSC) was used to categorise studies as anatomical. Outcomes analysed included failure rate, knee stability and functional outcomes. A meta-analysis using risk ratio and mean differences was conducted using a random effects model.FindingsThirty-six studies were included, representing 3710 patients with a follow-up range of 24–300 months. The overall failure rate was 96/1470 (6.5%) and 131/1952 (6.7%) in the anatomical group and non-anatomical group, respectively. The pooled results of the overall failure rate showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the anatomical and the non-anatomical groups (p=0.96). There were 37/60 (61.7%) and 29/67 (43.3%) traumatic failures in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The number of patients with the negative postoperative pivot-shift test was 995/1252 (79.5%) and 1140/1589 (71.1%) in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The pooled results indicated a statistically significant higher number of patients with a positive pivot shift in the non-anatomical group compared with the anatomical group (p=0.03).Conclusions and relevanceThis study demonstrated that the overall failure rate was similar between the anatomical and non-anatomical approaches. However, the anatomical ACLR demonstrated a significantly superior restoration of rotatory stability, as evidenced by a higher percentage with a negative postoperative pivot-shift test. Non-anatomical ACLR resulted in higher rates of atraumatic graft ruptures and persistent rotatory knee instability. Surgeons should consider anatomical ACLR when treating rotatory knee stability in patients.Level of evidenceII, systematic review and meta-analysis of level I and II studies.

Download Full-text

Augmentation of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis Does Not Significantly Affect Rotatory Knee Laxity: A Time Zero, In Vivo Kinematic Analysis

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546520966624 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 48 (14) ◽

pp. 3495-3502

Author(s):

Andrew J. Sheean ◽

Jayson Lian ◽

Robert Tisherman ◽

Sean J. Meredith ◽

Darren de SA ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽

Pivot Shift ◽

Cruciate Ligament ◽

Knee Laxity ◽

Lateral Compartment ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Pivot Shift Test ◽

Contralateral Knee ◽

Rotatory Knee Laxity ◽

Anterior Cruciate

Background: The pivot-shift test is used to assess for rotatory knee laxity in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee and ACL-reconstructed knee; however, the pivot shift uses a subjective grading system that is limited by variability between examiners. Consequently, quantified pivot shift (QPS) test software (PIVOT iPad application) has been developed and validated to measure the magnitude of rotatory knee laxity during the positive pivot-shift test. Purpose: To employ intraoperative QPS (iQPS) to assess for differences in residual rotatory knee laxity after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) versus ACLR augmented with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (ACLR + LET), and to employ iQPS to determine if ACLR and/or ACLR + LET result in overconstrained knee kinematics when compared with the contralateral knee. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: iQPS was performed in 20 patients by a single surgeon on both the operative and contralateral knees before ACLR. ACLR was augmented with a LET if the lateral compartment tibial translation measured during QPS was greater than or equal to double the amount of lateral tibial compartment translation measured for the contralateral knee. After each reconstruction (ACLR or ACLR + LET), iQPS measurements were performed. iQPS data were compared with the preoperative QPS measurements of the operative and contralateral knees. Postoperative iQPS data were compared with both the preoperative QPS measurements of the operative and contralateral knees with paired samples t tests. Categorical variables were compared using the Fisher exact test. Results: The mean age in the cohort was 17.3 years (range, 15-24 years). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the proportion of male patients (ACLR: 5 male, 5 female vs ACLR + LET: 4 male, 6 female) or age (ACLR: 17.7 ± 3.3 years; 95% CI, 15.4-24.0 vs ACLR + LET: 16.8 ± 2.8 years, 95% CI, 14.8-22.0; P = .999). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to preoperative QPS performed during examination under anesthesia (ACLR: 4.7 ± 2.0 mm; 95% CI, 3.3-6.1 vs ACLR + LET: 3.6 ± 1.8 mm; 95% CI, 2.3-4.9; P = .2). Both ACLR and ACLR + LET resulted in significant decreases in rotatory knee laxity when compared with preoperative QPS measurements (ACLR: –3.4 ± 1.7 mm; 95% CI, −4.6 to −2.2; P < .001: ACLR + LET: –2.6 ± 1.9 mm; 95% CI, −3.9 to −1.3; P < .002). Moreover, when compared with isolated ACLR, ACLR + LET did not result in a significantly smaller magnitude of change in iQPS between the pre- and postoperative states ( P = .3). Conclusion: Both ACLR and ACLR + LET resulted in significant decreases in rotatory knee laxity. The augmentation of ACLR with LET did not change the constraint of the knee with respect to lateral compartment translation as measured during iQPS.

Download Full-text