Increased Risk of Revision After Anteromedial Compared With Transtibial Drilling of the Femoral Tunnel During Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: .
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.19). 01/2013; 29(1):98-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.09.009
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The goal was to study revision rates and clinical outcome after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the anteromedial (AM) technique versus the transtibial (TT) technique for femoral drill hole placement.
A total of 9,239 primary ACL reconstruction procedures were registered in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register between January 2007 and December 2010. The failure of the 2 different femoral drilling techniques was determined using revision ACL reconstruction as the primary endpoint. As secondary endpoints, we used the pivot-shift test and instrumented objective test as well as patient-reported outcome, registered in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
We identified 1,945 AM and 6,430 TT primary ACL procedures. The cumulative revision rates for ACL reconstruction after 4 years with the AM and TT techniques were 5.16% (95% CI: 3.61%, 7.34%) and 3.20% (95% CI: 2.51%, 4.08%), respectively. The adjusted overall RR for revision ACL surgery in the AM group was 2.04 (95% CI: 1.39, 2.99), compared with the TT group. Use of the AM technique increased from 13% of all operations in 2007 to 40% in 2010. AM technique was further associated with increased RRs of positive pivot shift of 2.86 (95% CI: 2.40, 3.41) and sagittal instability of 3.70 (95% CI: 3.09, 4.43), compared with the TT technique.
This study found an increased risk of revision ACL surgery when using the AM technique for femoral drill hole placement, compared with the TT technique, in the crude data as well as the stratified and adjusted data. Our finding could be explained by technical failures resulting from introduction of a new and more complex procedure or by the hypothesis put forward in prior studies that compared with a nonanatomic graft placement, a greater force is carried by the anatomic ACL reconstruction and, hence, there is a concomitant higher risk of ACL rupture.
Level II, prospective comparative study.


Available from: Theis Muncholm Thillemann, Apr 25, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is one of the commonest knee sport injuries. The annual incidence of the ACL injury is between 100000-200000 in the United States. Worldwide around 400000 ACL reconstructions are performed in a year. The goal of ACL reconstruction is to restore the normal knee anatomy and kinesiology. The tibial and femoral tunnel placements are of primordial importance in achieving this outcome. Other factors that influence successful reconstruction are types of grafts, surgical techniques and rehabilitation programmes. A comprehensive understanding of ACL anatomy has led to the development of newer techniques supplemented by more robust biological and mechanical concepts. In this review we are mainly focussing on the evolution of tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction, focusing on three main categories, i.e., anatomical, biological and clinical outcomes. The importance of tunnel placement in the success of ACL reconstruction is well researched. Definite clinical and functional data is lacking to establish the superiority of the single or double bundle reconstruction technique. While there is a trend towards the use of anteromedial portals for femoral tunnel placement, their clinical superiority over trans-tibial tunnels is yet to be established.
    03/2015; 6(2):252-62. DOI:10.5312/wjo.v6.i2.252
  • Source
    The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 04/2014; 96(8):695-702. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.M.01569 · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose was to compare revision rates and patient-reported outcomes between single-and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. Methods: All patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register from 2005 through 2011 who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring autografts were included. Patients with concomitant injuries, except meniscal and chondral injuries, were excluded. By December 31, 2011, 16,791 primary isolated ACL reconstructions had been registered, of which 16,281 were single-bundle and 510 were double-bundle. Cumulative revision rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and EQ-5D were calculated at 1-and 2-year follow-ups. Results: The revision rate showed no statistically significant differences between the groups (P ¼ .30). Over the 7-year observation period, 347 single-bundle (2.1%) and 8 double-bundle (1.6%) ACL reconstructions were revised. No significant differences in the KOOS or EQ-5D were found between the groups postoperatively. In addition, there were no differences in postoperative improvements in the KOOS or EQ-5D at 1-and 2-year follow-ups. Conclusions: Revision rates after single-and double-bundle ACL reconstructions were low. No differences were found in revision rates, KOOS, and EQ-5D between the 2 techniques. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
    Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.030 · 3.19 Impact Factor