Kurt P. Spindler

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Autograft Choice: Bone-Tendon-Bone Versus Hamstring Does It Really Matter? A Systematic Review

Anterior cruciate ligament graft choice is controversial, with no evidence-based consensus available to guide decision making. The study design was evidence-based medicine systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts. A literature review identified 9 randomized controlled trials comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. An evidence-based systematic review was performed. Objective and subjective outcomes of interest included surgical technique, rehabilitation, instrumented laxity, isokinetic strength, patellofemoral pain, return to preinjury activity, and Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati, and International Knee Documentation Committee–1991 scores. Additional surgery, graft failure, and complications were reviewed. Slight increased laxity on arthrometer testing was seen in the hamstring population in 3 of 7 studies. Pain with kneeling was greater for the patellar tendon population in 4 of 4 studies. Only 1 of 9 studies showed increased anterior knee pain in the patellar tendon group. Frequency of additional surgery seemed to be related to the fixation method and not graft type. No study reported a significant difference in graft failure between patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Objective differences (range of motion, isokinetic strength, arthrometer testing) were not detected between groups in the majority of studies, suggesting that their sensitivity to detect clinical outcomes may be limited. Increased kneeling pain in the patellar tendon group was seen consistently in the studies evaluated. Subjective differences in anterior knee pain or return-to-activity level were not consistently observed in these studies. With numbers available, failure rates were not significantly different between groups. These findings suggest that graft type may not be the primary determinant for successful outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament surgery.

How to write a systematic review.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the combination of the best available research evidence with clinical experience and patient needs. The concept of EBM as a part of clinical decision making has become increasingly popular over the last decade. In the hierarchy of studies meta-analysis and systematic reviews occupy the highest levels. A systematic review of a clinical question can be performed by following a relatively standard form. These techniques as described here can be performed without formal training. Systematic reviews conducted in this fashion can be used as a higher form of current concepts or as review articles and replace the traditional expert opinion narrative review.

The Effect of the Menstrual Cycle on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Women as Determined by Hormone Levels

Anterior cruciate ligament injury rates are reported to be two to eight times higher in women than in men within the same sport. Because the menstrual cycle with its monthly hormonal fluctuations is one of the most basic differences between men and women, we investigated the association between the distribution of confirmed anterior cruciate ligament tears and menstrual cycle phase. Sixty-nine female athletes who sustained an acute anterior cruciate ligament injury were studied within 24 hours of injury at four centers. The mechanism of injury, menstrual cycle details, use of oral contraceptives, and history of previous injury were recorded. Urine samples were collected to validate menstrual cycle phase by measurement of estrogen, progesterone, and luteinizing hormone metabolites and creatinine levels at the time of the anterior cruciate ligament tear. Results from the hormone assays indicate that the women had a significantly greater than expected percentage of anterior cruciate ligament injuries during midcycle (ovulatory phase) and a less than expected percentage of those injuries during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Oral contraceptive use diminished the significant association between anterior cruciate ligament tear distribution and the ovulatory phase.

Surgery versus Physical Therapy for a Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND Whether arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for symptomatic patients with a meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis results in better functional outcomes than nonoperative therapy is uncertain. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving symptomatic patients 45 years of age or older with a meniscal tear and evidence of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis on imaging. We randomly assigned 351 patients to surgery and postoperative physical therapy or to a standardized physical-therapy regimen (with the option to cross over to surgery at the discretion of the patient and surgeon). The patients were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups with respect to the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical-function score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms) 6 months after randomization. RESULTS In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean improvement in the WOMAC score after 6 months was 20.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.9 to 23.9) in the surgical group and 18.5 (95% CI, 15.6 to 21.5) in the physical-therapy group (mean difference, 2.4 points; 95% CI, -1.8 to 6.5). At 6 months, 51 active participants in the study who were assigned to physical therapy alone (30%) had undergone surgery, and 9 patients assigned to surgery (6%) had not undergone surgery. The results at 12 months were similar to those at 6 months. The frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS In the intention-to-treat analysis, we did not find significant differences between the study groups in functional improvement 6 months after randomization; however, 30% of the patients who were assigned to physical therapy alone underwent surgery within 6 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597012.).

Allograft Versus Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Predictors of Failure From a MOON Prospective Longitudinal Cohort.

Background: Tearing an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft is a devastating occurrence after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Identifying and understanding the independent predictors of ACLR graft failure is important for surgical planning, patient counseling, and efforts to decrease the risk of graft failure. Hypothesis: Patient and surgical variables will predict graft failure after ACLR. Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: A multicenter group initiated a cohort study in 2002 to identify predictors of ACLR outcomes, including graft failure. First, to control for confounders, a single surgeon’s data (n = 281 ACLRs) were used to develop a multivariable regression model for ACLR graft failure. Evaluated variables were graft type (autograft vs allograft), sex, age, body mass index, activity at index injury, presence of a meniscus tear, and primary versus revision reconstruction. Second, the model was validated with the rest of the multicenter study’s data (n = 645 ACLRs) to evaluate the generalizability of the model. Results: Patient age and ACL graft type were significant predictors of graft failure for all study surgeons. Patients in the age group of 10 to 19 years had the highest percentage of graft failures. The odds of graft rupture with an allograft reconstruction are 4 times higher than those of autograft reconstructions. For each 10-year decrease in age, the odds of graft rupture increase 2.3 times. Conclusion: There is an increased risk of ACL graft rupture in patients who have undergone allograft reconstruction. Younger patients also have an increased risk of ACL graft failure. Clinical Relevance: Given these risks for ACL graft rupture, allograft ACLRs should be performed with caution in the younger patient population.

Prospective study of osseous, articular, and meniscal lesions in recent anterior cruciate ligament tears by magnetic resonance imaging and arthroscopy

Fifty-four patients with anterior cruciate ligament tears that were arthroscopically reconstructed within 3 months of initial injury were prospectively evaluated. Patients with grade 3 medial collateral ligament, lateral collateral ligament, or posterior cruciate ligament tears were excluded. Eighty percent of our patients had a bone bruise present on the magnetic resonance image, with 68% in the lateral femoral condyle. Two of the latter findings—an abnormal articular cartilage signal (P = 0.02) and a thin and impacted subchondral bone (P = 0.03)—had a significant relationship with injury to the overlying articular cartilage. Meniscal tears were found in 56% of the lateral menisci and 37% of the medial menisci. A significant association was present between bone bruising on the lateral femoral condyle and the lateral tibial plateau (P = 0.02). Results of our study support the concept that the common mechanism of injury to the anterior cruciate ligament involves severe anterior subluxation with im paction of the posterior tibia on the anterior femur. Determination of the significance of bone bruising, ar ticular cartilage injury, or meniscal tears will require a long-term followup that includes evaluation for arthritis, stability, and function. These 54 patients represent the first cohort evaluated in this ongoing prospective clinical study.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear

A female high-school soccer athlete reacts to a defender, plants her leg, cuts to the left without contact, feels her leg give out, hears a pop, and has acute pain. She is unable to walk off the field or return to play. That evening her knee progressively swells. The next day she presents for evaluation. How should her case be managed?

Current Concepts Review: Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction:

Failed anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction presents a difficult clinical challenge. Successful revision ACL reconstruction depends on identifying the causes of failure and correcting technical or diagnostic errors. Failed ACL reconstruction may be either traumatic or atraumatic. Atraumatic failures may be attributable to technical errors, diagnostic errors, or failure of graft incorporation. Published outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction have been worse than for primary ACL reconstruction. The preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques, and clinical outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction are reviewed.

Risk of Tearing the Intact Anterior Cruciate Ligament in the Contralateral Knee and Rupturing the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft During the First 2 Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction A Prospective MOON Cohort Study

Background The risk of tear of the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the opposite knee and the incidence of rupturing the anterior cruciate ligament graft during the first 2 years after surgery have not been extensively studied in a prospective manner. Clinicians have hypothesized that the opposite normal knee is at equal or increased risk compared with the risk of anterior cruciate ligament graft rupture in the operated knee. Hypothesis The risk of anterior cruciate ligament graft rupture and contralateral normal knee anterior cruciate ligament rupture at 2-year follow-up is equal. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods The Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcome Network (MOON) database of a prospective longitudinal cohort of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions was used to determine the number of anterior cruciate ligament graft ruptures and tears of the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Two-year follow-up consisted of a phone interview and review of operative reports. Results Two-year data were obtained for 235 of 273 patients (86%). There were 14 ligament disruptions. Of these, 7 were tears of the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee (3.0%) and 7 were anterior cruciate ligament graft failures (3.0%). Conclusion The contralateral normal knee anterior cruciate ligament is at a similar risk of anterior cruciate ligament tear (3.0%) as the anterior cruciate ligament graft after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (3.0%).

Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort.

Background Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has worse outcomes than primary reconstructions. Predictors for these worse outcomes are not known. The Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Group was developed to perform a multisurgeon, multicenter prospective longitudinal study to obtain sufficient subjects to allow multivariable analysis to determine predictors of clinical outcome. Purpose To describe the formation of MARS and provide descriptive analysis of patient demographics and clinical features for the initial 460 enrolled patients to date in this prospective cohort. Study Design Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods After training and institutional review board approval, surgeons began enrolling patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction, recording patient demographics, previous ACL reconstruction methods, intra-articular injuries, and current revision techniques. Enrolled subjects completed a questionnaire consisting of validated patient-based outcome measures. Results As of April 1, 2009, 87 surgeons have enrolled a total of 460 patients (57% men; median age, 26 years). For 89%, the reconstruction was the first revision. Mode of failure as deemed by the revising surgeon was traumatic (32%), technical (24%), biologic (7%), combination (37%), infection (<1%), and no response (<1%). Previous graft present at the time of injury was 70% autograft, 27% allograft, 2% combination, and 1% unknown. Sixty-two percent were more than 2 years removed from their last reconstruction. Graft choice for revision ACL reconstruction was 45% autograft, 54% allograft, and more than 1% both allograft and autograft. Meniscus and/or chondral damage was found in 90% of patients. Conclusion The MARS Group has been able to quickly accumulate the largest revision ACL reconstruction cohort reported to date. Traumatic reinjury is deemed by surgeons to be the most common single mode of failure, but a combination of factors represents the most common mode of failure. Allograft graft choice is more common in the revision setting than autograft. Concomitant knee injury is extremely common in this population.