Fixation techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: early follow-up. A systematic review of level I and II therapeutic studies

2014 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Speziali ◽  
Marco Delcogliano ◽  
Matteo Tei ◽  
Giacomo Placella ◽  
Matteo Bartoli ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652092309
Author(s):  
Matthew Colatruglio ◽  
David C. Flanigan ◽  
Joseph Long ◽  
Alex C. DiBartola ◽  
Robert A. Magnussen

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common orthopaedic sports medicine procedure, but graft failure is not uncommon and often leads to revision ACLR. Revision surgery can be performed in a 1- or 2-stage fashion. Hypothesis: Graft failure risk, patient-reported outcomes, and anterior knee laxity are similar after 1- and 2-stage revision ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to evaluate patient outcomes after 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR. A search was performed with the phrase “revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction” across Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus from the beginning of their archives through July 12, 2019. Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and included 524 patients: 319 patients who underwent 1-stage revision ACLR and 205 patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR. Two studies compared outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR; 4 studies reported outcomes after 2-stage revision ACLR; and the remaining 7 studies documented outcomes after 1-stage ACLR. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years. The 2 studies that compared 1- versus 2-stage ACLR reported no differences in functional, radiologic, or patient-reported outcomes or failure risk. Overall, 9 studies reported subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores; 4 studies, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score values; 8 studies, Lysholm scores; and 7 studies, Tegner scores; 8 studies measured anterior laxity with a KT-1000 arthrometer. The mean weighted subjective IKDC score for all studies including this outcome at final follow-up was 66.6 for 1-stage revisions and 65.9 for 2-stage revisions. Conclusion: The available evidence comparing 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR is retrospective and limited. The results of each approach are similar in appropriately selected patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 4290
Author(s):  
Erika Albo ◽  
Stefano Campi ◽  
Biagio Zampogna ◽  
Guglielmo Torre ◽  
Giuseppe Francesco Papalia ◽  
...  

This systematic review aimed to investigate the clinical and functional outcomes and complication rate of simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). A systematic search in PubMed–Medline, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was carried out to identify eligible randomized clinical trials, observational studies, or case series that reported on clinical and functional results of combined ACLR and UKA in adults with a unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis and ACL deficiency. Four retrospective studies and three prospective studies were included in this review. A total of 169 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 6.3 years. The Mean Oxford Knee Score improved from 29.4 to 43.9 at the final follow-up. All the other reported scores significantly improved after surgery. The overall revision rate was 3.5%. The MINORS score ranged from 8 to 14. Association analysis of MINORS score and year of publication, through Pearson’s coefficient, showed no significant association (p = −0.089). Simultaneous ACLR and UKA is a safe procedure with a significant postoperative improvement of functional and clinical outcomes for patients with ACL injury that complain of knee instability and isolated medial compartment pain.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (09) ◽  
pp. 895-904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darren de SA ◽  
Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj ◽  
Melissa Weidman ◽  
Devin Peterson ◽  
Nicole Simunovic ◽  
...  

AbstractThe all-inside technique (AIT) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is gaining popularity as a more anatomic, less invasive, technique with the potential for more rapid recovery. This systematic review aims to critically assess components of the technique, its safety profile, outcomes, and complications. PUBMED, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were searched for studies discussing primary ACLR using the AIT. Article screening, quality assessment, and data abstraction were completed in duplicate, and a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to frame the descriptive results in a clinically significant context. A total of 13 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five-hundred twenty six patients (mean age 31.9 ± 5.9 years) underwent ACLR using the AIT. The mean follow-up was 18.2 ± 7.7 months. Graft choice included autograft (73.8%) and allograft (26.2%). Drilling techniques for femoral sockets were outside-in (53.4%) and through the anteromedial portal (35.4%), whereas tibial sockets were drilled outside-in (35.0%) and through the superomedial portal (3.8%). The rehabilitation protocol had an immediate focus on obtaining full knee extension, jogging permitted 2 to 4 months postoperatively in 61.5% of studies, and return to cutting and pivoting sports 6 to 9 months postoperatively in 69.2% of studies. A MCID was reached for subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores at 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up and Lysholm knee score at 24 months follow-up. An improvement in outcomes was most notably between 6 and 12 months postoperatively. There was a total of 31 complications (5.89%) and included graft rerupture (2.47%), loss of extension of 1° to 10° (1.14%), and cartilage or meniscus injuries on the operated knee (0.760%). Complications related to the surgical technique were not reported. The AIT for ACLR shows potential as a minimally invasive approach given the low graft failure rates and short-term improvements in knee function and stability, pain and patient important outcomes from this approach. Comparative studies with large sample sizes and a long-term follow-up are required to assess the proposed advantages of this technique. This is a Level IV study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document