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.

Download full-text


Available from: Theis Muncholm Thillemann, Jun 20, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Compared with a patellar tendon autograft (PT), a hamstring tendon autograft (HT) has an increased risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). There are no studies analyzing whether this can be explained by inferior fixation devices used in HT reconstruction or whether the revision risk of ACLR with an HT or a PT is influenced by the graft fixation. To compare the risk of revision and the revision rates between the most commonly used combinations of fixation for HTs with PTs. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. This study included all patients registered in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from 2004 through 2013 who underwent primary PT or HT ACLR with no concomitant ligament injury and known graft fixation. The 2-year revision rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Hazard ratios (HRs) for revision at 2 years were calculated using multivariate Cox regression models. A total of 14,034 patients with primary ACLR were identified: 3806 patients with PTs and 10,228 patients with HTs; the mean follow-up time was 4.5 years. In the HT group, 5 different combinations of fixation in the femur/tibia were used in more than 500 patients: Endobutton/RCI screw (n = 2339), EZLoc/WasherLoc (n = 1352), Endobutton/Biosure HA (n = 1209), Endobutton/Intrafix (n = 687), and TransFix II/metal interference screw (MIS) (n = 620). The crude 2-year revision rate for patients with PTs was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.0%), and for patients with HTs, it ranged between the groups from 1.5% (95% CI, 0.5%-2.4%) for TransFix II/MIS to 5.5% (95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%) for Endobutton/Biosure HA. When adjusted for detected confounding factors and compared with patients with PTs, the HR for revision at 2 years was increased for all HT combinations used in more than 500 patients, and the combinations Endobutton/Biosure HA and Endobutton/Intrafix had the highest HRs of 7.3 (95% CI, 4.4-12.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 3.1-9.9), respectively. The choice of fixation after ACLR with an HT has a significant effect on a patient's risk of revision. In this study population, none of the examined combinations of HT fixation had a revision rate as low as that for a PT. © 2015 The Author(s).
    The American Journal of Sports Medicine 05/2015; DOI:10.1177/0363546515584757 · 4.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reinjury results in worse outcomes and increases the risk of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. To identify the risk factors for both ipsilateral and contralateral ACL tears after primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Data from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON), a prospective longitudinal cohort, were used to identify risk factors for ACL retear. Subjects with primary ACLR, no history of contralateral knee surgery, and a minimum of 2-year follow-up data were included. Age, sex, Marx activity score, graft type, lateral meniscal tear, medial meniscal tear, sport played at index injury, and surgical facility were evaluated to determine their contribution to both ipsilateral retear and contralateral ACL tear. A total of 2683 subjects with average age of 27 ± 11 years (1498 men; 56%) met all study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Overall there were 4.4% ipsilateral graft tears and 3.5% contralateral ACL tears. The odds of ipsilateral ACL retear were 5.2 times greater for an allograft (P < .01) compared with a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; the odds of retear were not significantly different between BTB autograft and hamstring autograft (P = .12). The odds of an ipsilateral ACL retear decreased by 0.09 for every yearly increase in age (P < .01) and increased by 0.11 for every increased point on the Marx score (P < .01). These odds were not significantly influenced by sex, smoking status, sport played, medial or lateral meniscal tear, or consortium site (P > .05). The odds of a contralateral ACL tear decreased by 0.04 for every yearly increase in age (P = .04) and increased by 0.12 for every increased point on the Marx score (P < .01); these odds were not significantly different between sex, smoking status, sport played, graft type, medial meniscal tear, or lateral meniscal tear (P > .05). Younger age, higher activity level, and allograft graft type were predictors of increased odds of ipsilateral graft failure. Higher activity and younger age were found to be risk factors in contralateral ACL tears. © 2015 The Author(s).
    The American Journal of Sports Medicine 04/2015; DOI:10.1177/0363546515578836 · 4.70 Impact Factor
  • [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